text
stringlengths 512
504k
| summary
stringlengths 503
2k
|
|---|---|
The U.S. electric power system has historically operated at such a high level of reliability that any major outage, either caused by sabotage, weather, or operational errors, makes news headlines. As the August 14, 2003, Midwest and Northeast blackout demonstrated, a loss of electric power is very expensive and can entail considerable disruption to business, travel, government services, and daily life. The electric utility industry operates as an integrated system of generation, transmission, and distribution facilities to deliver power to consumers. The electric power system in the United States consists of over 9,200 electric generating units with more than 950,000 megawatts of generating capacity connected to more than 300,000 miles of transmission lines; more than 210,000 miles of the transmission lines are rated at 230 kilovolts (kV) or higher ( Figure 1 ). In addition, approximately 150 control centers manage the flow of electricity through the system under normal operating conditions. Most electricity in the United States is generated at power plants that use fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), nuclear fission, or renewable energy (hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass). At the power plant, energy is converted into a set of three alternating electric currents, called three-phase power. After power is generated, the first step in delivering electricity to the consumer is to transform the power from medium voltage (15-50 kilovolt (kV)) to high voltage (138-765 kV) alternating current ( Figure 2 ). This initial step-up of voltage occurs in a transformer located at transmission substations at the generating facilities. High voltages allow power to be moved long distances with the greatest efficiency, i.e. transmission line losses are minimized. The three phases of power are carried over three wires that are connected to large transmission towers. Close to the ultimate consumer, the power is stepped-down at another substation to lower voltages, typically less than 10 kV. At this point, the power is considered to have left the transmission system and entered the distribution system. The transmission system continues to become more congested, and siting of transmission lines continues to be difficult. To try to maximize operation of existing infrastructure, efforts are being made in both industry and government to modernize electric distribution equipment to improve communications between utilities and the ultimate consumer. The goal is to use advanced, information-based technologies to increase power grid efficiency, reliability, and flexibility, and reduce the rate at which additional electric utility infrastructure needs to be built. Some utilities have been using smart metering: meters that can be read remotely, primarily for billing purposes. However, these meters do not provide communication back to the utility with information on voltage, current levels, and specific usage. Similarly, these meters have very limited ability to allow the consumer the ability to either automatically or selectively change their usage patterns based on information provided by the utility. The term Smart Grid refers to a distribution system that allows for flow of information from a customer's meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats and appliances and other devices, and back to the utility. It is expected that grid reliability will increase as additional information from the distribution system is available to utility operators. This will allow for better planning and operations during peak demand. For example, new technologies such as a Programmable Communicating Thermostat (PCT) could connect with a customer's meter through a Home Area Network allowing the utility to change the settings on the thermostat based on load or other factors. PCTs are not commercially available, but are expected to be available within a year. It is estimated that a 4% peak load reduction could be achieved using Smart Grid technologies. Both regulatory and technological barriers have limited the implementation of Smart Grid technology. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates the wholesale transmission system and the states regulate the distribution system. In general, the federal government has not interfered with state regulation of the electric distribution system. However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) required states to consider deploying smart meters for residential and small commercial customers. At issue is whether a distinction for cost allocation purposes can be made between Smart Grid technologies' impact on the wholesale transmission system and retail distribution system. If FERC and the states cannot determine which costs should be considered transmission related (federally regulated) and which should be considered distribution related (state regulated) utilities may be reluctant to make large investments in Smart Grid technologies. Another issue limiting the deployment of this technology is the lack of consistent standards and protocols. There currently are no standards for these technologies. Most systems are able to communicate only with technologies developed by the same manufacturer. This limits the interoperability of Smart Grid technologies and limits future choices for companies that choose to install any particular type of technology. The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability in partnership with industry is developing standards for advanced grid design and operations. In addition, DOE is funding research and development projects in this area. Smart Grid technologies are currently being used by several utilities in small applications, mainly for testing purposes. However, the technologies within the customer's house or business cannot allow for dynamic control of thermostats, for instance, but rather use switches to either turn an appliance on or off depending on preset criteria. The following applications of Smart Grid technologies represent some of the largest installations. The California Public Utility Commission as well as the California Energy Action Plan call for smart meters as part of the overall energy policy for California. On July 31, 2007, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed an application with the Public Utility Commission of California for approval of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) deployment activities and a cost recovery mechanism for the $1.7 billion in estimated costs. Beginning in 2009, SCE proposes to install through its SmartConnect™ program advanced meters in all households and businesses under 200 kW throughout its service territory (approximately 5.3 million meters). It is expected that demand response at peak times could save SCE as much as 1,000 megawatts of capacity additions. Dynamic rates such as Time of Use and Critical Peak Pricing should provide incentives to customers to shift some of their electricity usage to off-peak hours. According to SCE's application before the California Public Utility Commission: Edison SmartConnect™ includes meter and indication functionality that (i) measures interval electricity usage and voltage; (ii) supports nonproprietary, open standard communication interfaces with technologies such as programmable communicating thermostats and device switches; (iii) improves reliability through remote outage detection at customer premises; (iv) improves service and reduces costs by remote service activation; (v) is capable of remote upgrades; (vi) is compatible with broadband over powerline used by third parties; (vii) supports contract gas and water meter reads; and (viii) incorporates industry-leading security capabilities. In its filing, SCE is requesting approval to recover the operation and maintenance and capital expenditures associated with deployment of Edison SmartConnect™. SCE is planning to use three telecommunications elements in addition to a smart meter. The telecommunications system will include a Home Area Network (HAN) that is a non-proprietary open standard two-way narrowband radio frequency mesh network interface from the meter to customer-owned smart appliances, displays, and thermostats. Second, there will be a Local Area Network (LAN) consisting of a proprietary two-way narrowband radio frequency network that will connect the meter to the electricity aggregator. Finally, a Wide Area Network (WAN) will be installed using a non-proprietary open standard two-way broadband network that will be used to communicate between the aggregator and the utility back office systems. The meter will integrate the LAN and HAN in order to provide electric usage measurements, service voltage measurements, and interval measurements for billing purposes. These meters will have net-metering capability to support measurement of solar and other distributed generation at the customer's location. In addition, the meters will have security that has sophisticated cryptographic capabilities. For the consumer, benefits include load reduction and energy conservation, which could result in lower electric bills. Outage information will automatically be sent to the utilities so customers won't need to report these disturbances. SCE is expecting to achieve greater reliability over time as additional information from the system is available to manage operations. For the utility, manual meter reading will be eliminated as will field service to turn power on to new customers. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is teaming with utilities in the states of Washington and Oregon to test new energy technologies designed to improve efficiency and reliability while at the same time increasing consumer choice and control. The utilities involved in the demonstration projects include the Bonneville Power Administration, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Mason County PUD #3, Clallam County PUD, and the City of Port Angeles, Washington. PNNL has received in-kind contributions from industrial collaborators, including Sears Kenmore dryers, and communications and market integration software from IBM. Two demonstration projects involve 300 homes as well as some municipal and commercial customers. The first project on the Olympic Peninsula involves 200 homes that are receiving real-time price signals over the Internet and have demand-response thermostats and hot water heaters that can be programmed to respond automatically. The goal is to relieve congestion on the transmission and distribution grid during peak periods. These 200 homes will test a "home information gateway" that will allow smart appliances such as communicating thermostats, smart water heaters, and smart clothes dryers to respond to transmission congestion due to peak demand or when prices are high. In addition, consumers will be able to see the actual cost of producing and delivering electricity, and cash incentives will be used to motivate customers to reduce peak demand. Part of the demonstration will study how existing backup generators can be used to displace demand for electricity. The second demonstration involves 50 homes on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, 50 homes in Yakima, Washington, and 50 homes in Gresham, Oregon. Clothes dryers will be installed in 150 homes and water heaters will be installed in 50 homes to test the ability of PNNL-developed appliance controllers to detect fluctuations in frequency. Fluctuations in frequency can indicate that the grid is under stress, and the appliance controllers can quickly respond to that stress by reducing demand. The appliance controllers will automatically turn off some appliances for a few seconds or minutes, allowing grid operators to rebalance the system. In October 2006, TXU Electric Delivery entered into an agreement to purchase 400,000 advanced meters. TXU Electric Delivery plans to have 3 million automated meters installed primarily in the Dallas-Fort Worth area by 2011. As of December 31, 2006, TXU had installed 285,000 advanced meters, 10,000 of which had broadband over powerline (BPL) capabilities. This system combines advanced meters manufactured by Landis+Gyr with BPL-enabled communications technology provided by CURRENT Technologies. TXU Electric Delivery in the near-term will primarily use the advanced meters for increased network reliability and power quality and to prevent, detect, and restore customer outages more effectively. It is expected that TXU electric delivery will eventually include time-of-use options and new billing methods to its consumers. On May 10, 2007, the Public Utility Commission of Texas issued an order allowing for the cost recovery of advanced meters. H.R. 6 , signed by the President, contains a provision on Smart Grid technologies to address some of the regulatory and technological barriers to widespread installation. This section summarizes Title XIII. It is the policy of the United States to support the modernization of the electric transmission and distribution system to maintain reliability and infrastructure protection. The Smart Grid is defined to include: increasing the use of additional information controls to improve operation of the electric grid; optimizing grid operations and resources to reflect the changing dynamics of the physical infrastructure and economic markets, while ensuring cybersecurity; using and integrating distributed resources, including renewable resources; developing and integrating demand response, demand-side resources, and energy-efficiency resources; deploying smart technologies for metering, communications of grid operations and status, and distribution automation; integrating "smart" appliances and other consumer devices; deploying and integrating advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving technologies; transferring information to consumers in a timely manner to allow control decisions; developing standards for the communication and the interoperability of appliances and equipment connected to the electric grid; identifying and lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart grid technologies, practices, and services. No later than one year after enactment, and every two years thereafter, the Secretary of Energy shall issue a report to Congress on the status of the deployment of smart grid technologies and any regulatory or government barriers to continued deployment. Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall establish a Smart Grid Advisory Committee, whose mission is to advise the Secretary of Energy and other relevant federal officials on the development of smart grid technologies, the deployment of such technologies, and the development of widely-accepted technical and practical standards and protocols to allow interoperability and integration among Smart Grid capable devices, and the optimal means for using federal incentive authority to encourage such programs. In addition, a Smart Grid Task Force shall be established within 90 days of enactment. This task force will be composed of employees of the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The mission of the Smart Grid Task Force is to ensure coordination and integration of activities among the federal agencies. The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with appropriate agencies, electric utilities, the states, and other stakeholders, is directed to carry out a program, in part, to develop advanced measurement techniques to monitor peak load reductions and energy efficiency savings from smart metering, demand response, distributed generation, and electricity storage systems; to conduct research to advance the use of wide-area measurement and control networks; to test new reliability technologies; to investigate the feasibility of a transition to time-of-use and real-time electricity pricing; to promote the use of underutilized electricity generation capacity in any substitution of electricity for liquid fuels in the transportation system of the United States; and to propose interconnection protocols to enable electric utilities to access electricity stored in hybrid vehicles to help meet peak demand loads. The Secretary of Energy shall also establish a Smart Grid regional demonstration initiative focusing on projects using advanced technologies for use in power grid sensing, communications, analysis, and power flow control. The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is primarily responsible for coordinating the development of a framework for protocols and model standards for information management to gain interoperability of smart grid devices and systems. The Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to reimburse 20% of qualifying Smart Grid investments. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621 (d)) is amended to require each state to consider requiring electric utilities demonstrate that prior to investing in non-advanced grid technologies, Smart Grid technology is determined not to be appropriate. States must also consider regulatory standards that allow utilities to recover Smart Grid investments through rates. Within one year of enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall submit a report to Congress detailing a study of the laws and regulations affecting the siting of privately owned electric distribution wires on and across public rights-of-way. This study will assess whether privately owned electric distribution wires would result in duplicative facilities and whether duplicate facilities are necessary or desirable. Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress the results of a study which provides a quantitative assessment and determination of the existing and potential impacts of the deployment of Smart Grid systems on the security of the electricity infrastructure and its operating capability. | The term Smart Grid refers to a distribution system that allows for flow of information from a customer's meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats and appliances and other devices, and back to the utility. This could allow appliances to be turned off during periods of high electrical demand and cost, and give customers real-time information on constantly changing electric rates. Efforts are being made in both industry and government to modernize electric distribution to improve communications between utilities and the ultimate consumer. The goal is to use advanced, information-based technologies to increase power grid efficiency, reliability, and flexibility, and reduce the rate at which additional electric utility infrastructure needs to be built. Both regulatory and technological barriers have limited the implementation of Smart Grid technology. At issue is whether a distinction for cost allocation purposes can be made between the impact of Smart Grid technology on the wholesale transmission system and its impact on the retail distribution system. Another issue limiting the deployment of this technology is the lack of consistent standards and protocols. There currently are no standards for these technologies. This limits the interoperability of Smart Grid technologies and limits future choices for companies that choose to install any particular type of technology. H.R. 6, as signed by the President, contains provisions to encourage research, development, and deployment of Smart Grid technologies. Provisions include requiring the National Institute of Standards and Technology to be the lead agency to develop standards and protocols; creating a research, development, and demonstration program for Smart Grid technologies at the Department of Energy; and providing federal matching funds for portions of qualified Smart Grid investments. |
NIEs analyze issues of major importance and long-term interest to the United States and are the IC’s most authoritative projection of future developments in a particular subject area. NIEs are intended to help policymakers and military leaders think through critical issues by presenting the relevant key facts, judgments about the likely course of events in foreign countries, and the implications for the United States. In this regard, former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) William Casey stated: “the highest duty of a Director of Central Intelligence is to produce solid and perceptive national intelligence estimates relevant to the issues with which the President and the National Security Council need to concern themselves.” NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an organization composed of 12 National Intelligence Officers who report directly to the DCI. To prepare an NIE, the NIC brings together analysts from all the intelligence agencies that have expertise on the issue under review.However, in the final analysis, an NIE is the DCI’s assessment with which the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies concur, except as noted in the NIE’s text. Based on a synthesis of the published views of current and former senior intelligence officials, the reports of three independent commissions, and a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) publication that addressed the issue of national intelligence estimating, an objective NIE should meet the following standards: quantify the certainty level of its key judgments by using percentages or “bettors’ odds,” where feasible, and avoid overstating the certainty of judgments; identify explicitly its assumptions and judgments; develop and explore “alternative futures:” less likely (but not impossible) scenarios that would dramatically change the estimate if they occurred; allow dissenting views on predictions or interpretations; and note explicitly what the IC does not know when the information gaps could have significant consequences for the issues under consideration. All or part of the three NIEs we reviewed addressed the nature of the current and future threat to the United States from foreign missiles. NIE 95-19 was specifically prepared by the IC to support decisions on missile defense systems for North America. In the United States, this issue is a critical one for the Congress and the administration as they debate the desirability and planned characteristics of a proposed multibillion dollar national missile defense system. Such a system would aim to protect the United States from limited ballistic missile attacks, whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. Ballistic missiles are self-propelled missiles guided in the ascent of a high-arch trajectory and freely falling in the descent. If launched from any of the 18 countries analyzed in NIE 95-19 (except Cuba), such missiles would have to travel between 5,000 and 13,000 kilometers (3,100 to 8,100 miles) to reach North America, classifying them as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). The main judgment of NIE 95-19 was worded with clear (100 percent) certainty. We believe this level of certainty was overstated, based on the caveats and intelligence gaps noted in NIE 95-19. On the issue of certainty in judgments, in 1992 then-DCI Robert Gates opined: “While we strive for sharp and focused judgments for a clear assessment of likelihood, we must not dismiss alternatives or exaggerate our certainty under the guise of making the ‘tough calls.’ We are analysts, not umpires, and the game does not depend on our providing a single judgment.” The wording of NIE 95-19’s main judgment implies a 100-percent level of certainty that the predicted outcome will hold true during the next 15 years. However, the caveats and intelligence gaps noted in the NIE do not support this level of certainty. For example, at the beginning of NIE 95-19, the estimate notes “as with all projections of long-term developments, there are substantial uncertainties.” A 1993 NIE stated its view that substantial uncertainties cloud the IC’s ability to project developments, especially beyond 10 years. Finally, in NIE 95-19’s Intelligence Gaps section, it noted several shortcomings in the IC’s collection of information on foreign plans and capabilities. NIE 95-19 did not (1) quantify the certainty level of nearly all of its key judgments, (2) identify explicitly its critical assumptions, and (3) develop alternative futures. However, in accordance with standards for producing objective NIEs, NIE 95-19 acknowledged dissenting views from several agencies and also explicitly noted what information the IC does not know that bears upon the foreign missile threat. Given the important role NIEs play in the national security decision-making process, U.S. policymakers require, and expect, objective estimates. “The paramount value [in NIEs] is objectivity,” according to a former NIC Vice Chairman. Adds the CIA, “dedication to objectivity—tough-minded evaluation of information, description of sources, and explicit defense of judgments—provides credibility on uncertain and often controversial policy issues.” We believe that five standards, previously discussed, apply to an objective NIE. These standards were synthesized from our review of the published views of nine current or former senior intelligence officials, three independent commissions, and a CIA publication that addressed the issue of national intelligence estimating. We were unable to obtain the DCI’s current, official standards (if any exist) for the essential elements of an objective NIE, because the DCI refused to grant us access to the NIC. (See our Scope and Methodology section for more details on this scope impairment.) NIE 95-19 did not quantify the certainty level associated with its key judgments, by either using bettors’ odds or percentages. It used unquantified words or phrases such as “unlikely,” “likely,” “probably,” “normally,” “sometimes,” “some leakage,” and “feasible, but unlikely.” The CIA has told its analysts to be precise in conveying the levels of confidence they have in their conclusions because policymakers and others rely on these assessments as they define and defend U.S. interests. Different people can hear very different messages from the same words, especially about probabilities, and therefore good estimates should use quantitative measures of confidence, according to a former NIC Vice Chairman. For example, a “small but significant” chance could mean one chance in a hundred to one person; for another it may mean one chance in five. Similarly, a former NIC Chairman wrote that NIEs with only words such as “possibly” are not of much help to someone trying to make an important decision. Instead, where feasible, NIEs should use a percentage, a percentage range, or bettors’ odds to better serve policymakers—a controversial, but necessary, approach, according to this former official. Some intelligence judgments, such as estimating foreign economic developments well into the future, may not easily lend themselves to specifying a meaningful level of confidence, using numbers. NIE 93-17 quantified the certainty of one of its key judgments by estimating a “small but significant chance (10 to 30 percent)” that an event would occur. The certainty levels of its other key judgments were not quantified. NIE 93-19 did not quantify the certainty levels of any of its key judgments. NIE 95-19 did not explicitly identify its critical assumptions either by separately listing them in one place or by introducing them throughout the text with wording such as “we have assumed . . .” Critical assumptions, also known as “linchpin assumptions,” are defined by CIA as analysts’ debatable premises that hold the argument together and warrant the validity of judgments. Therefore, as previously mentioned, assumptions should be explicitly distinguished from other information, including judgments. Estimative judgments are to be defended by fully laying out the evidence and carefully explaining the analytic logic used, according to a former Deputy Director for Intelligence, CIA. Writing about NIEs, a former Vice Chairman of the NIC agreed. As a general rule, the more complex and controversial an issue, the more analytic effort is required to ensure that critical assumptions are precisely stated and well defended, according to the CIA. Good analysis will clearly identify its key assumptions so that policymakers are aware of the “foundations” of the estimate and can therefore judge for themselves the appropriateness of the assumptions and the desirability of initiating actions to hedge against a failure of one or more assumptions. From our reading of NIE 95-19, we identified what appear to be its implicit critical assumptions. Most of these assumptions first appear in the NIE’s Key Judgments section, leading the reader to believe that the IC considers these assumptions to be fact-based judgments. However, we did not find a body of evidence in NIE 95-19 that would allow us to consider these statements as judgments, rather than assumptions. NIE 95-19 had only one explicit assumption, which was not a critical one, concerning Iraq. Some of NIE 95-19’s implicit critical assumptions are listed below. Three other assumptions that we identified included classified information. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) will continue to significantly limit international transfers of missiles, components, and related technology, but some leakage of components and critical technologies will likely continue. No country with ICBMs will sell them. Three countries—all of which were assessed as being “high” in both technical ability and economic resources—will not be interested in developing an ICBM that could reach the United States (and elsewhere). A flight test program lasting about 5 years is essential to the development of an ICBM. An attack against the United States from off-shore ships using cruise missiles, while feasible, is unlikely to occur . . . In addition, NIE 95-19 did not specify its assumption about the payload weight or weights the IC used in forecasting the range for North Korea’s Taepo Dong 2 ballistic missile. Publicly, the NIC’s Chairman has stated that the Taepo Dong 2 missile could have a range sufficient to reach Alaska, some U.S. territories in the Pacific, and the far western portion of the 2,000 km-long Hawaiian Island chain. NIE 95-19 did, however, specify payload weights for the Taepo Dong 1 missile. NIE 93-19 explicitly analyzed the effects of changes in payload weight on the estimated range of ballistic missiles. The payload weight directly affects the range of a missile—that is, a lighter payload allows any given missile to travel farther. For example, the IC judges that a certain country could increase the range of its existing intermediate range ballistic missile by 90 percent, if it decreased its payload weight by 70 percent. Like NIE 95-19, the 1993 NIEs did not explicitly identify their critical assumptions, as a rule. However, in one case, the text of NIE 93-17 prefaced its judgment with a clear assumption about the current nuclear practices in one country. NIE 95-19 did not develop alternative futures: less likely (but not impossible) scenarios that would dramatically change the estimate if they occurred. NIEs should “describe the range of possible outcomes, including relatively unlikely ones that could have major impact on American interests, and indicate which outcomes they think are most likely and why . . . The job, after all, is not so much to predict the future as to help policymakers think about the future,” according to a former NIC Chairman. The CIA, then-DCI Robert Gates, and other senior NIC officials agree that NIEs should analyze alternative futures. A senior intelligence official told us that an alternative future takes a fundamental analytic assumption and varies it to explore different potential outcomes; for example, “What if countries do not honor the MTCR?” Both 1993 NIEs explored alternative futures. NIE 93-19 mentioned them in the NIE’s text and explored them in detail in a separate annex. NIE 93-17’s Key Judgments included alternative futures, which were further developed through detailed scenarios. These alternative futures are classified. NIE 95-19 disclosed that it did not account for alternative economic and political futures. NIE 95-19 did address some less likely technical options, including the characteristics and implications of a potential ICBM program of one country. NIE 95-19 had 12 dissents in the estimate. NIE 93-19 and NIE 93-17 had 23 and 2 dissents, respectively. There were qualitative differences in the nature of the dissents in the NIEs. According to a February 1996 statement by the current Chairman of the NIC, “The process for producing NIEs is directed particularly at ensuring presentation of all viewpoints. We do not impose consensus; in fact we encourage the many agencies that participate in NIEs to state their views and we display major differences of view in the main text. Lesser reservations are expressed in footnotes.” While all three NIEs included dissenting views, the dissents were qualitatively different among the NIEs. For example, NIE 93-19’s Key Judgments contained two fundamental disagreements by one department on the overall potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons and on the nuclear weapons program of a specific country. Other dissents in the body of this estimate were also of a fundamental nature. In one instance, one department took an “alternative view” to NIE 93-19’s forecasts about ICBM and space launch vehicle development and transfers. This alternative view from 1993 is very similar to the consensus view of NIE 95-19’s main judgment. Both NIE 95-19 and NIE 93-17 had no dissents in their Key Judgments. The dissents in the body of these NIEs were mostly on technical issues and contained classified information. NIE 95-19 and the 1993 NIEs explicitly noted information gaps at places in the estimates’ text and in a separate Intelligence Gaps section. Estimates should reveal what intelligence analysts do not know that could have significant consequences for the issue under consideration, according to several sources. This disclosure not only helps alert policymakers to the limits of the estimate, but also informs intelligence collectors of needs for further information, according to a former NIC Chairman. In their Intelligence Gaps sections, the three NIEs each noted shortfalls in the IC’s collection of information on the issues they examined. NIE 95-19 worded its judgments on foreign missile threats very differently than did the 1993 NIEs, even though the judgments in all three NIEs were not inconsistent with each other. In addition, the evidence in NIE 95-19 was qualitatively and quantitatively different compared to the 1993 NIEs. Details of other differences and the wording of judgments do not appear in this report because they contain classified information. Finally, the NIEs agreed on several points. NIE 95-19 worded its judgments on foreign missile threats very differently than did the 1993 NIEs, even though the judgments in all three NIEs were not inconsistent with each other. That is, while the judgments were not synonymous, upon careful reading they did not contradict each other. Because the DCI denied us access to officials responsible for the NIEs, we were unable to obtain their reasons for the different wording chosen in the three NIEs. In general, the 1993 NIEs pointed out unfavorable and unlikely outcomes associated with foreign ICBMs more often than did NIE 95-19. A table that compares the exact wording of judgments on foreign missile threats in the three NIEs does not appear in this report because it contains classified information. The evidence in NIE 95-19 is considerably less than that presented in the earlier NIEs, in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Laying out the evidence is important because it allows readers to judge for themselves how much credence to give the judgments, according to a former Vice Chairman of the NIC. In quantitative terms, the earlier NIEs had at least one supporting volume with additional evidence and judgments. Each of the 1993 NIEs was over three times as long as NIE 95-19. The 1993 NIEs backed each of their key judgments with more support than did NIE 95-19. For example, NIE 93-19, which unlike NIE 95-19, was not focused on foreign missile threats, had almost twice the supporting evidence on missile threats than NIE 95-19 did when comparing the same countries. In addition, and in contrast to NIE 95-19, both of the 1993 NIEs referred readers to other IC studies for additional evidence or information. In qualitative terms, we believe the earlier NIEs provided more convincing support for their key judgments. For example, NIE 95-19 stated that “no countries with ICBMs will sell them.” For support, the NIE included one paragraph that cited a multi-national counter-proliferation policy (MTCR) and the theory that countries with ICBMs would probably be concerned that any missiles they sell might be turned against them. The NIE provided very little evidence to support its position that membership in the MTCR (or pledges to abide by the MTCR in China’s case) would necessarily prevent a country from selling missiles. The NIE asserted that the MTCR had helped terminate missile programs in specific countries, but it provided no evidence to support its view. The NIE did not cite additional evidence such as intelligence on whether MTCR members have or have not sold missiles or missile technology in the past, or whether countries have refrained from selling such technology because of the MTCR. In addition, the NIE provided no evidence or detailed analysis to support its position that countries will not sell ICBMs because they would probably fear that the missiles could be turned against them. In contrast to NIE 95-19, the earlier NIEs supported their judgments more thoroughly. Detailed examples contain classified information and do not appear in this report. We were unable to identify the reasons why NIE 95-19 presented less evidence to support its judgments than the 1993 NIEs, because NIC officials refused to meet with us to discuss the preparation of NIE 95-19. The reasons could include limitations on NIE 95-19’s length, its SECRET/Releasable to “Country X” security classification (compared to the TOP SECRET/Codeword classification of the 1993 NIEs), and/or a smaller evidentiary base. In addition to the similarities between the NIEs on some judgments, the NIEs agreed on several other points, including the impact of foreign technology assistance on ICBM development, and the capabilities and intentions of two countries with respect to ICBM development. The conclusions of unclassified government, or government-sponsored, studies on foreign missile threats to the United States were generally consistent with the conclusions of NIE 95-19. However, whereas NIE 95-19’s main judgment was that there will be no new missile threats to the contiguous 48 states during the next 15 years, two studies estimated some possibility—“low” and “quite low”—of such missile threats. The private studies we reviewed differed significantly from NIE 95-19’s assessment of threats; these studies raised more immediate concerns about foreign missile threats to the United States. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s Missile Defense Study Team concluded that ballistic missiles pose a clear, present, and growing threat to the United States. We reviewed several recent unclassified studies on foreign missile threats to the United States and its interests. We identified these studies through a literature search of several databases that include defense and intelligence information. We limited our review to complete studies on this topic, and we did not include newspaper or journal articles. While we compared the conclusions of these studies to NIE 95-19, we did not review the quality of their evidence or attempt to reconcile any differences they had with NIE 95-19. In a November 1993 letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, the CIA provided the declassified findings of its report entitled Prospects for the Worldwide Development of Ballistic Missile Threats to the Continental United States. The study’s scope excluded countries with a current capability to strike the continental United States (CONUS)—China and strategic forces in several states of the former Soviet Union. The study concluded that the “probability is low that any other country will acquire this capability in the next 15 years.” Also, the study found that “no evidence exists that any of the countries examined in this study are developing missiles—especially ICBMs—for the purpose of attacking CONUS.” There were no recommendations identified in the letter. In June 1995, the Congressional Research Service issued a report for the Congress entitled Ballistic and Cruise Missile Forces of Foreign Countries. The report was written by Robert Shuey, a specialist in U.S. foreign policy and national defense. The report stated that “Other than the declared nuclear powers (the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom) few countries have long-range missiles.” It also said that North Korea is in the process of developing longer range ballistic missiles, including the Taepo Dong 2. The report concluded that “the production or international transfer of more and better ballistic and cruise missiles will potentially have serious negative implications for the security of U.S. citizens and facilities . . .” The report contained no recommendations. In April 1996, the Office of the Secretary of Defense released a study entitled Proliferation: Threat and Response. The key finding in the report was that the threat was changing from global to regional. The report did not address the current ballistic missile threat to the United States. The report did note, however, that “ . . . unlike during the Cold War, those who possess nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons may actually come to use them.” The report concluded that “The end of the Cold War has reduced the threat of a global nuclear war, but today a new threat is rising from the global spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.” The report had no recommendations. The report had no indications that there was an increasing missile threat to the United States itself. In February 1993, a report commissioned by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization of the Department of Defense was released entitled The Emerging Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. The report was prepared by the Proliferation Study Team, chaired by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, USA (ret.), Director of National Security Studies at the Hudson Institute. The report found that at this point there is no indication that Brazil, India, Italy, Israel, Germany, Japan, and Sweden—countries that possess the potential to develop ICBMs during the 1990s—have any intention of initiating an ICBM program. The report estimated that, if current trends continue, the probability of new ICBM threats during the 1990s or in the very early years of the next decade is quite low. In reaching its conclusion that “the prospects for an increase in ballistic missile threats to the United States during this decade are limited,” the study team identified three uncertainties that affected their ability to forecast confidently 10 to 20 years into the future. First, intelligence indicators are often ambiguous. Second, a number of events could alter the capabilities or intentions of some states to field long-range ballistic missiles. Third, dramatic and rapid changes in U.S. political relations with states possessing or capable of fielding long-range missiles could occur. The report made no recommendations. In July 1991, the Cato Institute published Foreign Policy Briefing No. 10 entitled Countdown to Disaster: The Threat of Ballistic Missile Proliferation. This study was prepared by Channing R. Lukefahr, an associate defense policy analyst at the Cato Institute, as part of the Institute’s regular series evaluating government policies and offering proposals for reform. The key findings of the study were that “As the horizontal proliferation of ballistic missile technology continues, the threat of an accidental launch rises,” and that “while the threat that unstable or antagonistic regimes will achieve the ability to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles . . . moves rapidly toward reality, attempts to reverse that destabilizing trend have been merely exercises in delay.” The study concluded that “the days when weapons of mass destruction and the systems to deliver them are possessed by only the two super-powers . . . are rapidly drawing to a close” and that “although there is no imminent threat to the United States from any of those nations, continuation of that state of affairs cannot be guaranteed . . . an ally can become an enemy in a matter of months.” The report cited stronger secessionist forces in the Soviet Union as undermining the central control of nuclear weapons and making the accidental launch of a few dozen or even a few hundred missiles possible as is the possibility of a limited launch by rogue elements. The report’s sources were congressional testimony and articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers. The report recommended the development and deployment of antiballistic missile systems. In March 1996, the Heritage Foundation released a document entitled Defending America: Ending America’s Vulnerability to Ballistic Missiles. This was an update to a June 1995 report entitled Defending America: A Near- and Long-Term Plan to Deploy Missile Defenses. The Missile Defense Study Team was chaired by Ambassador Henry Cooper, former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. The main finding of the reports was that the United States had no defense against ICBMs. The initial report said that ICBMs marketed as space launchers could provide rogue states with the ability to attack the United States. The update cited, but did not identify, authoritative administration officials as having testified to the Congress in May 1995, that rogue states could threaten U.S. cities with long-range missile attacks in 3 to 5 years. The reports concluded that ballistic missiles pose a clear, present, and growing threat to America and her allies overseas. The report recommended a decision to deploy, when technically feasible, the Navy’s Upper Tier interceptor system and the Brilliant Eyes space-based sensor system. The NIC did not comment on our draft report. On July 10, 1996, we wrote to the NIC’s Chairman and requested his views on our draft report. On July 22, 1996, the DCI’s Director of Congressional Affairs replied to us and stated that they would not comment on the substance or accuracy of our draft report because these issues “fall under the purview of intelligence oversight arrangements established by the Congress.” As requested, the DCI’s staff provided us with a security classification review, which we have incorporated into our final report. Our scope included a detailed review of NIE 95-19, and a comparison of this NIE to NIE 93-17, NIE 93-19, and recent unclassified studies. We did not attempt to independently evaluate foreign missile threats to the United States. To assess the objectivity of the NIEs, we used various IC and other sources to develop standards for producing objective NIEs. Then we carefully reviewed NIE 95-19 and the two earlier NIEs to determine whether they met those standards. To compare NIE 95-19 to the 1993 NIEs, we conducted detailed comparisons of the judgments, evidence, and structure of the NIEs. The 1993 NIEs had a different focus than NIE 95-19, so we could not make direct comparisons in some areas. For example, unlike NIE 95-19, the earlier NIEs did not address the Third World cruise missile threat. To compare NIE 95-19 to other unclassified studies, we conducted a variety of literature searches to identify such studies. Where possible, we identified the sources of data used by these studies; however, we did not evaluate the quality of their evidence or attempt to reconcile any differences they had with NIE 95-19. Our scope was significantly impaired by a lack of cooperation by officials from the CIA, NIC, and the Departments of Defense and State. The Departments of Defense and State would not allow us access to their records. Defense and State spokespersons referred us to the DCI on all matters concerning NIEs. On March 6, 1996, we wrote to the DCI’s Director of Congressional Affairs and requested access to CIA and NIC officials and documents. On June 17, 1996, he replied to us and declined to cooperate with our review. His letter argued that our review of certain NIEs would be contrary to oversight arrangements for intelligence that the Congress has established. Specifically, he stated that “such subjects are under the direct purview of Congressional entities that have been charged with overseeing the Intelligence Community.” Therefore, we were unable to discuss preparation of the NIEs with cognizant officials or review supporting documentation at the departments and agencies previously mentioned. Due to this lack of access, we also could not review other NIEs that may have covered similar topics as NIE 95-19. Except as previously mentioned, our review was conducted from April to June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. At your request, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will provide copies to other congressional committees; the Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy; Chairman, NIC; and the Director of Central Intelligence. Copies will also be made available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-3504 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Gary K. Weeter, Assistant Director; Douglas M. Horner, Evaluator-in-Charge; Stephen L. Caldwell, Senior Evaluator; and James F. Reid, Senior Evaluator. Richard Davis Director, National Security Analysis 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 analyzed the soundness of certain national intelligence estimates (NIE) on the threat to the United States from foreign missile systems, focusing on comparing the content and conclusions of NIE 95-19, which analyzed emerging threats to North America during the next 15 years, with the content and conclusions of two previous NIEs prepared in 1993. GAO found that: (1) the main judgment of NIE 95-19, that no country, other than the major declared nuclear powers, will develop or otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next 15 years that could threaten the contiguous 48 states or Canada, was worded with clear, 100-percent certainty; (2) GAO believes this level was overstated, based on the caveats and the intelligence gaps noted in NIE 95-19; (3) NIE 95-19 had additional analytic shortcomings, since it did not: (a) quantify the certainty level of nearly all of its key judgments; (b) identify explicitly its critical assumptions; and (c) develop alternative futures; (4) however, in accordance with standards for producing objective NIEs, NIE 95-19 acknowledged dissenting views from several agencies and also explicitly noted what information the U.S. intelligence community does not know that bears upon the foreign missile threat; (5) the 1993 NIEs met more of the standards than NIE 95-19 did; and (6) NIE 95-19 worded its judgments on foreign missile threats very differently than did the 1993 NIEs, even though the judgments in all three NIEs were not inconsistent with each other, that is, while the judgments were not synonymous, upon careful reading they did not contradict each other. |
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 ||||| Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.
For more than a year, Mr. Perry has been seeking the resignation of the Travis County district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg. He had good reason to do so: Ms. Lehmberg was arrested in April 2013 for driving with a blood alcohol level of more than three times the legal limit, and she verbally abused the officers who found her with an open bottle of vodka. She ranted and raved at the local jail, threatening sheriff’s deputies, and she had to be restrained in a chair with a hood over her head. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail. In addition to endangering people’s lives, she instantly lost her credibility as a prosecutor of drunken-driving cases.
But Ms. Lehmberg is also an elected Democrat, and as the prosecutor in Austin, the state capital, she ran the Public Integrity Unit, which investigates corruption charges against state lawmakers, often including prominent Republicans. The office, in fact, has been investigating whether several medical research grants were improperly given to people with connections to Mr. Perry. Had she stepped down, the governor might have named a Republican to replace her, so she refused.
After the arrest, Mr. Perry told Ms. Lehmberg that if she didn’t resign, he would cut the financing for the Public Integrity Unit. In June, he did just that, using his line-item veto to zero out the $7.5 million for the unit. That was a bad idea. Had county officials not stepped in with some money, the veto could have shut down an important investigative body and its cases. Mr. Perry should have left the matter to the courts, where both a criminal and a civil attempt to have her removed failed, or to the voters.
But his ill-advised veto still doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a criminal act. After a complaint was filed by a liberal group, a judge appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, a San Antonio lawyer and former federal prosecutor, to take the case. A Travis County grand jury indicted Mr. Perry on two felony counts: abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. The indictment says he exceeded his veto power by combining it with a threat to Ms. Lehmberg if she didn’t quit.
Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far. Perhaps Mr. McCrum will have some solid proof to show once the case heads to trial. But, for now, Texas voters should be more furious at Mr. Perry for refusing to expand Medicaid, and for all the favors he has done for big donors, than for a budget veto. ||||| Photo: TOM REEL Image 1 of / 55 Caption Close
Image 1 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 2 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 3 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 4 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 5 of 55 A few demonstrators are present before Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. A few demonstrators are present before Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 6 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL, San Antonio Express-News
Image 7 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 8 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 9 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 10 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 11 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 12 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 13 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 14 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 15 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 16 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 17 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 18 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 19 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 20 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 21 of 55 Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes through the process of being booked for felony charges at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin on August 20, 2014. Photo: TOM REEL
Image 22 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 23 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 24 of 55 Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces his candidacy for President of the United States at the Million Air hanger at the Addison airport near Dallas on June 4,, 2015. Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 25 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video
Image 26 of 55 Gov. Rick Perry's booking photo taken Aug. 19, 2014, at the Travis County Courthouse. Gov. Rick Perry's booking photo taken Aug. 19, 2014, at the Travis County Courthouse. Photo: Courtesy Photo.
Image 27 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry, center, arrives at the Blackwell Thurman Criminal Justice Center, Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, in Austin, Texas. Perry has been booked on two felony counts of abuse of power for carrying out a threat to veto funding to state public corruption prosecutors. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) less Texas Gov. Rick Perry, center, arrives at the Blackwell Thurman Criminal Justice Center, Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, in Austin, Texas. Perry has been booked on two felony counts of abuse of power for carrying out a ... more Photo: Eric Gay, Associated Press
Image 28 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry, front right, is escorted away from the Blackwell Thurman Criminal Justice Center, Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, in Austin, Texas. Perry has been booked on two felony counts of abuse of power for carrying out a threat to veto funding to state public corruption prosecutors. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) less Texas Gov. Rick Perry, front right, is escorted away from the Blackwell Thurman Criminal Justice Center, Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, in Austin, Texas. Perry has been booked on two felony counts of abuse of power ... more Photo: Eric Gay, Associated Press
Image 29 of 55 Gov. Rick Perry at the Travis County Courthouse on Aug. 19, 2014. Gov. Rick Perry at the Travis County Courthouse on Aug. 19, 2014. Photo: David Saleh Rauf/San Antonio Express-News
Image 30 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Photo: Texas Tribune
Image 31 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Photo: Texas Tribune
Image 32 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Photo: Texas Tribune
Image 33 of 55 Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Texas Gov. Rick Perry appears prior to his Aug. 19, 2014 booking in Austin on a charge of abuse of power. | Photo still from Texas Tribune video Photo: Texas Tribune
Image 34 of 55 Media wait for Gov. Rick Perry to be booked at the Travis County Courthouse. Media wait for Gov. Rick Perry to be booked at the Travis County Courthouse. Photo: David Saleh Rauf/San Antonio Express-News
Image 35 of 55 Media and Perry backers (w/flag) await his booking. Media and Perry backers (w/flag) await his booking. Photo: Peggy Fikac/San Antonio Express-News
Image 36 of 55 Gov. Rick Perry's indictment on two felony charges Friday set off a maelstrom of reactions from elected officials and political insiders. Scroll through the slideshow to see what Republicans and Democrats had to say about the charges. less Gov. Rick Perry's indictment on two felony charges Friday set off a maelstrom of reactions from elected officials and political insiders. Scroll through the slideshow to see what Republicans and Democrats had ... more Photo: Mengwen Cao, The Associated Press
Image 38 of 55 U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas:
“Unfortunately, there has been a sad history of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions, and this latest indictment of the governor is extremely questionable,” Cruz said in a Facebook post.
“Rick Perry is a friend, he’s a man of integrity – I am proud to stand with Rick Perry. The Texas Constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation, and a criminal indictment predicated on the exercise of his constitutional authority is, on its face, highly suspect.”
Pictured, during his address at the RedState Gathering, Sen. Ted Cruz said conservatives are near victory in big fights like Obamacare and immigration. less U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas:
“Unfortunately, there has been a sad history of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions, and this latest indictment of the ... more Photo: Kin Man Hui / San Antonio Express-News
Image 39 of 55 Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush:
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks at the George Bush Presidential Conference Center Friday, Jan. 18, 2002, in College Station, Texas. (Bryan-College Station Eagle, Butch Ireland) "The indictment of @GovernorPerry seems politically motivated and ridiculous. Major overreach and an encroachment on his veto authority," Bush tweeted Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks at the George Bush Presidential Conference Center Friday, Jan. 18, 2002, in College Station, Texas. (Bryan-College Station Eagle, Butch Ireland) less Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush:
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush "The indictment of @GovernorPerry seems politically motivated and ridiculous. Major overreach and an encroachment on his veto authority," Bush tweeted Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ... more Photo: A
Image 40 of 55 George P. Bush, Republican candidate for Texas Land Commissioner and son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush:
"Let's come together and #StandWithRickPerry to continue building our #texasmiracle," Bush tweeted. George P. Bush, Republican candidate for Texas Land Commissioner and son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush:
"Let's come together and #StandWithRickPerry to continue building our #texasmiracle," Bush tweeted. Photo: Helen L. Montoya / San Antonio Express-News
Image 42 of 55 Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania:
Pictured, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, speaks at a luncheon sponsored by radio station KLUP at the Pearl Stable, Friday, May 30, 2014. "I #StandWithRickPerry against the Dem-controlled Travis Co TX DA's office which has a reputation for malicious prosecution of Republicans," Santorum tweeted Pictured, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, speaks at a luncheon sponsored by radio station KLUP at the Pearl Stable, Friday, May 30, 2014. less Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania:
"I #StandWithRickPerry against the Dem-controlled Travis Co TX DA's office which has a reputation for malicious prosecution of Republicans," Santorum ... more Photo: BOB OWEN, San Antonio Express-News
Image 43 of 55 Outgoing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst:
“I’m disappointed with Travis County’s attempts to criminalize state politics," Dewhurst said . "As I understand the facts, Governor Perry’s acts were consistent with what any House or Senate Finance Chair would do to get the attention of a state agency.” less Outgoing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst:
“I’m disappointed with Travis County’s attempts to criminalize state politics," Dewhurst said . "As I understand the facts, Governor Perry’s acts were ... more Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle
Image 44 of 55 Texas House Speaker Joe Straus:
“The Texas Constitution gives the Governor clear veto authority, which the Legislature respects even when we disagree with some vetoes," Straus said . "That authority plays an important role in our system of government.” less Texas House Speaker Joe Straus:
“The Texas Constitution gives the Governor clear veto authority, which the Legislature respects even when we disagree with some vetoes," Straus said . "That authority plays ... more Photo: San Antonio Express-News File Photo
Image 45 of 55 Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri:
“I think most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that it’s political in nature. I think most people would feel it’s not inappropriate to exercise a governor’s pergoative to not appropriate funds to a governmental authority that’s had a government official that’s conduced themselves in a way that gives the governor pause.” Munisteri said . “He has about a year and a half to the Iowa caucuses, so certainly this needs to be resolved before that.” Most Republican voters “will feel as I do – that this was politically motivated. This is not about somebody charged with taking a bribe … misusing government property. This is about a governor who said he didn’t want to agree to appropriations for a public official who had admittedly committed a crime.” “I don’t think anybody will think twice about it. Obviously, though, it’ll impact him if it hasn’t gone to trial or resolved prior to the 2016 season kicking into high gear. I think from his point of view he wants the quickest trial as possible.” less Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri:
“I think most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that it’s political in nature. I think most people would feel it’s not inappropriate to ... more Photo: Eric Gay, Associated Press
Image 46 of 55 Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate:
Appearing on Fox News to discuss Texas’ border enforcement surge on Saturday , Abbott said he had not looked at the Friday indictment but said he questioned how Perry could be indicted for “using his veto . . . vetoing a law and exercising how power.”
Pictured, Abbott discusses his education policies while visiting the Toyota plant on Monday May 12, 2014. “I don’t know what to think of it,” Abbott said.Pictured, Abbott discusses his education policies while visiting the Toyota plant on Monday May 12, 2014. less Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate:
Appearing on Fox News to discuss Texas’ border enforcement surge on Saturday , Abbott said he had not looked at the Friday ... more Photo: SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS
Image 47 of 55 Wendy Davis, Democratic gubernatorial candidate:
Speaking with reporters before a block walk in Plfugerville on Saturday , Davis reiterated her statement Friday that she was troubled by the charges against Perry.
Asked whether Perry should step down, Davis told reporters: “As I said, there will be, I’m sure, more information that comes to light. I trust that the justice system will do its job, and these indictments handed down by the grand jury demonstrate that some very seriously potential crimes have been committed.” That puts her at odds with the state Democratic Party, which said the governor should resign shortly after the indictment was revealed. less Wendy Davis, Democratic gubernatorial candidate:
Speaking with reporters before a block walk in Plfugerville on Saturday , Davis reiterated her statement Friday that she was troubled by the charges against ... more Photo: Ralph Barrera / Austin American-Statesman
Image 48 of 55 Congressman Joaquin Castro:
Castro tweeted , "For the sake of Texas, Governor Perry should resign following his indictment on two criminal felony counts involving abuse of office."
Pictured, Castro chats in the lobby as Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro readies to speak at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention at the Marriott Rivercenter on August 9, 2014. less Congressman Joaquin Castro:
Castro tweeted , "For the sake of Texas, Governor Perry should resign following his indictment on two criminal felony counts involving abuse of office."
Pictured, Castro chats in the ... more Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express-News
Image 49 of 55 Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa:
Pictured, Newly-elected Texas State Democratic Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa meets with members of the Bexar County Young Democrats at Madhatters Tea House & Cafe, Wednesday, June 27, 2012. “Governor Rick Perry has brought dishonor to his office, his family and the state of Texas. Texans deserve to have leaders that stand up for what is right and work to help families across Texas. The indictment today shows a failure of Governor Perry to follow the law," Hinojosa said . "This is systematic of a broader problem: Ken Paxton is facing a possible indictment and Attorney General Abbott has refused to rule on whether Governor Perry can use taxpayer dollars to cover his legal expenses. We call on Governor Perry to immediately step down from office. Texans deserve real leadership and this is unbecoming of our Governor.”Pictured, Newly-elected Texas State Democratic Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa meets with members of the Bexar County Young Democrats at Madhatters Tea House & Cafe, Wednesday, June 27, 2012. less Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa:
“Governor Rick Perry has brought dishonor to his office, his family and the state of Texas. Texans deserve to have leaders that stand up for what is ... more Photo: Jerry Lara, San Antonio Express-News
Image 50 of 55 David Axelrod, former senior White House adviser to President Barack Obama:
This Jan. 28, 2011 file photo shows David Axelrod, outgoing senior White House adviser to President Barack Obama, during an interview with the Associated Press at the White House. Axelrod, who is a former political reporter for The Chicago Tribune, has known the president since the early 1990s and was a driving force behind Obama's message of change during the 2008 campaign. He is a calming influence on the Obama 2012 campaign team and has helped focus on middle-class voters. "Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy," Axelrod tweeted This Jan. 28, 2011 file photo shows David Axelrod, outgoing senior White House adviser to President Barack Obama, during an interview with the Associated Press at the White House. Axelrod, who is a former political reporter for The Chicago Tribune, has known the president since the early 1990s and was a driving force behind Obama's message of change during the 2008 campaign. He is a calming influence on the Obama 2012 campaign team and has helped focus on middle-class voters. less David Axelrod, former senior White House adviser to President Barack Obama: "Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty ... more Photo: AP
Image 51 of 55 Jim Messina, former campaign manager for President Barack Obama:
"Here's to suddenly loving the Texas legal process: Rick Perry indicted," Messina tweeted
Pictured, President Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina tours the floor at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Monday, Sept. 3, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) (Charles Dharapak / Associated Press) Pictured, President Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina tours the floor at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Monday, Sept. 3, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) (Charles Dharapak / Associated Press) less Jim Messina, former campaign manager for President Barack Obama:
"Here's to suddenly loving the Texas legal process: Rick Perry indicted," Messina tweeted
Pictured, President Barack Obama's campaign Pictured, President Barack Obama's campaign ... more
Image 52 of 55 CNN political analyst Paul Begala:
Pictured, Begala, of Washington, D.C. via Austin, talks with Mayor Julian Castro, right, and Joaquin Castro, center, the morning after his keynote speech at CNN Grill during the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC on Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012. Begala tweeted : "Thought bubble as @GovernorPerry goes for his mug shot: "Do these glasses make me look innocent?" less CNN political analyst Paul Begala:
Pictured, Begala, of Washington, D.C. via Austin, Begala tweeted : "Thought bubble as @GovernorPerry goes for his mug shot: "Do these glasses make me look innocent?" ... more Photo: Lisa Krantz, San Antonio Express-News
Image 53 of 55 Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the conservative Texans for Fiscal Responsibility:
Sullivan tweeted , "Malicious prosecution to silence conservatives is newest weapon of the establishment nationally and, sadly, in Texas. #StandWithRickPerry" less Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the conservative Texans for Fiscal Responsibility:
Sullivan tweeted , "Malicious prosecution to silence conservatives is newest weapon of the establishment nationally and, ... more Photo: Courtesy Photo
Image 54 of 55 Griffin Perry, son of Rick and Anita Perry:
"Two pieces of wisdom: 1/2 Proverbs 18:17 In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines,"
Pictured, Texas Gov. Rick Perry holds his new granddaughter Ella Gray Perry, as his son Griffin, right, Ella Gray's father stands close by. "Two pieces of wisdom: 1/2 Proverbs 18:17 In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines," Griffin Perry tweeted Pictured, Texas Gov. Rick Perry holds his new granddaughter Ella Gray Perry, as his son Griffin, right, Ella Gray's father stands close by. less Griffin Perry, son of Rick and Anita Perry:
"Two pieces of wisdom: 1/2 Proverbs 18:17 In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines," "Two pieces of wisdom: 1/2 Proverbs 18:17 In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines," Griffin Perry ... more Photo: San Antonio Express-News ||||| AUSTIN – The special prosecutor in Gov. Rick Perry's case said Monday there will not be an arrest warrant issued for him on the charges that he abused his power.
"I've agreed that only a summons will be issued" for Perry to appear in court, said San Antonio lawyer Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor. He said that is not unusual and that Perry is not getting special treatment.
The case revolves around Perry's threat last year to veto funding for a public corruption unit overseen by Democratic Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she resigned in the wake of a messy drunken-driving arrest. She stayed in office, and the Republican governor vetoed the money, saying she had lost the public's confidence.
McCrum emphasized that it's not unusual to do without a warrant in his experience, which includes a stint as a federal prosecutor.
"In my experience as a prosecutor, I've done that before in cases where I do not see a risk of flight nor a risk that evidence will be destroyed," McCrum said. "I don't want anybody to get the impression he's being given any special favors."
McCrum and Perry's lawyer planned to talk Monday to decide on a date for Perry's arraignment in court.
It is unclear when Perry will turn himself in to be processed.
McCrum said he had told Perry's lawyer, David Botsford, that "so long as it happens this week, I have no particular preference on what day it happens."
Asked whether Perry would be required to have a mug shot, McCrum said, "He's going to have to be processed like every other person who is charged with a crime."
Perry was indicted Friday on one count of abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony punishable by five to 99 years in prison, and one count of coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony carrying a punishment of two to 10 years in prison.
He has contended the indictment is politically motivated and that he acted within his constitutional authority. | Texas Gov. Rick Perry will be spared the indignity of an arrest warrant over his indictment on abuse-of-power charges, but he still must have his mugshot taken, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. "He's going to have to be processed like every other person who is charged with a crime," explains special prosecutor Michael McCrum. It's not clear when Perry will turn himself in for processing, but the San Antonio Express-News says supporters expect it to happen later today and are planning a rally at the Travis County courthouse in Austin. Meanwhile, even Perry's usual critics on the New York Times editorial board agree with the governor that this is a case of "overzealous prosecution." Perry threatened to withhold funding for an anti-corruption unit unless the Democratic DA in charge of it resigned in the wake of drunken-driving charges. She didn't, and Perry vetoed the money. That shows "bad political judgment," says the Times, but it's no felony. The governor still needs that mugshot, however, and the Austin American-Statesman solicits advice for him from some image experts: "Ditch the glasses and think happy thoughts." (Here's an idea of what Perry might wear to get his mugshot taken.) |
Forget coffee, now you can get caffeine in your TOOTHBRUSH
Firm has applied for patents for a range of brushes with flavours and even an appetite suppressant on them
Could also be used to deliver correct doses of drugs to patients
It could be an important time saver for those who want an extra five minutes in bed.
Colgate has revealed plans for a toothbrush with a built in caffeine patch to deliver the morning coffee as you brush.
A patent application reveals the firm is even considering flavour patches and even drug delivery using the system.
The morning brush could soon give you a hit of caffeine, and even painkillers according to a patent filed by Colgate
The patent application from the Colgate-Palmolive Company revealed technology that would allow chemicals to be embedded into the heads of standard toothbrushes and slowly released during use.
The firm showed off plans for everything from mint and apple flavoured patches to a caffeine patch to wake up the weary in the morning.
Each patch would last around three months, the application shows.
The firm could also expand the offering to include drugs such as aspirin, and the application even reveals a 'diet toothbrush' with a patch that releases an appetite suppressant.
The patents show a toothbrush with a mint flavour patch (left) and a warming patch which could mean a substance like cinnamon
In the patent application, toothbrushes would be delineated by differently shaped tongue cleaners, the drawing show - an apple shape means apple flavor, a snowflake means a cooling sensation while a mint leaf releases mint.
The patent describes the pictures as: 'An oral care implement comprising a handle and a head; a releasable sensory material that invokes a sensory response in an oral cavity during use.'
It also talk about an 'elastomeric element comprising a shape that is visually representative of the sensory response,' and a 'releasable sensory material comprises one of a flavoring, a sensate, or a medication.'
The patent also shows a tongue cleaning brush already found on many toothbrushes
It also raises the terrifying prospect of a chilli pepper version.
'As one example, a chemical known as capsaicin, found naturally in chile peppers, can be used to provide a tingle, a hot or warm massage, or a heating or warm, soothing sensation to a user, ' it says.
'Capsaicin is also known to provide pain relief and numbing sensations when topically applied.'
||||| View photo . A toothbrush may be able to administer caffeine. (Thinkstock)
Step aside, Starbucks. Coffee lovers may be able to get a shot of caffeine right from the toothbrush, if a patent from Colgate-Palmolive goes through.
No need for the double latte down the street: That caffeine could be administered through a patch while you're polishing those pearlies.
According to the patent application, “The present invention pertains to an oral care implement generally, and more particularly to a toothbrush that releases a chemical into the mouth during use.”
Other uses, aside from a nice boost of caffeine, include a delivery system for drugs, for weight loss or pain, for example.
The toothbrush could also be packed with a dollop of flavor, like berry, green apple, or lemon. Or it could provide an easily administered herbal remedy, such as lavender or chamomile.
The patch would attach to the head of the toothbrush, and a dose of the elixir would be introduced during brushing. The patch would last three months, according to the Daily Mail.
But having a toothbrush that does more than brush your teeth comes with risks: If you haven't had your caffeine, you could make the mistake of picking up the brush with the chile pepper pack instead--yet another flavor suggested for the toothbrush invention.
“A chemical known as capsaicin, found naturally in chile peppers, can be used to provide a tingle,” suggests the patent application.
Hello! We’re up. ||||| CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/673,758, filed Feb. 12, 2012 (now allowed), which in turn is a continuation of International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/28400 filed, Aug. 10, 2005, which is a continuation in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/986,809, filed Nov. 15, 2004, which is a continuation in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/869,922, filed Jun. 18, 2004 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,143,462), which is a continuation in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/601,106, filed Jun. 20, 2003 (now abandoned); and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/600,701, filed Aug. 11, 2004 (now expired). The contents of the above-noted applications are each expressly incorporated herein by reference.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention pertains to an oral care implement generally, and more particularly to a toothbrush that releases a chemical into the mouth during use.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
A toothbrush is used to clean the teeth by removing plaque and debris from the tooth surfaces. According to the American Dental Association, a major source of had breath in healthy people is microbial deposits on the tongue, where a bacterial coating harbors organisms and debris that contribute to bad breath. Tissue in the mouth, and especially the tongue, is a haven for the growth of microorganisms. The papillary nature of the tongue surface creates a unique ecological site that provides an extremely large surface area, favoring the accumulation of oral bacteria. Anaerobic flora and bacteria residing on the tongue and other soft tissues in the mouth play an important role in the development of chronic bad breath commonly called halitosis. In general, the bacteria produce volatile sulfur compounds (VSC). If there is enough buildup of the sulfur compounds, the result can lead to bad breath or oral malodor.
While consumers may seek to clean their tongue or teeth, there has not been a toothbrush which provides a chemical sensory response in a mouth to enhance a user's brushing experience. Further, consumers have not been provided with a visual method to select a toothbrush which provides a sensory response. Hence, there is a need for a toothbrush that provides a biochemical sensory effect when in contact tissues of the mouth and supports a method to visually communicate the sensory effect to a user prior to use.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention pertains to an oral care implement, such as a toothbrush, including a sensory material that invokes a selective sensory response when in contact with the tissues and surfaces of a mouth of a user.
In one embodiment, a toothbrush includes a releasable material that causes a trigeminal response during use. In another embodiment, a toothbrush includes a tissue cleanser provided with the releasable material.
In another embodiment, a toothbrush includes a communicative element, such as a two-dimensional or three-dimensional shape, that is visually representative of the sensory response to the user.
In yet another embodiment, the invention can be A toothbrush comprising: a handle and a head; a releasable sensory material that invokes a sensory response in an oral cavity during use; and at least one communicative element that is visually representative of the sensory response.
In still another embodiment, the invention can be an oral care implement comprising: a handle and a head; a releasable sensory material that invokes a sensory response in an oral cavity during use; and an elastomeric element comprising a shape that is visually representative of the sensory response.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIGS. 1-7 are each a perspective view of an oral care implement according to an alternative embodiment of the invention; and FIG. 8 is a cross section view along line 8-8 in FIG. 7 .
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
In FIG. 1 , an oral care implement such as a toothbrush 100 includes a handle 103 and a head 105 for cleaning the teeth and soft tissue in the mouth. While a toothbrush 100 is shown and described as an example of an oral care implement, it will be understood that other implements usable in the oral cavity are contemplated, such as toothpicks, tongue cleaners, etc. Handle 103 enables a user to readily grip and manipulate the toothbrush, and may be formed of many different shapes and constructions including, but not limited to elastomers, polypropylene, SAN, ABS, or even paper products such as typical lollipop stick. While the head is normally widened relative to a neck of the handle, it could in some constructions simply be a continuous extension or narrowing of the handle.
Toothbrush head 105 has a first face 107 that supports tooth cleaning elements 109. An opposing second face 111 includes or supports a thin slab of a releasable material 300 on the surface or in the interior of the head 105. While the releasable material 300 is shown on the opposing second face 111, it will be understood that it may be disposed on or included in other locations of the oral care implement as desired. The tooth cleaning elements 109 can include filament bristles or elastomeric fingers or walls which are used for wiping, cleaning and/or massaging the user's teeth and gums. Other types of tooth cleaning elements known in the art may be used as desired.
The sensory material 300 can be any suitable biocompatible medication or chemical for oral use. The material 300 is released inside the mouth, lips, or cheeks by way of several, methods, including but not limited to abrasion, a temperature change, a change in pH or dissolution. In one embodiment, the material is a sensate that provides a biochemical sensory response to the inside tissue and surfaces of the mouth. Such a sensory response is understood to result from stimulation of the trigeminal nerve of a human. A sensate generally produces a physiological effect without a taste, with such effect usually represented by the terms cooling, tingle, and hot (or heat).
Sensates are usually derived from single compounds that are not volatile and that do not have a smell or taste per se. As one example, a chemical known as capsaicin, found naturally in chile peppers, can be used to provide a tingle, a hot or warm massage, or a heating or warm, soothing sensation to a user. Capsaicin is also known to provide pain relief and numbing sensations when topically applied. Some examples of sensates that produce cooling sensations include (−)-menthol and camphor. Most of the polyols, including maltitol syrup, sorbitol, mannitol, erythritol, isomalt and xylitol, also provide a cooling sensation. The coolest of the polyols, erythritol, provides a distinct cooling sensation. Both erythritol and xylitol cool the mouth and fight the sensation of dry mouth commonly associated with prescription drugs and dental hygiene products. Erythritol is a naturally occurring four-carbon structure. Xylitol is a five-carbon sugar found in fruits and vegetables and made in small amounts by the human system as a metabolic intermediate.
In another embodiment, the sensory material is provided as flavoring for causing an olfactory sensory response in a human. A flavor is commonly understood to include a mixture of compounds that are volatile and produce an aromatic effect and that stimulate the olfactory bulb. Flavors are generally transmitted through the nasal passages, and are often selected and used for their unique association with certain consumer benefits, such as lavender for stress relief or relaxation. Another flavor example is chamomile, which has a strong, aromatic smell and is often used medicinally against sore stomach and as a relaxant to help you fall asleep. Chamomile is also used as a mouthwash against oral mucositis (the swelling, irritation, and ulceration of the mucosal cells that line the digestive tract). In another embodiment, the releasable material includes both a sensate component and a flavor component.
In one embodiment, the sensory material 300 can be associated with any two-dimensional or three-dimensional shape to provide a symbolic or visual communicative representation of a flavoring taste or a trigeminal sensation to be experienced by user when using the toothbrush 100. In a two-dimensional construction, the releasable material can be provided as a decal having a coating with a flavoring or sensate substance for the desired biochemical sensory response. In a three-dimensional construction, the releasable material 400 ( FIG. 6 ) is raised from the head 105 and may have an outer topography with physical variations in the contouring. Hence, toothbrush 100 enables convenient visuals cues for communicating flavoring and/or sensation features to the user.
In the embodiment of FIG. 2 , the sensory material 302 is provided as a lemon flavoring and disposed in a shape having a visual appearance and/or surface texture commonly known for a physical lemon. More generally, a toothbrush can have a fruit flavoring and the shape of the releasable material carrier can pertain to any fruit, such as an orange, strawberry, berry, grape, apple, mint, lemon, lime, etc. Of course, other flavorings and visual communicative elements can be used as desired. Hence, a user can selectively choose a toothbrush for a desired flavor by a particular visual feature.
In another embodiment, a toothbrush is provided with a communicative element that suggests a cooling or heating sensation in a user. In FIG. 3 , for example, a snowflake element 304 suggests the use of a sensate material that results in a cooling sensation or sensory response. Other non-limiting examples of communicative elements that suggest cooling sensations include visuals of ice, ice cubes, icebergs, icicles, polar bears, low temperature-reading thermometer, snow, snow-covered mountains, winter scenes, etc. In FIG. 4 , communicative element 306 visually represented by a flame suggests a heating sensation. Other non-limiting examples of communicative elements that suggest heating sensations include visuals of a candle, gas flame, burning wood, burning coals, a desert, high temperature-reading thermometer, a stove, an oven, the sun, a flamethrower, etc. Similarly, a communicative element representative of a tingle sensation might appear as a vibration visual, a lightening bolt, pins and needles, etc. In this way, the user is provided with the ability to readily select particular toothbrush or other oral care implement for the desired sensation by the supporting visual or communicative feature.
In one embodiment, FIG. 5 shows the sensory material 308 provided as a nutrient or herbal supplement, such as a vitamin or mineral, and in the shape of a leaf (e.g., aloe vera plant leaf). Such material could be combined with a soothing or sea breeze sensation to create a combined sensory and nutritive effect. Nevertheless, other shapes can be provided for the releasable material.
in other embodiments, the material 300 comprises a releasable active such as HUMPHRIES 3™ or benzocaine to be used for pain relief from teething or gum irritation in infants or children. Other homeopathic teething or inflammation soothing additive include, but are not limited to Belladonna (atropa belladonna), caffeine and Passiflora Incarnata (Passionflower). In another embodiment, zo-caine type of medicines can be used as an appetite suppressant for weight loss treatment. In yet another embodiment, the releasable material can be aspirin and the like. Further embodiments include materials used to clean or inhibit further accumulation of biofilm from/on shedding and nonshedding oral structures and/or tissues, or materials that have the ability to stimulate salvia flow thus relieving, temporarily, xerostoma or dry mouth. Thus, a wide variety of other chemicals which provide a medicinal or sensory response can be used with the oral care implement. In each case, associated visuals may be present communicate the beneficial effect, such as the representation of a throbbing tooth for benzocaine, a human figure with a slimming waist line for the zo-caine types of medicine or an “Rx” symbol for pain relief medication.
In one embodiment, the releasable material 300, 302, 304, 306, 308 is provided in a form of at least one solid dissolvable bead or a liquid encapsulated in a dissolvable or breakable outer cover (e.g., a container). Hence, the releasable material may be broken by the teeth of a user or dissolved by the salvia so as to release a liquid in the mouth.
In another embodiment, the releasable material 300, 302, 304, 306, 308 is provided in a biocompatible resilient material used in oral hygiene apparatus. Such a resilient material is preferably incorporated within an elastomeric material. In other embodiments, the elastomeric material can be molded in a desired shape for the symbolic representation of a flavoring or biochemical response from a sensate material. To provide comfort within the oral cavity, the elastomeric material preferably has a hardness property in the range of A8 to A25 Shore hardness. Non-limiting examples of elastomeric materials are styrene-butylene-styrene (SBS), styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS), another material designated as G6725 manufactured by GLS Corporation, along with any direct or indirect food contact grade thermoplastic elastomer. In one construction, the resilient material can be incorporated within a polyolefin. Nevertheless, material from other manufacturers or other materials within and outside the noted hardness range could be used.
In one construction, the releasable material can be provided in a solution, emulsion or microencapsulation form, then deposited or applied to form a continuous or semi-continuous coating on the surface of the elastomeric material. The deposited solution, emulsion or microencapsulation may then be air-dried, heat assisted dried, heat assisted cured, catalyst assisted cured, or ultra-violet (UV) light activated cured. Nevertheless, other methods are possible for curing the coating.
In another construction, the releasable material can be integrally incorporated into an elastomeric material forming a part of the oral care implement, such that the sensate or flavoring or both can be released from within the elastomeric material. The releasable material may be compounded into an elastomer and/or thermoplastic. Alternatively, the releasable material may be embedded in microencapsulation form, and then compounded into the elastomer and/or thermoplastic. In this way, the releasable material can be released in a generally uniform manner during use of the oral care implement. In these arrangements, the elastomeric releasable material is provided as one homogeneous element. The releasable material migrates outward and transfers onto the mouth soft tissues upon contact. The releasable material can be pre-compounded or pre-formulated with hydrogel based, water-soluble polymers, or other biomaterial prior to final compounding into the elastomeric material or prior to final coating.
The releasable material provides a flavoring, taste or biochemical sensation or benefit during brushing, or preferably during multiple uses, or more preferably during three months of use. Hence, after daily use of the toothbrush for three months, the toothbrush can have a use indicator (e.g., a feature of communicating to the user that the sensory materials are “used up”). In this way, a user can visually distinguish a toothbrush with a desired flavoring and/or sensation and can have an enjoyable method of knowing when to obtain a new brush. For example, the flame 306 ( FIG. 4 ) may start out as bright red, then gradually lose intensity (or turn black for example) as the sensory material is depleted.
In one embodiment shown in FIG. 6 , a tissue cleanser 400 is preferably composed of a soft pliable elastomeric material for comfortable cleaning and effective removal of bacteria and debris disposed on tissue in the mouth, such as the tongue, inner surfaces of the cheeks, gums, and lips. Tissue cleanser 400 includes at least one tissue engaging element 402 for cleansing oral tissue. Tissue cleanser 400 in an elastomeric construction can be incorporated with the releasable material as discussed in the previous embodiments. In the embodiment shown, tissue cleanser 400 is provided in a shape of the leaf for visually denoting a nutrient value and cleaning effects. Alternatively, the leaf could be in the shape of a mint leaf for visually denoting a mint flavor or sensation.
In FIGS. 7-8 , the releasable material 300 is provided in a basin 113 underneath a tissue cleanser 404. Pathways or openings 406 are provided in the elastomer surface 408 to enable a fluid, such as salvia, to dissolve the releasable material enabling the chemical in solution to migrate into the mouth of a user. As an alternative, the releasable material may be a fluid or gel that is encapsulated by the tissue cleanser 402 so that compression of the elastomer surface 408 squeezes the fluid through the openings 406 and into the mouth of a user. In either construction, cleaning of the tissue surfaces in the mouth may be obtained though the combined use of the tissue Cleanser 404 mechanically scrubbing the tissue surfaces and the beneficial effects of applying flavoring or sensates around the oral cavity.
Tissue cleanser 400, 404 is preferably configured with a multiplicity of tissue engaging elements 402, which in the preferred construction are formed as nubs, and which will be described hereinafter for purposes of simplicity as “nubs.” As used herein a “nub” is generally meant to include a column-like protrusion (without limitation to the cross-sectional shape of the protrusion) which is upstanding from a base surface. In a general sense, the nub, in the preferred construction, has a height that is greater than the width at the base of the nub (as measured in the longest direction). Nevertheless, nubs could include projections wherein the widths and heights are roughly the same or wherein the heights are somewhat smaller than the base widths. Moreover, in some circumstances (e.g., where the nub tapers to a tip or includes a base portion that narrows to a smaller projection), the base width can be substantially larger than the height.
When engaged or otherwise rubbed against a tongue surface, for example, nubs 402 provide for gentle engagement with the soft tissue. Moreover, the nubs 402 are preferably soft so as to flex as needed to traverse and clean the tissue surfaces in the mouth. In the preferred construction, nubs 402 are able to flex and bend from their respective vertical axes as lateral pressure is applied, during use. This flexing enhances the comfort and cleaning of the soft tissue surfaces.
In the embodiment of FIGS. 7-8 , a first releasable material could be incorporated in the basin, while a second releasable material could be incorporated into the material forming the nubs (as discussed in FIG. 6 ), to create a combined sensorial effect. For example, the first releasable material could include a flavor, while the second releasable material could include a sensate, or vice versa, to create an enhanced flavor-based sensate that produces, for example, a cooling vanilla experience, or a hot cinnamon experience.
Such a combined experience could likewise be employed on other embodiments described herein, as the releasable material could vary in location and character across the oral care implement. For example, an oral care implement could have a combined visual of a snowflake ( FIG. 3 ) within a lemon ( FIG. 2 ), or a snowflake next to a lemon, that represents or visually communicates a cooling lemon-like sensation. Similarly, an oral care implement could have a mint leaf ( FIG. 6 ) combined with a snowflake ( FIG. 3 ) to represent a cooling mint sensation. Other sensory variations and combinations are contemplated.
While the present invention has been described at some length and with some particularity with respect to the several described embodiments, it is not intended that it should be limited to any such particulars or embodiments or any particular embodiment, but it is to be construed with references to the appended claims so as to provide the broadest possible interpretation of such claims in view of the prior art and, therefore, to effectively encompass the intended scope of the invention. For example, while the visual communicative element is generally directly associated with the sensory response of the releasable material, such element may be indirectly associated, yet communicative of a particular experience. For example, visual depictions of human anatomical structures, such as a tongue, hand, ear, head, or gender based characterization, could be used to represent sensory materials targeting such structures, wherein an earache-curing material might be communicated by a visual representation of an ear. Similarly, a floral material might be communicated by a representation of a female figure, while a musk scent might be communicated by a representation of a male figure. Other indirect visual communicative elements include sporting equipment, such as a baseball, basketball, soccer ball, hockey puck, baseball bat, tennis racket, hockey stick, etc., which might represent sensory or active materials designed for sporting activities, such as, for example, energy boosting materials, vitamins, minerals and the like. | Who needs a morning coffee when your toothbrush releases a dose of caffeine? Colgate has applied for a patent on a brush that could do just that. The application describes "a toothbrush that releases a chemical into the mouth during use," but it won't stop at caffeine, reports Yahoo. The brush could also deliver drugs like aspirin, herbal remedies, or just a certain flavor dispensed from a patch attached to the head of the brush, with each patch lasting three months, according to the Daily Mail. Possible flavors include berry, green apple, and everyone's favorite in the morning—chili pepper. |
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A gunman was arrested Friday hours after opening fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic, wounding multiple people and engaging in gun battles with police inside the building, officials said.
An officer stands guard near a Planned Parenthood clinic Friday, Nov. 27, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colo. A gunman opened fire at the clinic on Friday, authorities said, wounding multiple people. (AP... (Associated Press)
Police stand guard at the intersection of Centennial and Fillmore near a Planned Parenthood clinic Friday, Nov. 27, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colo. A gunman opened fire at the clinic on Friday, authorities... (Associated Press)
Authorities respond after reports of a shooting near a Planned Parenthood clinic Friday, Nov. 27, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Kody Fisher/FOX21 News via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT; COLORADO SPRINGS OUT (Associated Press)
Police stand guard near a Planned Parenthood clinic Friday, Nov. 27, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colo. A gunman opened fire at the clinic on Friday, authorities said, wounding multiple people. (AP Photo/David... (Associated Press)
Police stand guard near a Planned Parenthood clinic Friday, Nov. 27, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colo. A gunman opened fire at the clinic on Friday, authorities said, wounding multiple people. (AP Photo/David... (Associated Press)
Authorities respond after reports of a shooting near a Planned Parenthood clinic Friday, Nov. 27, 2015, in Colorado Springs, Colo. Multiple officers were injured but it was not known if anyone else was... (Associated Press)
At least 11 people, including five police officers, were taken to hospitals, police Lt. Catherine Buckley said.
Authorities were still trying to determine if anybody was left inside the building.
Authorities were expected to spend several hours investigating unspecified items the gunman left outside the building or carried inside, Buckley said.
An unknown number of people were evacuated during the standoff — some wrapped in blankets in the blowing snow — to a nearby Veterans Administration clinic.
Three officers were injured while responding to the initial report of shots fired at the clinic before noon, authorities said. More than two hours later, the gunman shot and injured a fourth officer in another exchange with police inside the clinic, Buckley said.
Authorities said they don't know the motive of the gunman or whether the shooter had any connection to Planned Parenthood. The name of the suspect was not released.
"We don't have any information on this individual's mentality, or his ideas or ideology," Buckley said.
Planned Parenthood released a statement that said it did not know the full circumstances or motives behind the attack, or whether the organization was the target.
The shots sent people inside the clinic racing for cover. Jennifer Motolinia hid behind a table inside the clinic and called her brother, Joan, who said he heard multiple gunshots in the background.
"She was telling me to take care of her babies because she could get killed," Joan Motolinia said of his sister, the mother of three.
He rushed to the clinic but was frustrated because a police barricade kept him from getting close.
"People were shooting for sure. I heard someone shooting. There was a lot of gunfire. She was calm, she was trying to hide from those people," he said.
Police cordoned off the clinic, nearby medical offices and a shopping center. Authorities ordered everyone in the area to take shelter where they were.
Denise Speller, manager of a nearby hair salon, said she heard as many as 20 gunshots in less than five minutes.
She told The Gazette newspaper that she saw a police cruiser and two officers near a Chase Bank branch, not far from the Planned Parenthood facility.
One of the officers appeared to fall to the ground and the other officer knelt down to help and then tried to get the officer to safety behind the car, she said. Another officer told Speller to seek shelter inside the building.
"We're still pretty freaked out," Speller said by phone. "We can't stop shaking."
Ambulances and police vehicles lined up at a nearby intersection and police told people via Twitter to stay away from the shooting scene because it was not secure.
Shelley Satulla said she saw five or six people put on stretchers and placed in ambulances lined up next to King Soopers shopping center near the clinic.
Later in the afternoon, other people were able to walk out of the shopping center area accompanied by police officers toward a line of ambulances.
Mike Pelosi, who works at a deli at a nearby King Sooper grocery store, said he heard over the store's loudspeaker just before noon that nobody could leave the store.
Pelosi said customers and store employees were confused about what was going on but not panicked. He said a couple dozen customers were standing near the store entrance waiting for instructions.
The location of the shooting is less than 6 miles from the street where a man shot and killed two of three people before dying in a gun battle with police on Halloween day. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -
5:15 p.m. Monday 11/30/15
The 57-year-old suspect in a shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic went before a judge for the first time Monday.
Robert Dear was advised of the charges he is facing.
Dear is currently being held without bond on suspicion of first degree murder. He will be formally charged on December 9.
The Associated Press reported Saturday night that Dear made a comment about "no more baby parts" after his arrest. The AP report cited an anonymous official.
Police have not confirmed any possible motives for the shooting.
A UCCS Police Officer and two civilians died in the shooting
University of Colorado Police identified the officer who was killed as Garrett Swasey, 44.
Swasey's funeral will be Friday at 1 p.m. at New Life Church. We do not yet know if it will be open to the public.
The civilian victims were identified by friends and family members as Jennifer Markovsky, 35, and Ke'Arre Stewart, 29.
Autopsy results for all three were released Monday evening. The Coroner's Office says all three died from gunshot wounds. Their deaths have been ruled homicides.
An additional nine people were taken to the hospital with gunshot wounds, five of them are officers. All nine are in good condition, police said.
Hospital telephone numbers have been established for family members to call and ask about their loved ones. They are follows:
Memorial Hospital – 719-365-5556
Penrose Hospital – 719-776-6637
The city of Colorado Springs has also established an information number for victims' families. That number is 719-385-7135.
The shooting suspect surrendered to officers at 4:52 p.m. Friday.
The shooting began around 11:40 a.m. Friday. Police spent the afternoon rescuing dozens of hostages from the building, which is located in the 3400 block of Centennial Boulevard on the northwest side of the city.
Some victims fled to a nearby bank for help.
Police say the shooter placed several items outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic and inside of the Planned Parenthood clinic. They have not said specifically what those items were, but say they no longer pose a threat.
All of the nearby businesses and major roads that were closed have reopened. Market Center Point remains closed to Windfall.
The parking lot at the King Soopers shopping center is now open and police say people who left their cars there are free to pick them up.
Police say the crime scene will likely take about a week to process.
Because Friday's shooting involved police officers, the El Paso County Sheriff's Office will investigate that part of this case.
Planned Parenthood Statement:
"Our top priority is the safety of our patients and staff. Our hearts go out to everyone involved in this tragic situation. Planned Parenthood has strong security measures in place, works closely with law enforcement agencies, and has a very strong safety record. We don't yet know the full circumstances and motives behind this criminal action, and we don't yet know if Planned Parenthood was in fact the target of this attack. We share the concerns of many Americans that extremists are creating a poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism in this country. We will never back away from providing care in a safe, supportive environment that millions of people rely on and trust."
Statement from Governor John Hickenlooper:
“We hold the Colorado Springs community in our thoughts and prayers. The bravery and courage of local law enforcement officers have prevented a dire situation from being far worse, and we are all grateful. We are in contact with Mayor Suthers. All state Public Safety resources are at the ready, if and when needed.” ||||| (CNN) Two civilians and a police officer were killed when a gunman opened fire at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic in a nearly six-hour standoff Friday.
The suspected gunman is Robert Lewis Dear, 59, a law enforcement official told CNN. The official did not provide additional information.
Police captured him, but they're still working to pinpoint his motive -- and make sure he didn't leave any explosives inside or outside the Colorado Springs building.
Bomb technicians are investigating what's believed to be the suspect's vehicle in a parking lot, a law enforcement official said.
It was not immediately clear why Planned Parenthood was the target of the shooting.
One Planned Parenthood official said the motive behind the attack was unknown, but pointed to what she called a "poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism" as a possible cause.
19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs A suspect is in custody on Friday, November 27, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Police were in a shootout with a gunman inside a Planned Parenthood facility, hours after a shooter was first reported in the area. Hide Caption 1 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs People in the building across from Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs start to emerge from hiding. Hide Caption 2 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs A bus of evacuees make its way towards neighboring hospitals. Hide Caption 3 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Colorado Springs Fire Department Chief Christopher Riley, center, takes questions from the media. Hide Caption 4 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs An unidentified victim is transported to an ambulance. Hide Caption 5 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs People are helped to safety. It was not immediately clear at the time of the attack whether Planned Parenthood was the target of the shooting. Hide Caption 6 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs An officer waits at an intersection near the scene of a shooting. Hide Caption 7 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs A woman is escorted to an ambulance by police near the scene. Hide Caption 8 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Police sit on the roof of a Chase Bank branch across the parking lot from the scene at Fillmore Street and Centennial Boulevard. Hide Caption 9 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Colorado Springs Police Lt. Catherine Buckley addresses the media during the incident. Eleven people have been transported to local hospitals, she said. Five are police officers from various responding agencies. Hide Caption 10 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Colorado Springs rescue personnel stand ready near the scene. Hide Caption 11 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs People are escorted to an ambulance during the standoff. Hide Caption 12 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs A police officer stands guard. Hide Caption 13 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Rescued people are escorted from the area by emergency personnel. Hide Caption 14 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs The shooting, first reported around 11:30 a.m. (1:30 p.m. ET), left a nearby shopping center on lockdown as police searched for the gunman. Hide Caption 15 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs An officer patrols the perimeter. Denise Speller, who works at a nearby salon, said she heard at least 10 gunshots go off and saw a police officer get hit. Hide Caption 16 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs It was not immediately clear whether Planned Parenthood was the target of the shooting. Police said the original 911 call came from the building. Hide Caption 17 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Police officers respond to the scene. Hide Caption 18 of 19 19 photos: Shootout in Colorado Springs Colorado Springs police officers search the area near the scene. Hide Caption 19 of 19
"We don't yet know the full circumstances and motives behind this criminal action, and we don't yet know if Planned Parenthood was in fact the target of this attack," Vicki Cowart, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said in a written statement. "We share the concerns of many Americans that extremists are creating a poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism in this country. We will never back away from providing care in a safe, supportive environment that millions of people rely on and trust."
Cowart told CNN she believes all staff and patients from the clinic are accounted for.
"We're still reaching out to confirm individuals, how they are. I believe no one of our staff was severely injured. I also believe at this time that none of our patients were injured," she told CNN.
Officer was a six-year veteran
The slain officer, 44-year-old Garrett Swasey, worked for the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs and was on campus about 10 miles away when the shooting broke out. He went to the scene "in support of an officer under fire," the school's chancellor said in a statement.
Officer Garrett Swasey was killed in Friday's Planned Parenthood shooting.
Swasey was a six-year veteran of the university's police force.
Four civilians and five police officers were taken to hospitals with gunshot wounds. The injured victims were in good condition Friday night, police Lt. Catherine Buckley said.
"The officers, they're obviously in some pain, but thankfully they're alive and talking to us, and they're heroes ... The courage they displayed today saved many, many lives -- no doubt," Colorado Springs Fire Chief Christopher Riley said.
In a statement released late Friday, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards thanked law enforcement officers.
"Our hearts go out to the families and loved ones of the brave law enforcement officers who put themselves in harm's way in Colorado Springs," she said.
The Planned Parenthood family grieves for Officer Garrett Swasey's family, friends and colleagues dealing with heartbreaking loss tonight. — Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) November 28, 2015
Siege lasted for hours
The announcement of the suspect's arrest came nearly six hours after someone first called 911 around 11:30 a.m. (1:30 p.m. ET) and reported a shooter was inside the Planned Parenthood building, which is near a shopping center and numerous offices.
For hours, police reported shootouts with the gunman, warning people to stay inside nearby businesses and seek shelter.
The shooting brought life to a standstill as police closed roads and people were trapped inside businesses for hours in a busy corner of the central Colorado city, which has more than 400,000 residents.
CNN Map
First, Tessa Smart saw a look of concern flash across a patient's face in a nearby chiropractor's office where she works. Then she heard the gunfire.
"I heard a bullet go right by the door and hit something," she told CNN. "And I ran back to my desk and grabbed a bunch of keys and fumbled at the door trying to find one to lock it. ... As I was doing that I was seeing the police commotion outside, police running everywhere, ducking behind cars with guns."
Denise Speller, who works at a salon, said she heard at least 10 gunshots go off and saw a police officer get hit.
"It was terrifying," she said.
Joan Motolinia said he got a phone call Friday afternoon from his sister, who was inside the clinic.
"I heard the shooting," he said, choking up as he described the situation to reporters. "She couldn't say too much because she was afraid."
In a nearby grocery store, an announcement over the intercom told shoppers they weren't allowed to leave. They huddled with staff at the back of the supermarket.
It was shocking to watch SWAT teams while holed up inside a nail salon, witness Jill Lavelle said.
"Seeing the SWAT members squatting down in their shields and their riot gear, with their automatic rifles out, that was very ... I never have experienced anything like that before," she said.
Despite initial fears that the shooter could be on the loose outside, authorities now believe he remained inside the Planned Parenthood building throughout the siege, Buckley said.
Several injured victims made their way into a nearby bank, she said.
Attack comes as Planned Parenthood faces criticism
Hours after the shooting began, video from CNN affiliates showed people in medical scrubs and white coats being escorted from the scene.
Planned Parenthood is a national health care provider that delivers reproductive health care and sex education to women and men throughout the United States. The organization runs nearly 700 health centers throughout the United States, according to its website.
The group says each year 2.7 million people in the United States visit its health centers for health care services and information. Abortion is among the services Planned Parenthood clinics provide, an issue that's made the organization a target in the past.
It's faced sharp criticism in Washington and from some Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail after an anti-abortion group released a series of videos alleging that Planned Parenthood engaged in the selling of fetal organs and parts for profit.
Planned Parenthood has strongly disputed the videos and contended the tapes provide a distorted account because they are heavily edited.
At least three Planned Parenthood buildings have been vandalized since September. | An active shooting situation at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic is over, but two civilians and one police officer are dead, the Denver Post reports. Several others were wounded, but the severity of their injuries wasn't known, reports AP. Police were seen leading one male suspect out of the clinic in handcuffs at 4:50pm local, but have provided no details about him or his motive. The police department tweeted around 2:15pm local time that officers were "encountering gunfire," and CNN later reported the Planned Parenthood was being evacuated; KRDO reported that there were "hostages" who were being "rescued." The gunman brought unspecified items into the clinic, and authorities were still investigating whether they were explosives. "We don't know what they are," a police spokesperson said. "We know that the suspect brought several items with him, and some of those are inside the Planned Parenthood building and some of them are out front of it." A local shopping center was also on lockdown. The shooting started more than five hours before the suspect was arrested. "There's no continuing peril to the citizens of Colorado Springs," said Mayor John Suthers. "But there's a huge crime scene that has to be processed. We have to determine exactly how many victims there are." |
The dramatic increase in U.S. and Canadian crude oil production in recent years, coupled with the increase in crude oil transport by rail, has raised questions about whether properties (e.g., flammability) of these crude types—particularly Bakken crude oil from North Dakota and Canada's oil sands—differ sufficiently from other crude oils to warrant any additional handling considerations. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) recently fined several oil companies for improperly classifying their crude oil rail shipments. Potential safety concerns have similarly been raised over pipeline shipments of crude oil from Canada's oil sands projects. Crude oil is highly variable and can exhibit a wide range of physical and chemical properties. In fact, crude oil samples drawn from the same oil field can vary significantly. Lighter oils may be prone to ignite more readily than heavier crude oils depending on the range of light hydrocarbons they contain. In addition to flammability, other factors such as specific gravity (density) and entrained gases may also play important factors in rail car loading, and corrosivity and sulfur content may affect rail car structural integrity. Bakken crude oil (traded as North Dakota Light) is a light sweet crude oil high in light-end paraffinic range hydrocarbons, as well as heavy-end asphaltic range hydrocarbons. Light sweet crudes, like Bakken, are easier to process directly into gasoline and middle-distillate fuels (e.g., diesel) than heavier crude oils. PHMSA has issued a Safety Alert to notify emergency responders, shippers, carriers, and the public that recent derailments and resulting fires indicate that the type of crude oil transported from the Bakken region of North Dakota may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. Under PHMSA's "Operation Classification," as it is officially known, tank car inspections will determine whether a tank car's contents are properly classified based on factors that include volatility , corrosivity , hydrogen sulfide content and the composition or concentration of entrained gases inside the contents. PHMSA is reinforcing the requirement to properly test, characterize, classify, and, where appropriate, sufficiently degasify hazardous materials prior to and during transportation. "Operation Classification" will be an ongoing effort, and PHMSA will continue to collect samples and measure the characteristics of Bakken crude as well as oil from other locations. This report discusses the properties that PHMSA addressed in its safety alert, provides background on the composition of various U.S. crude oils, and compares Bakken crude oil to other crude oil produced or transported in the United States. For further background on crude oil transport by rail, see CRS Report R43390, U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed] et al. There is some risk with mixing any type of crude oil with air in the proper proportion, in the presence of a source of ignition, which can cause rapid combustion or an explosion. This proportion is the "flammable range" and or alternatively the "explosive range." The flammable range includes all concentrations of flammable vapor or gas in air, in which a flash will occur or a flame will travel if the mixture is ignited at or above a certain temperature (flash point). The Lower Flammable Limit (LFL) is the minimum concentration of vapor or gas in air below which propagation of flame does not occur on contact with a source of ignition. The Upper Flammable Limit (UFL) defines the maximum proportion of vapor in air above which propagation of flame does not occur. The terms Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and Upper Explosive Limit (UEL) are used interchangeably with LFL and UFL. Liquids having a flash point at or above 100"F (37.8"C) are classed as "combustible" and below 100"F (37.8"C) as "flammable." Crude oils may differ in terms of combustibility or flammability depending upon their volatile components. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires manufacturers and shippers of hazardous materials to provide Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) that must include the material's fire and explosive properties, among other properties. PHMSA requires similar reporting information. According to a Material Safety Data Sheet prepared by Cenovus Energy, Bakken crude has a flash point of 95" F, making it a flammable liquid. Cenovus lists benzene in concentrations of 0.1% to 1% by volume, which is relatively high compared to other crudes. Benzene is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon in the gasoline range and suspected as a cause of Bakken crude's low flash point. The PHMSA alert reminds emergency responders that light sweet crude oil, such as that coming from the Bakken region, poses significant fire risk if released from the package (tank car) in an incident. Crude oil falls into Department of Transportation (DOT) packing group (PG) I—most serious hazard—or II—moderate hazard. In the recent Lac-Megantic (Quebec) train derailment involving crude shipped from North Dakota, the shippers had reportedly mislabeled the oil as PG III (low hazard). In November 2013, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) urged PHMSA to increase federal tank car safety by requiring higher standards for DOT-III tank non-pressure cars built to transport flammable liquids, and all existing cars to be retrofitted to this higher standard or phased out of flammable service. (See " Rail Car Capacity and Load Limit " regarding DOT-III tank cars.) AAR specifically recommended that PHMSA increase design standards for new cars, or require a retrofit of existing cars to eliminate the option for rail shippers to classify a flammable liquid with a flash point between 100 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit as a combustible liquid. Volatility refers to petroleum's evaporation characteristics. ASTM D323-08 S tandard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid Method ) is used to determine the vapor pressure at 37.8°C (100°F) of petroleum products and crude oils with initial boiling point above 0°C (32°F). (ASTM refers to the American Society for Testing and Materials.) Vapor pressure is an important consideration for both crude oil producers and refiners in determining general handling and initial refinery treatment. Vapor pressure also serves as an indirect measure of the evaporation rate of volatile petroleum solvents; with higher vapor pressures indicating greater losses from evaporations. The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) contract specifications for crude oil futures contracts restrict Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) to less than 9.5 psi at 100" F. Bakken crude oil has an RVP of at least 8.75. Corrosivity due to the presence of naphthenic acids in crude oil is a particular concern for refineries, and had been raised as an issue in permitting the Keystone XL pipeline to transport Canadian oil sand derived crude oil. It is measured as the number of milligrams of potassium hydroxide (mgKOH/g) needed to neutralize the acids in one gram of oil, and reported as Total Acid Number (TAN). As a rule-of-thumb, crude oils with a TAN greater than 0.5 are considered potentially corrosive. Bakken crude oil has a TAN of less than 0.1. The specifications for DOT-III non-pressure tank cars that haul crude oil require a lining with acid-resistant rubber or other approved rubber compound vulcanized or bonded directly to the metal tank. In general, pipelines transporting hazardous liquids must use inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion. In the specific case of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the potential for corrosion is linked to the basic sediment and water entrained in the crude oil. A crude oil's free sulfur content is an indication of potential corrosiveness from the formation of acidic sulfur compounds. Sulfur oxides released into the air during combustion of refined petroleum products are also a major air pollutant. During the decomposition of organic matter that occurs with hydrocarbons in some geologic formations, sulfur may chemically combine with hydrogen to form hydrogen sulfide gas (H 2 S), a highly corrosive, flammable, and toxic gas. Oil and gas reservoirs with high concentrations of H 2 S can be particularly problematic to produce. H 2 S causes sulfide-stress-corrosion cracking in the standard steel casing and valves used to construct oil wells, and thus require a switch to costly stainless steel. PHMSA has a similar concern for sulfide-stress-corrosion in tank cars. During drilling, detection of H 2 S could result in abandoning the well due to concerns for worker safety. (Worker exposure to no more than 0.03 ppm for up to 8 hours is generally considered safe.) Sulfur content is measured as an overall percentage (by weight) of free sulfur and sulfur compounds in a crude oil. Total sulfur content in crude oils generally ranges from below 0.05% to 5%. Crude oils with less than 0.5% free sulfur or other sulfur-containing compounds are typically referred to as "sweet," and above 0.5% sulfur as "sour." Light-sweet crude, however, may contain H 2 S. Bakken crude oil is sweet (below 0.25% free sulfur); however, H 2 S may occur at problematic levels. In May 2013, Enbridge Energy Partners (a crude oil shipper) detected H 2 S at concentrations of 1,200 parts-per-million in a crude oil storage tank. Enbridge consequently made an emergency application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to amend its conditions of carriage, which would give it the right to reject crude containing more than 5 parts-per-million H 2 S (an exposure level that would require personal protective equipment). The classic image of a "gusher" spraying crude oil up into the air through a drilling derrick is typically the result of dissolved methane (under pressure) that provides a conventional petroleum reservoir with a natural gas drive to move the liquid to the surface. This type of liquid/gas mixture is common—to varying degrees—for crude oil, which contains a range of hydrocarbons, ranging from very light and volatile methane (natural gas) and "condensate" (ethane, propane, butane and pentane) through natural gasoline to complex heavy asphaltenes (asphalt). When crude oil reaches the surface, the reduced pressure and temperature releases the dissolved condensates to a gaseous phase. Surface processing equipment separates the gas into various product streams. The "degassed" oil is typically stored in stock tanks before transport (by pipeline, tank truck, or rail car) to a refinery where any remaining condensate may be separated. The Bakken formation produces both crude oil and natural gas. Due to the lack of pipelines to move the gas to a market, it has been flared (combusted) along with any associated natural gas liquids (analogous to condensate). Bakken crude oil is relatively rich in condensates, compared to similar crude oils. Crude oils differ in density (mass per unit volume), and are typically measured in terms of degrees API Gravity (API refers to the American Petroleum Institute). Higher API gravity corresponds with lighter density. Light crude oils generally exceed 38" API, intermediate crudes fall in the range of 22 to 38" API gravity, and heavy crudes fall below 22" API gravity. Bakken crude ranges from 39.7 to 42.2 " API gravity. Light sweet crude has less than 0.5% sulfur. Crude oil futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) are based on West Texas Intermediate (WTI), a particular grade of light sweet crude oil. WTI ranges from 37 to 42" API gravity, has sulfur less than 0.42% by weight, and TAN of 0.28 mgKOH/G. Bakken is comparable to WTI in terms of "API gravity and sulfur (see Table 1 ). Its sulfur content is less than 0.25% by weight, making it a sweet crude oil. Its TAN is less than 0.1 mgKOH/g, making it relatively non-corrosive and comparable to WTI. Figure 1 displays various crude oils produced in the United States by API gravity, and sulfur. Bakken (North Dakota Light Sweet) represents the lighter range of crude oil currently produced in the United States, but by no means the lightest. That title belongs to Texas Eagle Ford crude oil. As shown in Table 2 , Bakken's API gravity is slightly higher than WTI, 2% higher in condensates (light end hydrocarbons), but lower than WTI's upper RVP limit (leaving comparative volatilities open to interpretation). However, Bakken does fall within the upper and lower range of Eagle Ford RVP, which is the lightest crude oil produced in the United States. DOT-111 type tanks cars are "non-pressure" tank cars designed to carry a wide range of products including hazardous and non-hazardous materials. Generally, they cannot exceed 34,500 gallons in capacity or 263,000 lbs. in gross weight on rail. However, the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) can approve a non-pressure tank car loaded up to 286,000 lbs. in gross weight on rail, if it does not contain "poisonous-by-inhalation" material, and operates under controlled interchange conditions agreed to by participating railroads. A tank car becomes overloaded when it exceeds either the maximum gross weight on rail or maximum filling limit. An overloaded rail car can cause its axles to break, or cause the car to exceed the maximum time a car can take to achieve maximum braking. A crude oil shipper has two options in meeting the weight agreement with the rail carrier: provide either a weight from a certified scale, or a weight estimate based on calculations. To calculate the weight limit, the shipper must consider the "light weight" of the tank car (the unloaded or tare weight) and consider the density (API gravity) of the crude oil to be loaded. For illustrative purposes, Figure 2 shows how increasingly heavier API gravity reduces the volume of crude oil that can be loaded into a tank car in order to not exceed the gross rail weight limit. At 50"API, the tank car can hold its maximum volume of 31,800 gallons and not exceed the 286,000 lb. gross weight on rail limit. At 47.3"API, the shipper must begin reducing volume of crude oil loaded into the tank car. At Bakken's highest density of 39.7"API, the tank car can only hold 30,488 gallons—a volume reduction of roughly 1,300 gallons. The reduced volume also creates free space at the top of the tank car, which provides the opportunity for entrained gases to release from crude oil. As crude oil density (and thus API gravity) is temperature dependent, volume will increase as temperature increases. Thus, shippers may have to reduce the volume of crude oil loaded in order to accommodate expansion during shipping. Crude oil shipments by rail have increased in recent years with the development of oil fields in North Dakota. With several derailments and releases of Bakken crude oil, regulators and others are concerned that it contains chemical constituents that exacerbate its volatility and thus its flammability. Absent new pipeline capacity, rail provides the primary "takeaway" capacity for Bakken producers. Unit train shipments of Bakken crude now supply refineries on both the East and West Coasts. However, the U.S. Gulf Coast (Texas and Louisiana) constitutes the most prolific region of domestic crude oil production, and the crude oils produced (WTI, Eagle Ford, and Louisiana Light Sweet, among others) rival Bakken in the characteristics the PHMSA alert has called into scrutiny. The Gulf Coast does benefit from existing pipeline infrastructure; however, producers are relying on rail to access new markets, as evidenced by Eagle Ford crude oil moving from East Texas to St James, Louisiana by rail. All crude oils are flammable, to a varying degree. Further, crude oils exhibit other potentially hazardous characteristics as well. The growing perception is that light volatile crude oil, like Bakken crude, is a root cause for catastrophic incidents and thus may be too hazardous to ship by rail. However, equally hazardous and flammable liquids from other sources are routinely transported by rail, tanker truck, barge, and pipeline, though not without incident. A key question for Congress is whether the characteristics of Bakken crude oil make it particularly hazardous. Conversely, does focusing so much attention on the commodity distract from other causes of transport incidents, such as maintenance practices, safety standards and human error? A further policy question is whether Bakken crude oil significantly differs from other crude oils that the standard practices do not apply, and if so, what policy steps should be taken to remedy safety concerns? | The dramatic increase in U.S. crude oil production, coupled with the increase in crude oil transport by rail, has raised questions about whether properties (e.g., flammability) of these crude types—particularly Bakken crude oil from North Dakota—differ sufficiently from other crude oils to warrant any additional handling considerations. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Safety Alert to notify emergency responders, shippers, carriers, and the public that recent derailments and resulting fires indicate that the type of crude oil transported from the Bakken region of North Dakota may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. The alert reminds emergency responders that light sweet crude oil, such as that coming from the Bakken region, pose significant fire risk if released from the package (tank car) in an accident. PHMSA has expanded the scope of lab testing to include other factors that affect proper characterization and classification of crude oil such as volatility, corrosivity, hydrogen sulfide content and composition/concentration of the entrained gases in the material. All crude oils are flammable, to a varying degree. Further, crude oils exhibit other potentially hazardous characteristics as well. The growing perception is that light volatile crude oil, like Bakken crude, is a root cause for catastrophic incidents and thus may be too hazardous to ship by rail. However, equally hazardous and flammable liquids from other sources are routinely transported by rail, tanker truck, barge, and pipeline, though not without accident. A key question for Congress is whether the characteristics of Bakken crude oil make it particularly hazardous to ship by rail, or are there other causes of transport incidents, such as poor maintenance practices, inadequate safety standards, or human error. |
Gamers expect headaches when it comes to “SimCity.”
Building cities, bulldozing cities, navigating miles of traffic patterns, surviving natural disasters, surviving a monster attack — all of it fuels the addictive nature of “SimCity.” Yet Electronic Arts’ update to the genre-defining 1989 original, released this week, has thus far been hampered by one of the more mundane realities of daily life: server issues.
A significant number of players, including this Hero Complex reporter, have had trouble so much as launching the game, even prompting online retailer Amazon.com to offer a warning to potential buyers. “Many customers are having issues connecting to the ‘SimCity’ servers,” the retailer posted, and Electronic Arts noted Thursday that its back-end infrastructure is “aggressively undergoing maintenance” to correct the issues.
Electronic Arts warned players Thursday that problems with the game may continue in the days ahead. “We are aggressively undergoing maintenance on our servers to add the necessary capacity to meet the demand. Players may continue to play throughout the weekend but we want to note that performance will fluctuate during this time,” said the company in an emailed statement.
“This is, obviously, not the situation we wanted for our launch week and we want you to know that we are putting everything we have at resolving these issues,” wrote senior producer Kip Katsarelis on the game’s official message boards.
While “SimCity” has garnered early rave reviews, it requires users to be constantly connected to the Internet in order to run it. Players need to be logged into Electronic Arts’ content-delivery platform Origin to play the game, and although this could provide such benefits as allowing much of the game’s data to live in the cloud and the game to be played anywhere, it also means users are at the mercy of the company’s servers.
“What we are doing is deploying more servers over the coming two days which will alleviate many of the ongoing issues,” Katsarelis wrote. “We are also paying close attention to all the bug reports we are receiving from our fans. We’ve already pushed several updates in the last few days. Our live ops team is working 24/7 to resolve issues and ensure that bug fixes roll into the game as quickly as possible.”
Early buyers of the game, which was released Tuesday, have reported numerous horror stories online, such as the server locking mid-game and destroying the majority of a built city. The $60 PC game has already garnered more than 1,000 reviews on Amazon, with user after user reporting difficulties in booting the game or losing data.
This is the first “SimCity” game to boast multiplayer capabilities, but even playing as a single player requires an Internet connection. An online petition on Change.org to remove the restrictions that made it necessary to be connected to Electronic Arts’ servers to play the game has garnered more than 20,000 signatures in less than 24 hours.
“Many people with an unstable connection will not even be able to play the game in the first place, let alone anyone who wants to play on the go/with no internet connection,” wrote petition starter Ryan Lashley.
There’s also been confusion as to whether those who purchased the game direct from Electronic Arts’ Origin service could receive a refund if they so desired. Video game site Polygon reported Thursday that a community manager for Origin had posted that customers could request refunds, but Origin noted on its official Twitter that refunds likely won’t be forthcoming.
“In general we do not offer refunds on digital download games,” read the tweet. An Electronic Arts spokesman referred Hero Complex to the aforementioned tweet when asked about the confusion.
The fact that users need to be connected to the Internet to play the game has been a matter of debate and discussion for weeks prior to launch. Lucy Bradshaw, the senior vice president for Electronic Arts developing studio Maxis, wrote a post in December touting the benefits of a game that was always connected to the company’s servers.
“While you play, data from your city interacts with our servers, and we run the simulation at a regional scale,” Bradshaw wrote. “For example, trades between cities, simulation effects that cause change across the region like pollution or crime, as well as depletion of resources, are all processed on the servers and then data is sent back to your city on your PC. ”
Yet thus far Hero Complex has been unable to test the game, and others are downgrading their reviews to reflect the disappointing launch. Polygon, for instance, changed its review from a 9.5 (out of 10) to a 4.0, and IGN has more bluntly advised users to “don’t purchase [‘SimCity’] until there’s a reasonable expectation that you’ll be able to actually play.”
Plenty, however, have apparently sampled “SimCity.” The game’s senior producer Katsarelis bragged that so many users have logged into “SimCity” in its initial days that “40 million pipes filled up with poop.” The simulated infrastructure, at least, appeared to be running smoothly.
— Todd Martens
RECENT AND RELATED
‘Tomb Raider’: Lara Croft now battling video game stereotypes
The PS4: Questions, few answers
Ron Gilbert’s ‘The Cave’ puts adventure back in play
‘Fire Emblem: Awakening’ review: Swords kill, love hurts
Violent video games: Pushing wrong buttons in blame game
PS4: 10 things you need to know about Sony’s new console
Nintendo vows to rethink its approach to the ‘Zelda’ series
Greg Zeschuk: From running BioWare to drinking beer
‘Beyond Two Souls,’ ‘Star Trek’: 13 games to cheer in 2013 ||||| “Just so you know,” my fiancee said to me, “you’re going to lose me to SimCity .”
This was no idle threat. Throughout our relationship I had already lost her to Skyrim for roughly 150 hours and to Diablo III for something approximating that. I am happy to play a game for a few hours and then move on to the next one. She plays fewer games, but exhausts every last drop of enjoyment out of them in marathon sessions that would make Rand Paul blush. This was my fair warning that she expected SimCity , the first edition of the classic metropolis-building simulator in 10 years, to be one of those releases with her sleeping about three hours a night, more as a formality than anything else.
She’d played the beta, her city falling victim to meteor showers and zombie attacks. She knew how to avoid those mistakes at the big show. She’d conspired with our friends Dan and Stan to link their cities up to form Danville, Stanville and Wedgeville, collectively the Tri-State Area. She was ready to stop dreaming and start building.
As you might imagine, this is not what happened next. Electronic Arts’ long-awaited release of SimCity on Tuesday should have been an occasion for a worldwide collective all-nighter of urban planning, a nonstop bacchanal of factory building, endless intricate min-maxing of grids of pavement. 12 a.m. Eastern Tuesday morning should have been SimCity’ s finest hour.
Instead, the whole operation seized up and shit the bed. EA, a technology company with a market capitalization of over $5 billion, could not muster the online servers necessary to handle an influx of players looking to build their cities. This was entirely a problem of EA’s own making, as SimCity was not designed with an offline mode. Even if you don’t want to team up with others and join your cities together, you can’t just build your personal metropolitan layouts in peace: Every player must be constantly connected online, as a draconian step to crack down on piracy of this PC-only game.
Hey, launch hiccups happen, right? Everybody all tries to connect at once, servers get throttled, and you figure out a way to make it work. Trouble is, as of this writing EA hasn’t figured out a thing. SimCity is still totally busted. It’s difficult to log in: Nearly all of the servers are full, and when a player does find one that’s available, attempting to log in usually throws back an error. And you can’t try again until a 20-minute counter finishes ticking down.
Ah, but if the servers are full, that means at least some people are playing the game, right? Yes, but not really. Players are finding that the servers, choking to death on the player load, aren’t saving their game progress. After spending hours playing through the game, many players are confronted with an error screen, forcing them to choose to either roll back their city to a previous save point or trash the whole thing.
In other words, SimCity is currently in the midst of a disaster that makes zombie attacks and nuclear meltdowns seem tame. Electronic Arts’ attempts to fix the problem have not only been unsuccessful, they’ve been making the SimCity blackout even worse, at least from a public relations standpoint: EA said Thursday that it would actually begin removing features from the game in an attempt to get it to run. At first it was non-core features like achievements and high score leaderboards. By the end of the day EA had ripped out the “Cheetah” gameplay mode, which speeds up the passage of time so you can develop your city more quickly.
What’s next? Will EA determine that the skyscrapers are just too tall?
In response to Wired’s request for comment, an EA spokesperson referred us to a blog post by SimCity senior producer Kip Katsarelis, who wrote that Electronic Arts would be adding new servers until the player base could be fully accommodated, and that it would prioritize stabilizing this situation before it turned the game’s features back on. She did not give a timeframe for the resolution.
There won’t be any long-term repercussions, my now long-suffering fiancee said as we drove to work Thursday morning, as the blackout stretched into its third day. There had certainly been short-term ones: On Metacritic, the game currently has over 1800 user reviews that average out to a 1.7 out of 10. And Amazon removed both the downloadable and physical versions of the game from its store, with a note that reads, in part, “at this time we do not know when the issue will be fixed.”
But once this is all solved, she said, it’ll be like nothing happened. She has a point. This is hardly the first DRM-related controversy that’s come up as a new game was released. Remember the great wailing and rending of garments over the launch of Half-Life 2 in 2004? That game simply required you to pop on Valve’s server for a split-second to do a one-time confirmation that you had a genuine game, and then you could get to playing. But gamers, used to instant gratification, were up in arms when this process resulted in some slight delays. “Message boards on Half-Life 2 fan sites were buzzing with talk about the delays and the frustration people felt about being kept from playing,” the BBC News reported at the time. It reported that fake programs promising to unlock your copy of Half-Life but that actually contained a virus were spreading around to impatient players.
And now? The once-reviled Steam service, required to play Half-Life and looked upon as useless bloatware in 2004, is now a beloved addition to any gamer’s desktop. Half-Life 2 was celebrated as the game of the year.
To take a more recent (and more closely analogous) example, there was Blizzard’s launch of Diablo III last spring. The situation was almost exactly the same: Fans, already upset that Blizzard required them to be connected online to play the role-playing game, got their games home and encountered what would become known as Error 37, a full-to-bursting server that rejected their advances. What happened then? Within a few days, Blizzard solved the problems and all frustrations were quickly forgotten. Diablo III went on to sell 12 million copies in 2012, the biggest PC game of the year by a country mile.
The lesson there was: If you screw up and don’t properly plan for the launch of your service, so what? If the game’s good enough, players will stop complaining the second they get in.
Of course, Diablo didn’t also have the issue of erasing players’ progress. Another recent game that did was Ubisoft’s PC version of Assassin’s Creed II , released in 2010. If your internet connection dropped during play for some reason, you’d immediately lose all your progress since the last save point.
What happened there? In fact, the bad PR and outcry from fans over an anti-piracy scheme that seemed to hurt legitimate players far more than it did pirates caused Ubisoft to reconsider. By the next year, it had dropped the always-online schemes, and Assassin’s Creed III only required a single activation.
So maybe there’s a chance that this debacle, whenever it ends, will conclude with Electronic Arts allowing players to enjoy the game without having to connect online. Or maybe EA is willing to suffer through weeks of terrible optics if it means achieving the long-term goal of converting traditionally single-player genres into online experiences. And SimCity is pretty good. The Metacritic user scores might be low, but the reviews from writers who played it before the public got in and overloaded everything were universally positive. So it all might blow over, in the end, with nothing changed.
Either way, I’ll know when the worst is truly over: It’ll be when I look around and realize I haven’t seen my fiancee in days. Then everything will be fine. ||||| Image caption Cities built by players are part of larger online regions
Ongoing problems with the latest version of SimCity led Amazon to briefly stop selling the game.
The web retailer stopped sales late on 7 March as players reported continued problems with the city building title.
The latest version of SimCity was launched on 5 March and, like many current games, demands players stay online as they play.
EA has also taken steps to fix login delays by turning off some features to lighten the load on game servers.
Prior to this latest release, SimCity was a stand-alone game, but EA has added the online element to infuse the title with more realism.
Now player cities exist as part of online regions and share some characteristics of those virtual environments such as pollution, crime and essential resources.
The online requirement is also seen as an attempt to curb piracy of the title as a web connection is required even if a player shuns the chance to connect their cities to others.
However, the requirement for all players of the game to be connected has led some to wait 30 minutes or more to play. The server problems have led to sluggish response times, crashes and other bugs.
Amazon's sales suspension of the downloadable PC version of the game only lasted a few hours, but it has put a warning note on the product page about the "issues" with the game. These have contributed to the one-star score purchasers have given SimCity on Amazon.
Image caption Amazon has posted a warning about the ongoing problems with SimCity
In official discussion forums and on its Twitter feed EA has apologised for the trouble players have had.
In one of its latest messages, an EA spokeswoman said it had added server capacity and rolled out a quick fix to SimCity servers to speed up game play and get more people into the game.
To lighten the load on its back-end servers, EA turned off some features including leader boards and achievements. It has also removed the option to run the game at its fastest setting, known as "cheetah speed". Instead, all cities will now run at the lower "llama speed".
In a message posted to the official EA discussion forums, SimCity's senior producer Kip Katsarelis said the launch week had been "challenging" for the company.
'Growing pains'
However, he added, there was a positive side to the delays.
"What we saw was that players were having such a good time they didn't want to leave the game, which kept our servers packed and made it difficult for new players to join," he wrote.
Games journalist Nathan Grayson, writing on the Rock Paper Shotgun website, praised EA for keeping players informed through Facebook, Twitter and discussion forums about the problems. However, he wondered why games firms were still so unprepared for the launch day deluge of players.
Games makers may laud the always online requirement as the future, he said, but so far no studio had got it right or used that permanent link to do more with a game.
"I haven't seen a single one of these things stick their initial landings or catapult a pre-existing series to new heights," he said. "I have quite a bit of trouble declaring these things 'growing pains' when I barely see any, you know, growth." | The new SimCity racked up some nice reviews from critics, but it's getting abysmal ones from players thanks to the horrific server issues the game is experiencing. Amazon briefly stopped selling the game last night over the problems, the BBC reports. It's back now, but it carries a special warning about the server issues—and 1,190 one-star reviews. "If you'd love to experience the nonstop thrills and excitement of SimCity, then please remove $60 from your bank and promptly pay someone to kick you repeatedly in the friggin' mouth," one customer wrote. To curb piracy, EA requires players to access its servers to play SimCity, even if they don't want to interact with other players. With the servers overloaded, players are experiencing half-hour waits to play, sluggish response times—and, Wired reports in a post scathingly dubbing the game a "DRM Disaster," servers that are failing to save their game progress. EA says it's working to fix the problem. "This is, obviously, not the situation we wanted for our launch week," an EA executive wrote on the game's message board, according to the LA Times. |
On May 9, 2007, President George W. Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51, which is also identified as Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20), on National Continuity Policy. NSPD 51/HSPD 20 updates longstanding continuity policy expressed in various directives issued by previous administrations to assure that governing entities are able to recover from a wide range of potential operational interruptions. Interruptions for which contingency plans might be activated include localized acts of nature, accidents, technological emergencies, and military or terrorist attack-related incidents. Continuity planning is not unique to government; efforts to assure essential operations are broadly integrated into many private sector industries. As with the private sector, government continuity planning is regarded by some observers as a "good business practice," and part of the fundamental mission of agencies as responsible and reliable public institutions. In the public and private sectors, continuity planning may be viewed as a process that incorporates preparedness capacities ranging from basic emergency preparedness to recovery plans and the resumption of normal operations. Unlike the private sector, however, federal continuity planning also incorporates efforts to maintain and preserve constitutional government, on the assumption that certain essential activities typically provided by government must be carried out with little or no interruption under all circumstances. Examples of those activities include the maintenance of civil authority, support for individuals and firms affected by an incident, infrastructure repair, or other action in support of recovery. Such a response presumes the existence of an ongoing, functional government to fund, support, and oversee recovery efforts. To support the provision of essential government activities, NSPD 51/HSPD 20 sets out a policy "to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of continuity of operations and continuity of government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of national essential functions (NEF) under all conditions." The directive identifies eight NEFs that "are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the federal government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis." These are as follows: "Ensuring the continued functioning of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government; "Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people; "Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests; "Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations; "Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests; "Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident; "Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and "Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States." Since operations may be interrupted without warning, NSPD 51/HSPD 20 requires that continuity planning be incorporated into the daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. Executive branch continuity planning emphasizes "geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure to alternate facilities to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions." The directive requires the application of risk management principles "to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences." By mandating planning based on risk analysis, incorporating continuity activities in day-to-day operations, and mandating the utilization of alternate facilities and staffing, the directive appears to incorporate planning assumptions and approaches used widely in the private sector. NSPD 51/HSPD 20 designates the President to lead the activities of the federal government for ensuring constitutional government, and designates the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism as the National Continuity Coordinator (NCC). In coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and without exercising directive authority, the NCC coordinates the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive branch departments and agencies. In consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, the NCC was required to lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan for submission to the President. NSPD 51/HSPD 20 does not explicitly specify the appropriate departments and agencies. The directive specifies a "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council (HSC) staff" appointed by the NCC, and designated as the main day-to-day forum for continuity policy coordination, but also indicates that the NCC will coordinate with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The directive designates the Secretary of Homeland Security "as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies." Other than explicitly denying the NCC the capacity to exercise directive authority, the extent to which any official charged with continuity coordinating responsibilities can enjoin executive branch agencies to comply with their guidance or recommendations is unclear. NSPD 51/HSPD 20 provides that federal executive branch departments and agencies are "assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support" of the NEFs. Agency leaders are required to execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to emergencies that affect their operations. In addition, each agency head is required to appoint a senior accountable official, at the assistant secretary level, as the continuity coordinator for the department or agency; identify and submit to the NCC agency mission essential functions and "develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;" plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities; plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, to evaluate program readiness and ensure the adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and support other continuity requirements, "in accordance with the nature and characteristics of the agency's national security roles and responsibilities." In addition to efforts within the federal executive branch, NSPD 51/HSPD 20 requires the integration of continuity planning with the "emergency plans and capabilities of state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority," and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate that integration "to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency." | On May 9, 2007, President George W. Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51, which is also identified as Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 20, on National Continuity Policy. The directive updates longstanding continuity directives designed to assure that governing entities are able to recover from a wide range of potential operational interruptions. Executive branch efforts to assure essential operations are similar to those that are broadly integrated into many private sector industries. Government continuity planning also incorporates efforts to maintain and preserve constitutional government, based on the assumption that certain essential activities typically provided by government must be carried out with little or no interruption under all circumstances. |
Paris (CNN) François Fillon's scandal-hit campaign to become France's next president took another blow Tuesday when he was placed under formal investigation on multiple counts, including embezzlement of public funds.
The 63-year-old, who has rejected numerous calls to stand down as the Republican nominee, is now likely to face increased pressure over his position.
Fillon has been heavily criticized for failing to quit the race since becoming embroiled in a parliamentary scandal over claims that he paid his wife and children for work they did not do.
Tuesday's announcement, by the National Financial Prosecutor, caps a troubling few days for Fillon. He was forced to apologize for an anti-Semitic tweet sent out by his party earlier this week, and the Journal du Dimanche newspaper alleged that he received a number expensive suits worth thousands of euros from a mystery benefactor.
It said he had received almost 50,000 euros worth of suits and clothing since 2012.
Fillon, who is struggling to make the second round of the French election, has fallen well behind centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and National Front leader Marine Le Pen in the latest polls.
French voters go to the polls on April 23 but if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff election on May 7.
How did we get here?
Fillon's problems began when French newspaper Le Canard Enchainé published reports that his wife and and two of his adult children earned nearly 1 million euros ($1.08 million) as parliamentary assistants but didn't show up for work.
But Fillon has rejected the claims and insists that he has "nothing to hide."
He has said his wife worked for 15 years , as his "deputy," carrying out several roles, including managing his schedule and representing him at cultural events.
Fillon, who was prime minister from 2007 to 2012, said that his daughter and son were employed in similar positions for 15 months and six months respectively, which he said is not illegal, but was an "error of judgment."
The past week has brought new controversies including the Republican party tweeting an anti-Semitic image depicting Macron.
The image was later deleted and Fillon condemned it, tweeting: "I will not tolerate my party using caricatures that use the themes of anti-Semitic propaganda."
On Sunday, he was then forced to defend himself against the allegations he had received suits from an anonymous benefactor.
What now?
Fillon has remained defiant so far and has consistently refused to stand down.
Earlier this month he survived calls to step aside with a number of party members reported to have created a "respectful exit plan" for Fillon.
He held a rally in Paris where thousands of supporters flocked to hear him reject calls for him to step aside once again.
That came after former Prime Minister Alain Juppe said he would not be interested in replacing Fillon as the party's candidate.
Fillon, who apologized for the affair, has constantly spoken out against what he perceives as "incredible violence which has never been seen in the Fifth Republic."
His wife, Penelope, has also spoken out against those spreading "crazy rumors" while insisting her husband would "go on until the end" in his bid for the presidency.
JUST WATCHED French rural voters hope Le Pen brings change Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH French rural voters hope Le Pen brings change 02:41
But Fillon is not alone when it comes to problems with the law.
Le Pen is also under scrutiny after several members of her staff were accused by officials of being paid for non-existent jobs at the European Parliament.
She initially admitted they had been paid while not working, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) said. She later denied having said so.
Le Pen's fractious relationship with Europe was further exacerbated when MEPs voted to rescind her parliamentary immunity over a case involving violent images she posted on Twitter.
An inquiry was opened under a French law banning the distribution of violent images, after Le Pen tweeted images of killings by ISIS militants in December 2015. ||||| Decision over allegations of misuse of public funds increases pressure on campaign of French presidential candidate
The rightwing French presidential candidate François Fillon has been placed under formal investigation for misuse of public funds.
Fillon is alleged to have given his wife and children generous fake jobs funded by the taxpayer as parliamentary assistants.
He becomes the first major candidate to run for France’s highest office while under formal investigation for misusing state money.
Magistrates announced a string of charges on Tuesday, including misuse of public money, misuse of corporate assets and failing to declare his assets to a public watchdog.
The French weekly Le Canard Enchaîné broke the biggest political scandal of the French presidential campaign six weeks ago when it claimed Fillon paid his wife, Penelope, who is British, at least €680,000 of taxpayers’ money for a fake job as a parliamentary assistant spanning 15 years.
He was also suspected of giving two of his children similar fake jobs when he was a senator and they were still students.
It is not illegal to employ a family member as a parliamentary assistant in France, as long as the person is genuinely employed. Fillon has denied breaking the law.
The investigating judges’ move, which in the French justice system does not confirm wrongdoing but means investigators have serious grounds for pursuing the matter, increases the pressure on his troubled campaign.
Under French law, being put under formal investigation means there is “serious or consistent evidence” that points to probable involvement in a crime. It is a step toward a trial but investigations can be dropped without proceeding to court.
Fillon has refused to step down as a candidate. Polls show he could risk being knocked out in the first round vote in April, behind the far-right Front National’s Marine Le Pen, and the independent centrist Emmanuel Macron.
Fillon’s summons to appear before judges in their office was expected to take place on Wednesday, but his lawyer said it was brought forward by a day. Fillon refused to answer their questions, and instead made a declaration saying his family’s jobs were real and he had not broken the law.
The ongoing investigation into the Fillon family is wideranging. From May 2012 to December 2013, while employed full-time as a parliamentary assistant, Penelope Fillon was also paid €3,500 (£3,100) a month by a literary magazine owned by a billionaire French businessman friend, Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere. She allegedly only wrote a couple of book reviews in that time. The Fillons deny wrongdoing and said her employment at the magazine was real.
Penelope Fillon has been summoned to appear before judges at the end of March.
A one-time presidential favourite who once styled himself as a sleaze-free Mr Clean, Fillon had initially promised he would step down from the campaign if he was placed under formal investigation. He said during the primary race that prospective presidents needed to be irreproachable and that ministers under formal investigation could not serve in his government “while dogged by suspicion”.
When it became clear two weeks ago that judges intended to place him under formal investigation, he changed tactics. He has turned on judges and the justice system and attacked the workings of the French state with increasingly inflammatory language, calling for his supporters to rise up and “resist”. He said he was not at fault, but that the media, government and justice system were united in a plot against him.
It is proving difficult for Fillon to focus the spotlight on his manifesto plans to cut public spending and public sector jobs and streamline the French state while under suspicion of misusing public funds.
Le Parisien reported on Tuesday that his two children had transferred part of their salary for their alleged fake parliament jobs into their parents’ joint bank accounts. His daughter, Marie, told investigators that she had paid €33,000 into her parents’ account to pay them back part of her wedding costs after marrying at their 12th-century chateau. His son also transferred money to his parents, which Fillon’s lawyers said was to “pay back rent and pocket money”.
Fillon is also under scrutiny over his spending on clothes. Le Journal du Dimanche reported this week that a mystery benefactor had paid for his luxury bespoke suits. The ethics officer at the French parliament has opened an inquiry to establish whether or not he broke MPs’ rules by not declaring gifts of thousands of euros’ worth of luxury garments.
The paper claimed that since 2012 Fillon had received clothes worth nearly €48,500 made by the firm Arnys, a Parisian tailor favoured by the rich and famous. It reported that his suits had cost around €6,500 each. It also said €35,500 was paid to the shop in cash, but an order for two more suits in early February was paid for by cheque, signed by a “generous friend” who asked to remain anonymous.
Asked about the suits by a newspaper, Fillon acknowledged that a friend had given him two suits in February. “And so what?” He gave no further details on the provider of the gift and said the story was proof of a campaign to wreck his presidential bid.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the hard-left presidential candidate, said this week that it was incredible Fillon didn’t seem to understand why people found all this “abnormal”.
The French presidential campaign has been clouded by corruption issues. Le Pen has refused to attend a summons for questioning in a French investigation into whether her party misused more than €300,000 in European public funds to illegally pay her party workers from the European parliament kitty.
A preliminary inquiry was opened on Tuesday into whether Business France, the French state body that promotes business abroad, had failed to apply a correct tender process in organising the French Tech event in Las Vegas.
The event, at the Consumer Electronics Show, was attended by Macron when he was economy minister. But Michel Sapin, the current minister, said Macron himself was exempt of any suspicion.
“This is a dysfunction of Business France ... This does not concern Emmanuel Macron, his staff or the ministry,” Sapin said. The body was suspected of favouritism by handing the contract to the group Havas without a tender process.
The French anti-corruption association Anticor this week asked the country’s transparency watchdog to examine Macron’s declaration of assets when he became economy minister in 2014, saying it appeared to “lack coherence”.
Macron has insisted his declarations of assets was accurate and had already been checked by the watchdog. ||||| PARIS (Reuters) - Francois Fillon’s troubled election campaign suffered yet another blow on Tuesday when magistrates put him under formal investigation on suspicion of embezzling state funds, a first for a presidential candidate in France.
With less than six weeks to go until the first round of voting, Fillon has been unable to draw a line under allegations that he paid his wife hundreds of thousands of euros of public money for little work.
Tuesday’s decision put him one step closer to a trial and covered a wide range of grounds: suspicion of embezzling public funds, complicity in misappropriating funds, receiving the funds and not declaring assets fully, a judicial source said.
The former prime minister has refused to pull out of the presidential race and on Tuesday his camp and some party allies reacted defiantly to the magistrates’ move, saying the campaign would go on.
“I trust and support Francois Fillon more than ever. No one will steal from the French the change of power they want,” Eric Ciotti, a lawmaker from Fillon’s party, The Republicans, said on Twitter.
Fillon, 63, had already acknowledged he was likely to be placed under formal investigation. Even so, it is unprecedented in modern French election history and flies in the face of the image of probity that helped him win the center-right ticket.
“His campaign was already poisoned by the scandal but now he’s carrying a placard that reads ‘Put under formal investigation’ ... it makes things even more complicated for him,” said Frederic Dabi of Ifop pollsters.
Once the favorite to win the election, Fillon now lags behind independent centrist Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen in opinion polls. Only the two frontrunners go through to the head-to-head second round vote on May 7.
Fillon has denied wrongdoing and said he is the victim of a “political assassination”.
“SERIOUS, CONSISTENT EVIDENCE”
France’s 10-year government bond yield gave up earlier falls to trade flat on the day at 1.10 percent FR10YT=TWEB, while safe-haven German Bund yields fell from 14-month highs DE10YT=TWEB as the Fillon news refocused market attention on French election risks.
Fillon had been due to meet investigators on Wednesday but, in a surprise move, the meeting was brought forward by 24 hours - a move requested by Fillon’s lawyer to spare him the full glare of the media.
Francois Fillon, former French Prime Minister and the Republicains partry candidate in the French presidential elections, speaks at the National Federation of Hunnters General Assembly in Paris, France, March 14, 2017. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann
Fillon made no public comment and his lawyer did not respond to telephone calls. Embezzlement of public funds can be punished by up to 10 years in jail and a 1 million euro fine.
Conservative newspaper Le Figaro quoted Fillon as telling the judges: “You decided to call me for questioning hurriedly for things that date back, in some cases, 20 years,” re-affirming that his wife Penelope did genuine work as his parliamentary assistant.
Fillon’s campaign staff confirmed the comments.
Under French law, being put under formal investigation means there is “serious or consistent evidence” that points to probable involvement of a suspect in a crime.
It is a step toward a trial, but many investigations have been dropped without going to court.
“WE’RE COOKED”
The announcement coincided with media revelations that Fillon’s children transferred back to him large amounts of taxpayers’ money that he also paid them, and news of a parallel inquiry by parliament’s ethics ombudsman into a 13,000 euro ($13,800) gift of two suits Fillon accepted in February.
“We’re cooked,” a senior politician close to Fillon told Reuters before the news he had been placed under formal investigation.
“There’s not a day goes by without more news. The suits saga is a disaster. It’s something people can relate to. And now there’s this story about reimbursements by the children.”
Fillon is not the only candidate facing judicial probes. Le Pen, who is campaigning on a nationalist, anti-immigration platform faces allegations she underpaid taxes on a mansion that she and her father own.
Fillon’s allies point to the steely far-right leader’s refusal to attend judges’ hearings. Le Monde newspaper reported on Tuesday that tax authorities were discussing with Le Pen a possible deal that would see her pay 63,000 euros in back taxes.
A lawyer for Le Pen declined to comment. Another lawyer was quoted by Le Monde as saying the deal was not done yet and that they still disagreed with tax authorities over its claims.
Slideshow (2 Images)
Unlike Fillon, however, opinion polls suggest Le Pen’s anti-establishment campaign has not been damaged by the allegations against her.
For a graphic on French election, click here | A right-wing candidate for French president was placed under formal investigation Tuesday—meaning there's "serious or consistent evidence" of wrongdoing—in an unprecedented move, the Guardian reports. Francois Fillon allegedly misused public funds, specifically by paying his wife more than $720,000 over 15 years to be a parliamentary assistant. According to CNN, the former prime minister allegedly did the same for his two children, bringing the total amount of taxpayer money that went to his immediate family to more than $1 million. In France, it's legal to employ family members as parliamentary assistants, but allegations against Fillon claim these were fake jobs for which no work was done. Fillon, who is currently trailing in third place in the presidential race, claims he's the victim of "political assassination," Reuters reports. He says his wife (who also may or may not have made more than $3,700 a month for a fake job at a literary magazine) did legit work as a parliamentary assistant, keeping track of his schedule and appearing for him at cultural events. Fillon had previously said he would drop out of the presidential race if there was a formal investigation; he now says otherwise. The former presidential front-runner is facing up to 10 years in prison if found guilty. Voting starts in less than six weeks. |
• State TV says Ras Lanuf fallen to loyalists; rebels deny claim • Sarkozy to propose "targeted air strikes" to EU leaders • Ras Lanuf bombarded on all sides from air and sea • Guardian journalist imprisoned • Telegraph.co.uk's interactive map of the key Libyan battle zones
22.45 That's all from the live blog tonight. You can follow all our Libya coverage here .
A rebel vehicle is hit by a shell fired by soldiers loyal to Col Gaddafi, during a battle along the road between Ras Lanuf and Bin Jiwad
22.36 The Telegraph's Washington correspondent Alex Spillius has just filed this report on Barack Obama’s intelligence chief saying Colonel Muammar Gaddafi will defeat the rebels in Libya.
21.34 Excerpts from the Cameron and Sarkozy letter:
It is clear to us the (Libyan) regime has lost any legitimacy that it could have.
To end the suffering of the Libyan people, Muammar Gaddafi and his clique must leave.
We need to send a clear political signal that we consider the Council as a viable political counter-party and an important voice for the Libyan people at this time.
20.51 In a symbol of unity, Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy have sent a letter to EU President Herman Van Rompuy stating “Gaddafi and his clique should leave”.
20.29 William Hague speaking to Channel 4:
Certainly the Gaddafi regime is trying to strike back and listening to his son in the interview that he gave earlier today he sounds like he is declaring war against his own people, so I think it does all add to the grave concerns that we have about the situation...there is a lot more urgent work to do over the next few days.
If they now set out on the bombardment of civilians in many towns and cities and the world could see what was happening then certainly we would be saying there should be a no fly zone. We've done the preparatory work on that with France at the UN security council but it has to be clear that that's legal, that there's a demonstrated need for it and that there is support for it in the Arab world as well.
19.49 Here is the earlier footage of Saif Gaddafi saying they will never surrender.
Saif Gaddafi: Libya will never surrender
19.13 Read the latest from our correspondent in Ras Lanuf, Adrian Blomfield.
For over a week, outgunned civilian irregulars, later supported by defecting army units, had defiantly held the coastal town of Ras Lanuf against a vastly better-equipped enemy.
But on Thursday the ever-intensifying onslaught against them reached a violent crescendo as the Libyan leader stepped up his efforts to force the rebels back towards the revolution's main stronghold in the eastern city of Benghazi.
19.07 Incredible images from New York Times photographer Tyler Hicks. The war photographer, who has covered Kosovo, Chechnya, Congo, Iraq and Afghanistan says he witnessed the "thickest fighting in a single day" that he has ever experienced.
18.56 Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is meeting with young supporters of his father's regime in Tripoli. He claims that victory is "in sight".
18.24 Update from the frontline: the rebel leadership says that the port of Ras Lanuf in eastern Libya is under heavy bombardment, but still in rebel hands.
Asked about a Libyan state television report that forces loyal to Gaddafi had cleared Ras Lanuf of "armed gangs", Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the rebel National Libyan Council, said:
No, this is not accurate.
All we are seeing there is bombardment with heavy artillery from the sea and the air.
The Libyan people are facing genocide, the annihilation of an entire population through the use of air power and heavy artillery. This does not just threaten the security of Libya but that of the whole region.
The U.N. is capable of taking the necessary steps to stop such carnage. We demand a bombardment of the camps where he (Gaddafi) keeps his mercenaries and the roads he uses to transport them and his security forces.
18.22 The Brazilian newspaper says that their reporter, Andrei Netto, is well and with the Brazilian ambassador in Tripoli. The paper says that he was held for eight days in the city of Sabrata, 60 km from the capital, after being captured by Gaddafi's forces.
18.18 Brazilian newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo announces on Twitter that its reporter has been freed. But no word of Guardian reporter Ghaith Abdul-Ahad.
17:59 Zawiyah, the scene of the fiercest fighting over the last few days, has become a "ghost town", according to survivors of the battle there. A Nigerian migrant worker called Silverter told Reuters:
Now the rebels are in control. They are strong and have a lot of ammunition. All they want is to see Gaddafi leave. They do not care how many of them die, they want him out. I saw buildings bombed and people die in front of my eyes. They just dropped dead. Man, the situation was crazy and I said, 'why stay here?'
17:46 The US government is moving to shut down the Libyan embassy in Washington - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says:
We are suspending our relationships with the existing Libyan embassy. So we expect them to end operating as the embassy of Libya.
The state of the Libyan embassy has been confused for some time. On February 28, the State Department said that it received word that Libya had fired its ambassador in Washington, Ali Aujali, after he defected to the opposition, and had replaced him with a regime supporter.
But officials said that Washington still saw Aujali as Libya's ambassador pending efforts to determine the "legitimacy" of a note apparently from the Libyan foreign ministry calling for his dismissal.
Spent shell casings form Arabic script saying "February 17th, Free Libya", made by Libyan rebels in Ras Lanouf (AP)
17:38 More on that quote from Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who was talking to Reuters:
It's time for liberation. It's time for action. We are moving now. Time is out now. It's time for action...We gave them two weeks (for negotiations). We will never ever give up. We will never ever surrender. This is our country. We fight here in Libya. The Libyan people, we will never ever welcome NATO, we will never ever welcome Americans here. Libya is not a piece of cake.
He said that the regime is going to hand back the captured Dutch soldiers:
Today we are going to hand over the Dutch soldiers to the Maltese and Greeks. We told them, don't come back again without our permission. We captured the first NATO soldiers, we are sending them back home. But we are still keeping their helicopter.
17:35 Sources within Nicolas Sarkozy's Union pour un Mouvement Populaire party have said that the French president has raised the possibility of "limited but targeted bombings" in Libya in within-party talks.
A Libyan volunteer moves ammunition on the outskirts of the eastern town of Ras Lanouf, Libya (AP)
17:32 Reports on Twitter that Saif al-Islam, Col Gaddafi's son, has said called for full-scale military operation against Libyan rebels.
17:28 Standard & Poor's, the credit rating and market intelligence service, has reduced Libya's credit rating by four notches to BB, and then suspended its ratings altogether, according to AFP:
In light of the outbreak of civil war, we are lowering our sovereign credit ratings on the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to 'BB/B' from 'BBB+/A-2', S&P said in a statement.
Following these rating actions, we suspended our ratings on Libya due to the imposition of sanctions and because of a lack of reliable economic and political information. Sanctions effectively preclude us from maintaining a sovereign rating on Libya and because we currently lack timely and reliable information to maintain surveillance on the ratings.
17:19 Clarification on Nato's plans, from US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates: apparently the organisation will not be increasing the number of ships in the Mediterranean, but will be moving the ships it has in that sea closer to Libya's coast:
It's my impression that we're really not talking so much about increasing the number of ships, as it is about repositioning ships that are already in the region (closer to Libya).
17:16 Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, the US Defense Intelligence Agency chief, says that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya would be an "act of war":
My understanding as I've studied in my schools, that would be considered an act of war.
17:11 Rebel forces have denied Libyan state TV's claims that Ras Lanuf has fallen, according to Reuters, but they say that government forces are hitting it hard with tanks and air strikes, and have reached well into the coastal town.
Rebel forces outside Ras Lanuf (Getty)
17:05 James Clapper, the US National Intelligence Director, says the outlook is bleak for the rebels, as the regime forces are better equipped and "over longer-term, the regime will prevail":
Gaddafi intentionally designed the military so that those select units loyal to him are the most luxuriously equipped and (are) the best-trained and that is having a telling effect with the rebels. We believe that Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.
16:57 State TV has claimed that Gaddafi's forces have "purged" Ras Lanuf and are now moving towards Benghazi, the rebel's main stronghold:
The town of Ras Lanuf has been purged of armed gangs and the green flags have been hoisted over all (government) buildings. Libyan armed forces are advancing on Benghazi.
16:48 A fuller quote from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato Secretary General:
We need a clear legal basis and I assume that will be a clear UN mandate. The current UN Nations Security Council resolution 1970 doesn't authorise the use of armed forces. Having said that, I can't imagine the international community and the United Nations would stand idly by if Colonel Gaddafi continues attacking his people systematically. But I have to say we do not look for intervention in Libya and we will need a clear legal basis for any action.
16:43 Hillary Clinton has warned against taking unilateral action in Libya:
Absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable.
She adds that the United States is concerned over Gaddafi's remaining chemical weapons as well as "other nasty stuff" he might have in his arsenal.
Shrapnel flies through the air as a tank shell explodes near Libyan rebel fighters in Ras Lanuf. (AFP)
16:29 Three Dutch soldiers captured by Gaddafi-loyal troops are to be freed, according to Libyan state TV.
16:27 More from the Nato Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who says that there is a risk that Libya could become a divided, failed state:
There is... the risk of division within the country and the risk of seeing a failed state in the future that could be breeding ground of extremism and terrorism, so obviously this is a matter of concern. We strongly urge the government of Libya to stop violence and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.
16:25 Loyalist forces have launched a new major offensive in the oil town of Ras Lanuf, according to Al Jazeera English.
16:21 Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, is to visit the Middle East next week, travelling to Egypt and Tunisia and meeting with Libyan opposition members, according to AP.
16:18 Nato are to increase their naval presence in the central Mediterranean.
16:15 William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, is in Brussels for a meeting of EU foreign ministers to discuss action on Libya. He also spoke on the phone to Mahmoud Jabril, Special Envoy of the Interim Transitional National Council, the hurriedly assembled administration in rebel-held areas of eastern Libya:
@WilliamJHague Have spoken to #Libya opposition representative Jabril about pressure on the regime, humanitarian help & no fly zone planning
16:11 Mr Rasmussen also refused to be drawn on whether the situation in Libya is a "civil war", describing it instead as an "armed uprising".
Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Al Jazeera)
16:06 More on the possibility of the imposition of the no-fly zone; Mr Rasmussen says that as well as a clear UN mandate, it would need to be shown that there is a clear need and firm support from other nations in the region. An ITV journalist wonders if such a condition-laden response is sending a rather weak message to Col Gaddafi, but Mr Rasmussen says that Nato will not stand idly by while Gaddafi "systematically" attacks his people.
16:02 Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is giving a live news conference for the organisation in Libya. He says a no-fly zone is a possibility, but would require a clear mandate from the UN and further planning. A BBC reporter asks how unified Nato's front can be when sources in the French government have already started speaking about unilateral military action, but Mr Rasmussen says he will not comment on anonymous rumours.
15.50 Libya State television has reported that Brega, had been cleared of rebels, but a Reuters correspondent in Brega said there was no sign of Gaddafi forces on the ground. Rebels said warplanes bombed Brega during the day.
15.46 Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley says that Ras Lanuf has fallen back into the hands of Gaddafi forces as the remaining rebels flee.
A rebel fighter fires a rocket-propelled grenade launcher in front of a burning gas storage terminal during a battle on the road between Ras Lanuf and Bin Jiwad, Libya
15.39 The European Parliament has passed a resolution calling on the 27-nation bloc to follow France's lead and formally recognise Libya's opposition as the only legitimate authority.
15.38 The United States believed in 2009 that Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam was taking part of the output of an oil field run by France's Total, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
The cable from the U.S. embassy in Tripoli - made available to Aftenposten by the Wikileaks site - said the Libyan leader's son had regularly diverted oil from the offshore al Jurf field, operated by Total in conjunction with Germany's Wintershall and the Libyan National Oil Corp.
15.34 Ras Lanuf death toll. At least four people were killed and 35 wounded in Ras Lanuf so far today after rebels retreated under continous government rocket and sniper fire, a hospital official said.
15.33 Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is "hunkering down" and shows no sign he will give up power, the top U.S. intelligence official told a Senate hearing today. Describing Libyan air defenses, including radar and surface-to-air missiles, as "quite substantial," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said:
We believe that Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.
15.23 The Guardian's correspondent in Rio de Janeiro Tom Phillips tweets:
Brazilian journalist jailed near #Tripoli will be released soon, says Libya's ambassador in Sao Paulo
15.20 In a joint letter with Germany, foreign secretary William Hague says the upheaval in the EU's "southern neighbourhood" presents Europe with "a challenge and opportunity on a scale matching the revolutions of 1989".
15.18 Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel Hamid reports that Gaddafi has offered a $500,000 bounty for the head of the leader of Libya's Benghazi-based transitional national council.
15.04 An injured rebel in Ajdabiya tells BBC Arabic:
Mercenaries have occupied houses in Bin Jawad, they have tied up men, and are taking families as shields while snipers are firing in the streets.
14.46 Guardian reporter Ghaith Abdul-Ahad and a Brazilian colleague who went missing in Libya this week have been arrested and imprisoned by government forces, according to Reporters Without Borders. Both men are being held at an undisclosed location.
Pro-Gaddafi students demonstrate in Tripoli outside the Rixois Hotel, which hosts members of the foreign press
14.37 Benedict Brogan, our deputy editor, has singled out this report from Zawiyah by Alex Crawford of Sky News as an extraordinary gripping and harrowing account. It is published on his blog A must-watch from inside Zawiyah.
14.33 Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says "time is of the essence" in the Libya crisis and the alliance stands ready to act if there is a clear mandate.
14.28 Tony Birtley, reporting for Al Jazeera, describes being caught in the crossfire on the front line of Ras Lanuf. He says:
We've been wondering for the last few days about why Gaddafi has not employed his full forces, and today we've seen those forces in action. We were caught right in the middle as his forces out-flanked, and then out-bombed and out-shot the opposition forces. There was sustained aerial and artillery and mortar bombardment, and then following in by a flanking movement. There have been a number of casualties. We've seen trucks going along the highway, but that's being shelled by Gaddafi forces all the way along. I counted ... 50 shells falling.
14.26 Brazilian newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo confirms that its missing reporter in Zawiyah, Andrei Netto, is under arrest. According to the newspaper, Brazilian authorities are negotiating his release. The newspaper had has lost all contact with Mr Netto since Sunday.
14.22 Offshore oil tankers are bombing the shores of Ras Lanuf according to reports by Reuters. A rebel source in eastern Libya said that forces loyal to Gaddafi are firing rockets from offshore oil tankers at rebel positions onshore at the oil port of Ras Lanuf. He said:
I see them with my own eyes. The oil tankers are rocketing the town. Planes are also bombing and rockets are being launched from the land.
(L-R) Defence Ministers Carme Chacon (Spain), Vecdi Gonul (Turkey), Liam Fox (UK) and Robert Gates (USA) meet at NATO headquarters in Brussels
14.14 Ghazi Gheblawi, a surgeon and blogger in Libya, tweets optimistically:
France 's recognition of Libyan #TNC is a big step, its expected that many EU countries will follow suit #Libya
A much quieter day in #Azzawiya and #Misurata, but the people are under alert for any new attacks by #Gaddafi forces #Libya
14.08 More on AFP's report that Sarkozy will propose limited air strikes on Libya. He will propose "striking an extremely limited number of points which are the source of the most deadly operations" by forces loyal to Kadhafi, said the source, who asked not to be named. The three sites being considered are Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia command headquarters in Tripoli, a military air base in Syrte, east of Tripoli and another in Sebha in the south, the source added. Sarkozy's office declined to confirm the claim when contacted by AFP.
14.06 Libyan state television has reported that Gaddafi forces have cleared Es Sider port and airport from what it said were armed elements backed by al Qaeda, a reference to rebels.
13.51 Sir John Major, former Tory Prime Minister, says that the West could impose a no-fly zone over Libya without a direct United Nations mandate. He told Roland Watson, The Times political editor, that a UN resolution was “desirable if you can get it, not absolutely essential”. He said:
Even if there’s not one, don’t think that’s an absolute bar to a no-fly zone.
A Libyan rebel fighter takes cover during a battle on the road between Ras Lanuf and Bin Jawad
13.42 Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said any NATO military action in Libya would have to be based on there being a demonstrable need and a clear mandate and with support in the region.
13.39 French President Nicolas Sarkozy will propose "targeted air strikes" of Libya to EU leaders, AFP reports.
13.36 Tony Birtley, Al Jazeera reporter in Ras Lanuf, says his car was narrowly missed by a shell. He said there were unconfirmed reports that a government attack was being launched from the beach on the city.
13.34 Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel Hamid, reporting from Benghazi, says there is a feeling there that "the tide is reversing", and people are worried the city could be next in line for Gaddafi's backlash.
I think there is a realisation that this is going to be a long, long uprising - and that they are still exposed. The military command here feel that as long as there is no international backup, there is not much they can do.
13.28 Swedish journalist Per Altenberg is warning fellow correspondents, including Peter Beaumont at the Observer, to move out of Tripoli as the risk of being taken hostage is increasing. He tweets:
Journalist hostage situation likely if rebels advance to Bin Jawad and toward Sirte. Get on media bus out of #Tripoli
13.20 Ben Wedeman, a CNN reporter in Ras Lanuf, tweets:
We are doctors, we have no weapons. Why are they doing this?" Dr Fathi from bombarded Ras Lanouf hospital.
13.18 The BBC's Pascal Harter in Benghazi says she has been shown mobile phone footage of what was alleged to be the bodies of soldiers who had been bound and shot for refusing to open fire on civilians
13.11 A rebel fighter fleeing Ras Lanuf tells AFP:
We've been defeated. They are shelling and we are running away. That means that they're taking Ras Lanuf.
13.09 UN human rights chief Navi Pillay has said that abuse suffered by three BBC journalists after they were detained by Libyan soldiers and secret police could amount to torture. The High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a statement:
For them to be targeted, detained and treated with such cruelty, which could amount to torture, is completely unacceptable and in serious violation of international law.
12.54 Rebels are retreating east from the Libyan oil town of Ras Lanuf, packed into dozens of vehicles under rocket attacks, AFP reporters said.
12.47 Gaddafi has asked Algeria to mediate with the UN Security Council to obtain a lifting of sanctions against Tripoli, Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci has disclosed. Medelci told the Arab-language daily El-Khabar:
My Libyan counterpart (Moussa Koussa) sent me a letter 36 hours ago in which he asked for Algerian mediation with the Security Council to have it renounce certain sanctions imposed on Libya.
Medelci said he had replied that it would be "preferable" to deal with the subject of sanctions "within an Arab League framework".
A rebel fighter fires a rocket-propelled grenade at a Libyan airforce plane in Ras Lanuf
12.43 Libya will consider severing ties with France after news that Paris would recognise the rebel Libyan National Council, the official Libyan news agency Jana reports. An unnamed foreign ministry official said:
Libya will think about severing its relations with France because of information being circulated about France's damaging intervention in Libya's internal affairs.
12.42 Members of the rebel Libyan National Council are "valid interlocutors", the Foreign Office said. A spokesman for the Foreign Office said:
The UK recognises states, not governments. The interim national council are valid interlocutors, with whom we wish to work closely.
12.35 Minister for Europe David Lidington has met with International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo and said the UK will do all it can to support the ICC's investigation into the Libyan regime. He said:
The ICC's recent opening of an investigation into the Libyan regime has been welcomed by the UK, and during our meeting today I stressed to Mr Ocampo that the UK will do all it can to assist and support the ICC in this important work.
12.30 Rob Crilly, the Telegraph's Pakistan correspondent, is in Benghazi, Libya but finds it's a small world after all. He tweets:
Benghazi: my translator went to Langley Park, a school against which I used to play rugby. Small world...
12.27 Syria is against foreign intervention in Libyan affairs as Western states debate how they should respond to the current crisis. The Foreign Ministry said in a statement:
Syria affirms its rejection of all forms of foreign interference in Libyan affairs, since that would be a violation of Libya's sovereignty, its independence and the unity of its land.
12.23 A Libyan government plane landed in Paris on Wednesday night, a Western official told AFP, amid reports Gaddafi is sending emissaries to Europe. The anonymous official said the Falcon 900 touched down in Paris ahead of pivotal talks on Libya in Brussels today among EU foreign ministers and NATO defence chiefs.
12.16 Any deployment of UK forces in policing a no-fly zone over Libya would be debated by the House of Commons, the Government indicated today. Commons Leader Sir George Young told MPs:
We would indeed propose to give the House an opportunity to debate the matter before troops were committed.
Libyan rebel fighters during a battle on the road between Ras Lanuf and Bin Jawad
12.08 ChangeInLibya tweets:
Bin Jawad is back in revolutionary hands, who are now much more organised thanks to help from defected Libyan army
12.03 Libyan news agency says it is in possession of a "grave" secret that could topple French President Nicolas Sarkozy, BBC Monitoring reports. "Al-Jamahiriyah news agency learnt today there is a grave secret that would definitely lead to the toppling of Sarkozy and perhaps his trial. The secret is related to the funding of his electoral campaign," said an urgent caption on Libyan State TV.
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, an Iraqi national, had been working the Guardian newspaper
11.58 The Guardian correspondent, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, is missing having not been in touch with the paper since Sunday when he was on the outskirts of Zawiyah. The Guardian has been in contact with Libyan government officials in Tripoli and London and asked them to urgently give all assistance in the search for Abdul-Ahad, an Iraqi citizen, and to establish if he is in the custody of the authorities. He was travelling with Andrei Netto of the Brazilian newspaper Estado de Sao Paulo, who is also missing.
11.55 The oil town of Brega was bombed today as Gaddafi made attacks deeper into rebel-held territory in the east of Libya, rebels reported. Brega has not be targetted for several days. The town is about 90 km (56 miles) east of Ras Lanuf.Rebel fighter Mohamed Othman, told Reuters:
There's just been an airstrike on Brega - two jets, two bombs.
11.52 The hospital in the Libyan oil town of Ras Lanuf evacuated under rocket fire today as forces loyal to Gaddafi advanced closer on rebel positions, an AFP reporter said. Doctors and medics were fleeing the premises in panic, on foot and crushing into ambulances, taking patients with them.
Libyan rebel fighters during a battle on the road between Ras Lanuf and Bin Jawad.
11.50 The EU has extended its financial sanctions, adding five financial institutions whose assets and resources will be frozen to a list of more than two dozen individuals close to the Libyan leader.
11.48 The European Union is in no danger of an oil shortage and cannot be blackmailed by leader Muammar Gaddafi, European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has said. He commented:
In the entire European market ... we get only two percent of our oil from Libya, so we are not vulnerable to blackmail from Gaddafi.
11.47 Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Italy would adopt the stance ultimately taken by the European Union on whether to recognise the rebel Libyan National Council as the legitimate representative of Libyans. When asked if Italy would follow France in backing the rebels, he said:
That's a decision by a single government. I think it's better for us to listen to the stance of the entire European community.
11.41 50 Cent, the rapper, joins a growing list of pop stars who performed for members of Gaddafi's family at exclusive parties around the world. He will be making a donation to UNICEF to provide relief to Libyan civilians. Beyonce, Nelly Furtado, Mariah Carey and Usher have all issued statements saying they would donate or had already given money to charities after they appeared for the Gaddafi family in recent years.
11.36 South African President Jacob Zuma told Gaddafi during a recent phone call to stop the killing of civilians immediately, foreign minister Maite Nkoane-Mashebane told a news conference. She said:
Gaddafi called our president. He told Gaddafi how we abhor the heinous violation of human rights against his own people
11.34 An army siege is preventing supplies of food and medicine from reaching insurgents in the western Libyan city of Zawiyah, where residents braced for more street-to-street fighting today, AFP reports.
11.29 Panos Haritos, a Greek journalist, tweets about the escalating bombing raids near Ras Lanuf.
Fighter plane drop 2 bombs 80 meters away from our camera crew at the out skirt of #Ras Lanouf. All of us ok.
Smoke billows from the fighting in Sidra six miles west of Ras Lanuf
11.17 Portugal has announced that it has cut its ties with the Libyan government after meeting with an envoy from the opposition national council. Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado said he had sent a message to Gaddafi through a Tripoli envoy saying:
The Gaddafi regime is over
11.14 Further tales of Gaddafi's crackdown on international journalists working in Libya. Peter Beaumont, Observer foreign affairs editor tweets:
Hearing that now Libyan authorities trying to take laptops off journalists leaving Tripoli airport along with SIM cards
He later adds: "Less and less flights leaving Tripoli. Tunisair stopped as of last night. Soon we'll be unable to fly out."
11.10 As rebel forces try to move from Ras Lanuf towards Bin Jawad Al Jazeera compares the movement back and forth as a game of "cat and mouse" between Gaddafi troops and opposition militia.
11.08 Paul Waugh blogs for Politics Home on what legal powers the UN has to authorise a no-fly zone. He refers to comments made by the UN secretary general who said a new mandate would be required before the UN was able to authorise the use of armed forces.
11.01 Libyan state TV has aired footage of blindfolded rebels admitting links to Al Qaeda.
10.46 Two shells have hit the centre of Libya's rebel-held Ras Lanuf landing about 500 metres from the hospital, AFP reports. One rebel shouted
They're getting too close. Some of us are still there, but alot of us are pulling out. They're getting too close
Another blamed the international media coverage and said:
You know whose fault this is? This is the media's fault. They're showing them all our positions
10.41 Gaddafi's international assets may be frozen but he has "tens of billions" in cash hidden in Tripoli, the New York Times has claimed. Sourcing American and other intelligence officials it said:
Colonel Qaddafi has control over the huge cash deposits, which have been stored at the Libyan Central Bank and other banks around the Libyan capital in recent years...Since the protests and fighting erupted, some of the money may have been moved into Colonel Qaddafi’s Tripoli compound, Bab Al Azizia, according to one person with ties to the Libyan government. While United States intelligence officials said they could not confirm such a move, one official said that Colonel Qaddafi “likely has tens of billions in cash that he can access inside Libya".
10.37 Life has returned to normal in the rebel-held western city of Misrata, 150 kilometres (90 miles) from the capital Tripoli, which was last week the target of several offensives led by Kadhafi forces. A witness told AFP:
There is a total calm in the city and life is begining to return to normal
At least 21 people were killed, including a child, and dozens were wounded in fierce clashes and heavy shelling in Misrata last week, according to a medical source.
10.34 Russia's foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that Russia was willing to listen to proposals for a no-fly zone over Libya, saying Moscow's approval depended on how the system would work.
Libyan rebels take shelter behind a wall to protect themselves from shelling in Sidr
10.27 Libya's state television has broadcast what it claims is a telephone conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Tripoli and the commander in charge of rebel forces in the east, Omar Hariri. The U.S. ambassador, listed as Gene Cretz on the embassy website, asked how he could keep secure contact with Hariri, what contacts Hariri had with embattled western cities like Zawiyah and what forces the rebels controlled.
10.23 Nato has started round-the-clock surveillance of the air space over Libya. A Nato official said the first airborne warning and control plane went on patrol at 6:30 GMT this morning. Each of the Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft will remain over the Mediterranean for eight hours before being replaced by another plane.
10.15 Further international sanctions have been announced against Gaddafi and his family. Australia has imposed sanctions on the dictator and his inner circle, including bans on financial dealings with 22 individuals and bans on entering Australian territory. Austria has ordered a freeze of any assets belonging to Gaddafi, his family and other associates. Its central bank has said some 1.2 billion euros ($1.66 billion) in Libyan assets were deposited in Austrian institutions.
10.13 France has become the first country to recognise Libya's opposition national council as the country's "legitimate representative," after President Nicolas Sarkozy met in Paris with its envoys. France is to open an embassy in Benghazi and will allow the Libyan embassy in Paris to reopen.
Nicolas Sarkozy with Mahmud Jibril (2nd right) and Ali al-Essawi of Libya's Interim Governing Council
10.06 Although the Obama administration has not decided how to intervene in Libya yet the White House is working to prevent mercenaries from entering the country to fight on behalf of Gaddafi. Josh Rogin blogs on the Foreign Policy website:
The White House is working to stop the flow of mercenaries fighting for Qaddafi entering the country from countries surrounding Libya like Chad and Niger.
"We've been working to ensure there isn't a flow of people into Libya," said Samantha Power, the National Security Council's senior director for multilateral affairs, on a Wednesday conference call with non-governmental groups. The call was off the record, but a recording was provided to The Cable.
10.04 Gen Merrill McPeak, a former US Air Force chief of staff says he "can't imagine an easier military problem," than the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya. In a Nicholas D Kristof piece in the New York Times Gen McPeak said:
If we can't do this, what can we do? I think it would have a real impact. It might change their calculation of who might come out on top. Just the mere announcement of this might have an impact.
09.59 Testimony of what life is like for citizens in Gaddafi-controlled Tripoli from Caroline Thomas in Zarziss, Tunisia. In an email to the BBC she writes:
Although we are no longer in Libya, we are in phone contact with friends in Tripoli... Since the first Tripoli uprising, the night of 21 February, most of the population have been trapped in their houses... One friend has recently told us that the families of the dead protesters are too afraid to take the bodies to the cemetery, so they are burying them in their gardens, or keeping them in their apartments with air con on very cold to try to preserve them. These are their dead sons, brothers, husbands, fathers. Everybody we speak to in Tripoli say they are absolutely terrified of Gaddafi's forces.
09.54 Former UK ambassador to the UN prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq Jeremy Greenstock warns against military intervention. He told the BBC:
Intervention tends to go wrong - it tends to have consequences that are the opposite of what you meant. Where will you draw the line?
09.48 Red Cross president Jakob Kellenberger says doctors in Libya are seeing a sharp rise in casualties, mostly civilians. He said:
We have now a non-international armed conflict, or what you would call civil war
09.46 Zawiyah is now under Gaddafi's control, according to AFP, after succumbing to the regime's superior fire-power. A resident of the town near Tripoli said it followed intense fighting in which rebel lines were blasted by tanks and artillery.
Libyan rebel fighters during a battle against government forces near Bin Jawad
09.39 An insight into the government soldiers fighting against rebels. James Wheeler tweets:
Surgeon in Ajdabiya: treating a captured #Gaddafi soldier who says he was told to go fight invading Americans..but found his own ppl #Libya
09.36 Tristan Redman, the Paris producer for Al Jazeera, describes the multiple fronts on which Gaddafi is attacking Ras Lanuf. He tweets:
Reports that artillery assault on #raslanuf by pro-gov forces now on 3 sides. From sea to nth, desert to sth, road to west
09.31 Further confusion over who has control of Zawiyah. Ian Lee, a freelance journalist and filmaker, tweets:
Went to a "spontaneous" victory party for the gov in Zawiyah. From all appearances it looked well organized. No word if city fell
09.27 Germany's economy ministry says it has closed all accounts belonging to Libya's Central Bank, the Libyan Investment Authority and several others.
09.24 During this morning's aerial bombardment bombs or missiles were landing a few km (miles) from Ras Lanuf oil refinery and close to a building of the Libyan Emirates Oil Referiny Company (LERCO) building, according to witnesses. Rebel fighter Izeddine Sheikhy told Reuters:
One bomb landed on a civilian house in Ras Lanuf
He said the bombardment seemed to have come from the direction of the sea.
09.18 Pascale Harter, reporting for the BBC in Benghazi, says Russia's ban on arms sales to Libya will have little discernable effect on the ground in Libya for some time, as Col Gaddafi has huge stockpiles of weapons.
09.16 The BBC's Wyre Davies disagrees with commentators who have claimed a no-fly zone would be ineffective. He points out that much of the government effort to retake important rebel-held territory in the east hinges on an air campaign.
09.10 Continued fighting has caused a rise in oil prices in early trading today. Brent crude for April delivery rose 53 cents to $116.47.
Libyan rebel fighters during a battle against government forces near Bin Jawad
09.07 Liam Fox has disagreed with his US counterpart Robert Gates saying it is not necessary to wipe out Libya's air defence system to implement a no-fly zone.
Fox said attacking Libya's air defences might not be necessary, citing the no-fly zones imposed over Iraq from 1991 to 2003.
09.04 French president Nicolas Sarkozy is due to meet an envoy from Libya's rebel national council in the next few hours.
08.59 Gaddafi would agree to talks on the transition of power, Portuguese daily Publico has quoted a diplomatic source as saying after Foreign Minister Luis Amado met Gaddafi's envoy in Lisbon.
The source told Publico the message had to be taken with caution as it was given in response to Amado's proposals for a cessation of hostilities against the rebels and a peaceful change of power in the north African country.
08.57 The son of Libya's first revolutionary, whose father was hanged 80 years ago by the Italians, has said he has no doubt the rebels will win. Mohammed Omar al-Mukhtar, 90, said:
They should hold themselves up and fill themselves with courage. God shall support them and give them victory
His father's 20-year guerrilla war against Italian colonial rulers made him a national hero, inspired generations of Libyans and was immortalised by Oscar-winning actor Anthony Quinn in the 1981 film "Lion of the Desert".
08.55 Multiple air strikes on Ras Lanuf have taken place again this morning, AFP reports.
08.47 A government soldier, Ayman Kikly, 29, told the Washington Post that rebels fought with antiaircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenades and homemade bombs at Zawiyah, but "the citizens who live here stood with the army, and they were outnumbered".
08.45: Britain and its allies should think ''long and hard'' before sending warplanes to protect Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, has warned.
He has written a blog for the Daily Telegraph explaining why a no-fly zone is not the way to deal with Libya.
08.40: Al-Qaeda and foreign intelligence agencies are behind the popular uprising in Libya, according to the Moussa Koussa, the country's Foreign Minister.
08.35: Extraordinary claims from Rex Tillerson, the Exxon Mobile CEO, who says oil prices are not yet hurting economy despite rising petrol costs.
High petrol prices "creates some real challenges" for families and their household budgets. When the price rises even more it's a "significant emotional event for a lot of people".
Libyan protesters hold a giant flag on top of a building during a demonstration in the seaport city of Tobruk
08.33 More from Liam Fox. He has told the BBC he believes we are seeing a "relative stalemate between the military forces" in Libya.
The regime itself is digging in around Tripoli. It is able to protect its own areas and the oil installations but it doesn't seem to have the military mass to move decisively against the rebel forces and the reverse is true. What that potentially means is a lot of suffering for the people of Libya and the best result for the whole country is for Col Gaddafi to realise he is a liability to his country and people, and to leave.
08.31 Brazilian newspaper Estado de Sao Paulo says it has lost all contact with its reporter in Zawiyah. The newspaper says it has unconfirmed information that 34-year-old Andrei Netto was placed under arrest, along with another Libyan journalist and a guide. The editors have not been able to contact Mr Netto since Sunday. The Brazilian embassy is investigating.
08.28 Libya's oil port of Brega is out of crude oil stocks due to weeks of unrest, forcing crude tankers to leave the port without any cargo.
08.27 Libyan rebels fired rockets in the direction of the sea today after reports that Libyan gunboats in the Mediterranean Sea may have attacked rebel positions on the front line in the oil-producing east.
Goktay Koraltan, a BBC cameraman, was beaten by the authorities in Libya.
08.23 Beaten BBC cameraman Goktay Koraltan, said the three BBC journalists were all convinced they were going to die. During their detention, the BBC team saw evidence of torture against Libyan detainees, many of whom were from Zawiyah. He said:
I cannot describe how bad it was. Most of them [other detainees] were hooded and handcuffed really tightly, all with swollen hands and broken ribs. They were in agony. They were screaming.
08.18 International Committee of the Red Cross president Jakob Kellenberger will hold a press conference on Libya at 9am GMT in Geneva today.
08.17 Russia's decision to ban weapon sales to Libya will impact on a $2billion arms deal with Gaddafi's government. It has been reported by the Russian daily Kommersant that the Kremlin was close to concluding a further $1.8billion deal which included fighter jets and ground-to-air missiles. Libya is the biggest buyer of Russian weaponry.
08.12 According to reports by Al Jazeera the rebels are claiming that they have taken back the town of Zawiyah. This has been denied by the Gaddafi regime. However, the opposition forces have been pushed back from Bin Jawad after fierce fighting.
Libyan protesters hold a giant flag on top of a building during a demonstration in the seaport city of Tobruk (Picture: REUTERS).
07.55: Dr Liam Fox has told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that there needs to be a strong legal basis for a no fly zone to be imposed.
The Defence Secretary said that the NATO meeting would explore "all the options" rather than make any decisions on a no fly zone.
He described increasing number of reports of violence as a "very worrying trend". Amid a split over what a no fly zone would entail, he said that there would need legal backing for such a decision.
He said that attacking Libya's air defence networks was one option being looked at.
There is a very clear understanding that we want to get a a legal basis for this (no fly zone).
What we are seeing at the moment is a relative stalemate between the military forces in Libya and in reverse.
"Col Gaddafi needs to realise that the best result for his cvountry and his people is for him to leave."
07.45: Foreign Office threatens 'day of reckoning' for Gaddafi regime after BBC team beaten in Libya.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (left) and Foreign Secretary William Hague (Picture: REUTERS).
07.40: The White House has been forced to defend its response to the escalating crisis in Libya, insisting it had taken dramatic action and rejecting criticism that it had been too cautious.
Spokesman Jay Carney dismissed suggestions that Washington had failed to act with sufficient urgency.
He compared the international response to Libya with the reaction to the Balkan wars of the 1990s. It took three months to impose an arms embargo on Yugoslavia after Croatia declared independence, he said.
In the case of Libya, it was just nine days. He told reporters in Washington:
There has never been a situation where the international community, with leadership by the United States, has acted as quickly as it has to respond to this kind of situation.
It is very important for people to understand the kind of dramatic action that has been taken with the leadership of this president and will continue to be taken as we move forward.
Earlier President Barack Obama's top national security aides emerged from private talks in the White House Situation Room amid growing sense that imposing a no-fly zone over Libya would have a "limited impact".
The White House has come under fire from some critics for what they say is its failure to match tough talk with action to help rebels force Gaddafi from power.
An editorial in The New York Times stated:
The Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility.
07.35: David Cameron has defended William Hague as an “excellent” minister amid fresh attacks on the Foreign Secretary.
Queenie Fletcher with a photograph of her daughter Yvonne who was killed outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984 (Picture: PAUL GROVER)
07.30: The mother of murdered WPC has spoken out in support of rebels trying to oust Col Gaddafi amid renewed hope of bringing daughter's killer to justice.
Yvonne Fletcher, 25, was shot while on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London when a demonstration turned violent 27 years ago.
The killer has never been identified, despite her mother Queenie visiting Libya to make a personal plea to Col Gaddafi.
Mrs Fletcher, 77, hopes that regime change could finally solve the murder.
Speaking outside her home in Semley, near Shaftesbury, Wilts., she said:
People are standing up against Gaddafi. This could change things and that could help.
If Gaddafi goes we will have someone completely new who I hope will hand over the killers. The authorities know who they are.
It could make such a difference if he wasn't there. He has dominated the country too long. I don't know why he is protecting them. He should give them up.
07.25: Colonel Gaddafi was so vain and paranoid that he declined a full anaesthetic during cosmetic surgery because he feared he might be assassinated, two Brazilian doctors have told The Times.
Liacyr Ribeiro and Fabio Naccache told how they flew secretly to Libya in 1994 to perform facial procedures and a hair transplant on the Libyan dictator.
Disclosing a secret they have held for almost two decades, Dr Naccache told the paper:
He wanted to look younger, he thought he was getting old.
He had a good head of hair, but some bald areas, which I tidied up.
07.20: Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist, has posted a blog titled "On the frontline in Libya" featuring dramatic footage from Al-Jazeera showing bombs raining down on Ras Lanuf.
Squatter calling themselves Topple the Tyrants, hung anti-regime banners from the house (Picture: CLARA MOLDEN)
07.15: The Greek government has said that Mohammed Tahir Siyala, the Libyan undersecretary for co-operation, will meet Deputy Foreign Minister Dimitris Dollis in Athens later on Thursday.
07.10: Russia will ban all weapons sales to Libya, the Kremlin has said, effectively suspending its arms contracts with the Gaddafi regime, Reuters reports.
An order signed by President Dmitry Medvedev "bans the export from the Russian Federation to Libya as well as the sale, delivery and transfer... of all types of arms and related materials, including weapons and ammunition, combat vehicles and military hardware".
Russia, the world's second-largest arms exporter after the United States, was one of the main suppliers of weapons to Libya.
A senior Russian arms official said last week the unrest in Libya had cost Moscow £2.48 billion in arms deals.
07.00 For all our Libya coverage click here.
Nato will on Thursday discuss imposing a no-fly zone over Libya in the absence of a United Nations resolution as air strikes against rebels on Wednesday highlighted the need for urgent action.
A BBC television crew seized at a checkpoint in western Libya were held, beaten and given mock executions in the most extreme case of the Gaddafi regime's harassment of international journalists.
The price of petrol has hit £6 a gallon for the first time, as unrest in North Africa and the Middle East sends up the price of driving in Britain.
The governor of Libya's Central Bank has fled to Turkey after promising to give support to international efforts to secure Col Muammar Gaddafi's assets.
A London mansion owned by Saif Gaddafi, son of the dictator of Libya, is being occupied by a group of activists and habitual squatters.
A rebel fires a rocket-propelled grenade as an oil installation burns in Ras Lanuf (Picture: REUTERS).
Libya's Gaddafi regime has escalated its ferocious military campaign across the country, forcing rebels onto the defensive on three fronts.
06.30 Good morning. Welcome to The Telegraph's live coverage of the Libya crisis as well as any other updates in the volatile Middle East region.
Libya as it happened March 9
Libya protests: as it happened March 8
Libya protests: as it happened March 7
Libya protests: as it happened March 4
Libya protests: as it happened Mar 3 ||||| LONDON |
LONDON (Reuters) - Any no-fly zone over Libya must have international backing and not be a U.S.-led effort, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday.
"We want to see the international community support it," she told Sky News when asked about a no-fly zone over Libya.
"I think it's very important that this not be a U.S.-led effort because this comes from the people of Libya themselves. This doesn't come from the outside, this doesn't come from some Western power or some Gulf country saying 'This is what you should do'," she said.
Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are trying to suppress a revolt against his 41-year rule.
Clinton said the crisis could be protracted.
"We've called for Colonel Gaddafi to leave. We believe that he has totally given up any legitimacy to power. When a leader turns against his own people, that is the end. But we know that there is a long road ahead for being able to try to resolve this.
"We'd like to see this resolved peacefully. We would like to see him (Gaddafi) go peacefully. We would like to see a new government come peacefully," Clinton said.
"But if that's not possible, then we are going to work with the international community. Now there are countries that do not agree with that and we think it's important that the United Nations make this decision, not the United States. So far the United Nations has not done that," she said.
Asked about the possibility of lifting a recently imposed arms embargo on Libya and supporting the rebels, Clinton said:
"Everything is being looked at. It is difficult in the midst of this civil conflict that's going on now to even know how you would do that, because right now it's not clear what part of the country is actually under rebel control."
Britain and France are working on a U.N. Security Council resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya which they could put forward if they believed conditions warranted it.
But Western allies still appear divided over the wisdom of a no-fly zone and how it would be implemented, and there are doubts over whether China and Russia would support a Security Council resolution authorizing such a zone.
Pressed on whether the United States would support a no-fly zone, Clinton said: "We are going to support the efforts that are being made because we think that the people of Libya themselves have to be supported and we know how difficult this struggle is."
President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed in a telephone call on Tuesday to press forward with planning on a range of possible responses to the Libyan crisis, including a no-fly zone, the White House said.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said earlier on Tuesday that a no-fly zone would have to have "a clear legal basis, a demonstrable need and strong international support."
(Reporting by Olesya Dmitracova and Adrian Croft; editing by Janet Lawrence) ||||| A joint British and US statement said a plan for a no-fly zone, as requested by many of the rebels, was among the ideas being discussed. Action would also include surveillance and enforcement of the arms embargo against Libya.
The two men spoke as residents of the town of Zawiyah to the west of Tripoli took to the rooftops with loudhailers to appeal to their fellow-citizens not to give up the fight as scores of tanks streamed into the central square.
Fragmented reports from the town, where telephones, electricity and the internet have all been cut, said shells were hitting residential buildings and mosques and bodies were lying in the streets.
Television footage of the two-week-long battle for control of the town showed dead bodies of soldiers lying in the streets and casualties pouring into the hospitals.
In the east of the country, rebel forces managed to maintain control of the town of Ras Lanuf, also seat of an oil terminal, despite aerial bombardment that included at least five air strikes, including on a block of flats.
But attempts to break out to the west were met with devastating government firepower, leading to a rebel decision to reinforce its volunteer troops with units of the regular army that have defected to their side but not yet been employed against their former comrades.
President Obama and his administration have been markedly more reluctant to support a no-fly zone than Mr Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But he has also come under pressure to act as Col Gaddafi’s military fightback has intensified.
The significance of control over Libya’s oil facilities was emphasised when William Hague, the foreign secretary, told MPs he was considering whether to push for international action to take billions of dollars of Libyan oil revenues away from the Gaddafi regime and put them under United Nations control.
The plan, inspired by the oil-for-food system imposed on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, would require a decision by the United Nations Security Council, which is already under pressure to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in light of Col Gaddafi’s use of air power to try to crush the rebellion against his 41-year-rule. ||||| A no-fly zone over Libya would likely have a limited impact on Moammar Gadhafi's offensives against rebel forces and civilians, military experts said Tuesday, as pressure appeared to be intensifying for restrictions.
Launching its annual report on international military might, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said the use of jets by Gadhafi loyalists appeared to pose less of a threat than the deployment of attack helicopters _ which can get around flight prohibitions because they are harder to detect.
The report also warned that defense budget cuts in the West over the last year had accelerated a shift in military powers toward emerging countries in Asia and the Middle East.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Tuesday that contingency work is being carried out by Britain and France on a potential United Nations Security Council resolution that would sanction a no-fly zone over Libya.
"There must be a demonstrable need that is accepted broadly by the international community, as well as the strong international support that would come from that," Hague said following talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Abbas said the Arab League would discuss the prospects of a no-fly zone being imposed at talks this weekend.
Douglas Barrie, military aerospace analyst at the institute, said Gadhafi has around 300 combat aircraft, but that far fewer are likely to be operational and that the leader appeared increasingly reliant on around 35 attack helicopters.
Because they are far smaller and slower moving than jets, it means traditional methods used to enforce a no-fly zone could fail to catch them, he said. Some radar can struggle to distinguish between a helicopter and a fast-moving car or truck, for instance.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested a no-fly zone would require an attack on Libya's air defenses.
Barrie said that would not necessarily be required, and that Gadhafi's regime was poorly equipped in any case. "It's not a risk free proposition, but the Soviet-era kit that the Libyans are equipped with is not state of the art," he said.
The United States and NATO allies on Monday increased the number of surveillance flights over Libya, while Britain and France said they had also begun drafting a U.N. resolution that could establish a no-fly zone.
Analysts at the IISS said that, while Libya's opposition lacks logistical support and air power, they are likely to become increasingly organized if the current conflict is protracted.
"The longer this goes on the greater the chances of the rebels increasing their combat capability, and the more chance there is for sanctions to bite," said retired British Army Brigadier Ben Barry, of the institute.
Much of Libya's regular army still under Gadhafi's control is poorly equipped, lacks a coherent command structure and is probably suffering from waning morale, he said.
Barry said that though there are better equipped elite forces around Tripoli, they didn't appear to have the capability to contain protests in the capital and simultaneously join offensives elsewhere. "Using these troops outside of Tripoli could loosen his grip there," he told reporters.
Hague said Britain believed neither side had "the immediate power to overthrow the other."
The institute estimated that as of November, Libya had 76,000 active troops and 40,000 militia fighter available as a reserve force. Many of those forces had been based in eastern Libya and sided with the opposition, with elite troops and parts of the air force allied with loyalists closer to Tripoli, Barry said.
In its annual report, the institute said Europe was feeling the effect of reduced defense spending imposed by constraints on national budgets. The U.S. is also seeking military efficiency savings.
"In other regions _ notably Asia and the Middle East _ military spending and arms acquisitions are booming. There is persuasive evidence that a global redistribution of military power is under way," said the institute's chief executive John Chipman.
It also noted the emergence of unlikely centers of expertise in cyber warfare, including Singapore and Switzerland. "The barriers to entry are extremely low," said Nigel Inkster, the institute's director of transnational threats and former assistant chief of Britain's MI6 overseas spy agency.
Inkster also warned that the public may have unrealisitic expectations about the use of drone strikes to tackle terrorists targets along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The use of unmanned drones against militant targets made "counterterrorism look like a game of Pac-Man," when it actually required intensive work on the ground and strong human intelligence sources.
___
Online::
International Institute for Strategic Studies: http://www.iiss.org/ ||||| President Barack Obama is meeting Wednesday morning with senior advisers to discuss possible U.S. intervention in Libya.
The discussion at the White House, to examine the ramifications of a no-fly zone over Libya and other potential military options, will include Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, national security adviser Tom Donilon, CIA Director Leon Panetta and other top officials.
In the afternoon, Obama will meet with the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Richard Eubank.
In the evening, the president is hosting a White House basketball party to watch his hometown Chicago Bulls play the Charlotte Bobcats. Obama has invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers from Chicago and Charlotte, N.C., to join him. | As the possibility of a no-fly zone over Libya looms larger, Moammar Gadhafi has become increasingly defiant. He recently told Turkey’s public television station that Libyans will “take up arms” against any countries that support such a measure, the Telegraph reports. More on the no-fly zone front: President Obama and British PM David Cameron announced they will take a “full spectrum” of action on Libya, and a no-fly zone was one of the measures being discussed, the Telegraph reports. Other measures include surveillance and arms embargo enforcement. Obama is discussing a possible US intervention, including a no-fly zone, today with top officials including Hillary Clinton, Jim Jones, and Leon Panetta, the AP reports. But last night, Clinton told Sky News that a no-fly zone must be backed by the international community, and not led by the US, Reuters reports. "Now there are countries that do not agree with” the enforcement of a no-fly zone, she said, “and we think it's important that the United Nations make this decision, not the United States. So far the United Nations has not done that.” Experts note that even if a no-fly zone is imposed, Gadhafi will likely be able to get around it by using attack helicopters, which are more difficult to detect, the AP reports. Click for the latest on Libya. |
EXCLUSIVE: Hannah Anderson speaks out, reveals new details of kidnapping
share tweet pin email
Hannah Anderson spoke out Thursday for the first time since her abduction riveted the country, thanking her rescuers and offering an explanation for text messages and letters that she exchanged with her captor.
In an exclusive conversation with TODAY, Hannah, 16, expressed gratitude for support that came from around the world during a weeklong odyssey from abduction outside San Diego to rescue in the Idaho backcountry.
“In the beginning, I was a victim,” she said. “But now knowing everyone out there’s helping me, I consider myself a survivor instead.”
Hannah revealed that the texts she traded with captor James Lee DiMaggio were to make arrangements with DiMaggio, a family friend, to pick her up from cheerleading camp.
“And he didn’t know the address or what — like, where I was. So I had to tell him the address and tell him that I was gonna be in the gym and not in front of the school,” she said. “Just so he knew where to come get me.”
And she said she exchanged letters a year ago with DiMaggio because she and her mother weren’t getting along and DiMaggio helped her work through the turmoil.
“Me and him would talk about how to deal with it,” she said. “And I’d tell him how I felt about it. And he helped me through it. They weren’t anything bad. They’re just to help me through tough times.”
DiMaggio abducted the girl and rigged his own house to burst into flames, killing Hannah’s mother and little brother, on Aug. 3, authorities have said. DiMaggio died in a shootout with FBI agents in Idaho a week later after horseback riders spotted the two.
Hannah, who attends high school outside San Diego, told TODAY that she had no idea there was a nationwide search for her — in fact, she said, she had never heard of an Amber Alert.
“I know it helped people find me,” she said. “And it made them, like, realize that it’s hard to find people out there. But with everyone’s support, it can help a lot.”
The sharp eyes of the four horseback riders — one of whom called the sighting “one chance in a trillion” — led to her rescue from a place in Idaho called the River of No Return, 1,000 miles from home.
To them, she said: “I’d like to say thank you. Because without them, I probably wouldn’t be here right now.”
She extended her thanks to the sheriff, the FBI, other authorities and everyone else who put in time to find her.
“And my dad and my friends and my family and just all my supporters that helped spread the word in the news,” she said. “Because the news helped get out there fast.”
She spoke about her goals — saying she wants to be a firefighter for San Diego.
Hannah was reunited with her father after the rescue. Her family has denied suggestions that DiMaggio might have been the father of both her and her little brother, 8-year-old Ethan.
The denial came after a spokesman for DiMaggio’s family said that he left a $112,000 life insurance policy to Hannah and Ethan’s paternal grandmother. The spokesman said that DiMaggio’s family wants DNA tests to determine paternity.
San Diego police said earlier this week they will not reveal a motive for the double murder and kidnapping because they do not want to make Hannah a victim for a second time.
A memorial service is set Saturday for Hannah’s mother and brother and will be open to the public. The church, in the San Diego suburb of Santee, is bracing for an overflow crowd.
In the conversation with TODAY, Hannah struggled as she talked about her little brother — “He had a really big heart,” she said before breaking up with emotion — and said her mother instilled in her a strong spirit that is helping her through tough times.
She said she is trying to get her life back together as daughter, a dancer and a high school student, and wanted to set the record straight.
“You are who you are,” she said. “And — you shouldn’t let people change that. And you have your own opinion on yourself, and other people’s opinion shouldn't matter.”
The remarks with TODAY were Hannah’s first to a news organization. Days after the rescue, she wrote at length on a social-media site that allows people to ask and answer each other’s questions.
In that session, on the site Ask.fm, one questioner asked whether she was happier that DiMaggio was shot or whether she would have wanted to see him serve life in prison. She answered: “Shot him. He deserved what he got.”
She also said: “He had a gun and threatened to kill me and anyone who tried to help.”
Questioners from as far away as France and Hawaii showered Hannah with compliments about her physical appearance and asked her typical teenage questions about likes and dislikes.
She said, for example, that her favorite singer was Ke$ha, gave the name of her nail salon and said that if she could date anyone in the world it would be teen-heartthrob actor Zac Efron.
Some people on social media found her demeanor unusual, and even called her behavior fishy.
“I didn’t know people could be so cruel,” Hannah told TODAY.
She said social media is just how she talks to friends.
“I connect to them through Facebook, and Instagram is — it just helps me grieve, like, post pictures and to show how I’m feeling. And I’m a teenager. I’m gonna go on it.”
Hannah told TODAY that she wanted to speak before the funeral to offer thanks, to bring attention to Amber Alerts, and to put to rest speculation that she was anything other than a survivor.
She said that she will tell her entire story, but that now is not the time.
“This was a hard time,” she said. “And there’s gonna be harder times in life. But if I could get through this, I’m sure I can get through a lot more.” ||||| As a 16-year-old girl breaks her silence about how she was kidnapped by a family friend accused of killing her mother and brother, the girl's father is striking back at the suggestion that the suspect fathered his children.
Brett Anderson finds it "disgusting" that the family of James Lee DiMaggio is mentioning the suspect as the possible father of Hannah and Ethan Anderson, said Stacy Hess, an Anderson family spokeswoman.
DiMaggio, 40, didn't meet Brett and Christina Anderson until Christina was six months pregnant with Hannah, Hess said. And investigators used Brett Anderson's DNA to confirm the identity of 8-year-old Ethan Anderson, whose remains were found in the rubble of DiMaggio's burned home, she said.
The exchange of words over families for the suspect and victim came as Hannah Anderson ended her public silence since she was rescued Aug. 10 by FBI agents during a shootout in the Idaho wilderness that killed DiMaggio. Hannah gave her first news interview since her rescue to the NBC "Today" show, which was scheduled to air Thursday.
"In the beginning I was a victim, but now knowing everyone out there is helping me I consider myself a survivor instead," she told NBC. "My mom raised me to be strong."
Andrew Spanswick, a spokesman for the DiMaggio family, said rumors have circulated on social media that DiMaggio fathered the children and that it was "a little strange" that the suspect named the girl's paternal grandmother as his life insurance beneficiary.
Lora Robinson, DiMaggio's sister and lone survivor of his immediate family, collected DNA from her brother and wants samples from Hannah Anderson and her brother to determine paternity, Spanswick said. She has not yet asked for the samples but intends to at a later date.
"The biggest issue is, I think, that Lora wants closure on the case," Spanswick said. "As Lora has heard these rumors, she would like to confirm whether they are true or not."
DiMaggio was like an uncle to the Anderson children and Brett Anderson's best friend. Hannah was rescued Aug. 10 when FBI agents killed DiMaggio in the Idaho wilderness, ending a massive search that spanned much of the western United States and parts of Canada and Mexico.
Investigators say DiMaggio escaped with Hannah and killed 44-year-old Christina Anderson and her son, whose bodies were discovered after DiMaggio set fire to his home Aug. 4 in Boulevard, a tiny town 65 miles east of San Diego.
DiMaggio named Hannah's grandmother, Bernice Anderson, as the sole beneficiary of his employer-issued life insurance policy, making her eligible to receive $112,000, according to Spanswick, who believes the money was intended for Hannah.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore has called Hannah "a victim in every sense of the word." He has declined to discuss a possible motive and investigators haven't publicly addressed other aspects of the case, including why the family went to DiMaggio's home, how Christina and Ethan Anderson died, the nature of letters from Hannah that were discovered in DiMaggio's home and how Hannah was treated in captivity.
DiMaggio used a timer to set the fire, giving him a 20-hour jump on authorities, San Diego County Sheriff's Department Jan Caldwell said. ||||| Story highlights Texts, letters with eventual abductor "weren't anything bad," Hannah Anderson says
"In the beginning I was a victim, but ... I consider myself a survivor instead," she tells NBC
It is her first television interview since her alleged abduction on August 4
Since her return August 10, a series of twists have emerged in the story
In her first television interview since she was freed following an alleged kidnapping this month, Hannah Anderson described herself as a survivor, and thanked those who have supported her.
"In the beginning I was a victim, but now knowing everyone out there is helping me, I consider myself a survivor instead," she told NBC News. "My mom raised me to be strong."
James DiMaggio allegedly kidnapped Hannah on August 4. Police later found the bodies of her mother and brother at DiMaggio's burned home, about an hour east of San Diego.
After evading authorities for a week, DiMaggio was spotted in the Idaho wilderness on August 10, nearly 1,000 miles from where the alleged kidnapping occurred.
An FBI agent shot him dead and Hannah, 16, was returned to her family in Southern California.
JUST WATCHED Hannah Anderson: What she didn't say Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hannah Anderson: What she didn't say 01:44 PLAY VIDEO
JUST WATCHED Hannah Anderson: From victim to survivor Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Hannah Anderson: From victim to survivor 03:56 PLAY VIDEO
JUST WATCHED New outrage in Hannah Anderson case Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH New outrage in Hannah Anderson case 01:36 PLAY VIDEO
JUST WATCHED Anderson's family: It's like a dream Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Anderson's family: It's like a dream 03:02 PLAY VIDEO
In the interview, portions of which NBC aired Thursday morning, Hannah addressed rampant speculation online about text messages and letters she exchanged with DiMaggio.
The two texted the day she was abducted because he was supposed to pick her up from cheerleading camp and he needed directions, she said. Earlier letters involved advice about her relationship with her mother, the teen told NBC.
"They weren't anything bad, they were just to help me through tough times," she told "Today."
She also thanked law enforcement officials and others involved in her rescue. She singled out the horseback riders who first spotted her in the Idaho wilderness.
"I'd like to say thank you, because without them I probably wouldn't be here right now," she said.
DiMaggio family requests DNA samples for Anderson, her brother
'Rumors that Jim might be the father'
Since her return, a series of twists have emerged, including a request by DiMaggio's family that DNA testing be conducted on Hannah and her 8-year-old brother, whose body was found in the alleged kidnapper's torched home.
"We are going to be requesting from the Anderson family that we try to get DNA samples from Hannah. And if they have anything left from Ethan, that we get a DNA sample," DiMaggio's family spokesman, Andrew Spanswick, told CNN affiliate KGTV. "There has been a lot of rumors that Jim might be the father of either or both children."
A representative for the Anderson family shot down the theory.
"Brett and Tina Anderson did not meet Mr. DiMaggio until the sixth month of Tina's pregnancy with Hannah. Brett Anderson's DNA was used to identify the body of his dead son Ethan Anderson," the family statement said.
And David Braun, Tina Anderson's uncle, reacted angrily to the idea.
"I would tell them to shut up with their accusations and their implications up until after the funeral, until after my precious Tina and precious Ethan are buried -- the family members that your family murdered," Braun said. "That's what I would tell them."
Mother, brother laid to rest
A complex case
With each passing day, the case has taken on added complexity.
DiMaggio, 40, left a life insurance policy that named Hannah and Ethan's grandmother, Bernice Anderson, as the beneficiary.
Stacy Hess, the Anderson family spokeswoman, did not know the dollar amount, but other media outlets put it at around $110,000.
The insurance policy was one of the reasons DiMaggio's family sought a DNA test.
"We find it very strange that he has left all this money without any explanation. It states specifically that he didn't want to give it to either parent cause he didn't trust them," spokesman Spanswick said, referring to Hannah's parents.
The Anderson children called DiMaggio "Uncle Jim."
One search warrant referred to Hannah's mother as the wife of DiMaggio's best friend.
Anderson letters found at kidnap suspect's home
Hannah spotted with captor
Hannah was seen with DiMaggio in his car about 20 hours before he allegedly set fire to his house, police said.
The two were in his blue Nissan Versa just after midnight August 4, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department said. They were spotted at a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint, according to Jan Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department.
Caldwell did not say what the two were doing together or whether Hannah was with DiMaggio voluntarily.
CNN was unable to get an Anderson family response to this revelation.
Search warrant raises eyebrows
Phone records indicate the two "called each other approximately 13 times" shortly before both their phones were turned off on August 4, a search warrant revealed.
The same document says that a fire was reported later that night at DiMaggio's two-story log cabin and a detached garage in Boulevard, California.
After battling the fire, authorities found the bodies of Hannah's mother and brother.
An affidavit claimed that both had been "tortured and killed" by DiMaggio, who then set his home and garage ablaze.
Affidavits: Mother, brother 'tortured and killed'
San Diego County deputies searching DiMaggio's charred home also found a handwritten note, handcuff box, camping equipment, a DNA swab kit, two used condoms and letters from Hannah, according to an affidavit.
Contents of the letters and the handwritten note were not revealed. | In her first interview since she was rescued, Hannah Anderson talks about her ordeal—and explains why she sent letters to family friend-turned-kidnapper James DiMaggio, which were later found in his burned house. At the time, she was having problems with her mom, Hannah said during an interview on this morning's Today show. "Me and him would talk about how to deal with it," she said. "And I’d tell him how I felt about it. And he helped me through it. They weren’t anything bad. They’re just to help me through tough times." As for the text messages she exchanged with DiMaggio on the day of her kidnapping, she was just explaining where he should pick her up from cheerleading camp, she said. Hannah got emotional while talking about her little brother, Ethan, who she says "had a really big heart." A public memorial service for him and their mother is set for Saturday. She also called herself a "survivor," saying, "My mom raised me to be strong." Meanwhile, Hannah's father has angrily rejected the DiMaggio family's call for paternity tests, reports CNN. A family spokeswoman says Brett Anderson finds the request "disgusting," and points out that not only did DiMaggio not meet him and his wife until she was six months pregnant with Hannah, Brett Anderson's DNA was used to confirm the identity of 8-year-old Ethan's body, the AP reports. |
14:53
Sen. Kamala Harris, who is weighing a bid for president in 2020, delivered remarks on speaking “truth, as uncomfortable as it may be”.
The topic was racial disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. But if you read between the lines there was a broader theme that could serve as a message against a president who has inspired the Bottomless Pinocchio for politicians who “repeat a false claim so many times that they are, in effect, engaging in campaigns of disinformation”.
“If we are actually going to address what must be dealt with, we must speak those truths,” Harris said in the opening remarks. “When we speak them it is not with the aim of shocking, or offending or making people uncomfortable.”
“We’re here to speak those truths to elevate the conversation,” she continued, noting that black women in America are three times more likely to die from complications of childbirth than white women.
The California senator told the audience about her mother, a breast cancer researcher who she said would come home from work “livid” about the gender inequities in scientific research. One day, Harris recalled, her mother was shocked because she witnessed a doctor in her lab carrying a tray with a breast that had been removed during a mastectomy.
“She said, and I don’t mean to offend anyone or shock anyone, ‘I wonder if it had been a penis, would he have been walking around that way?’” the senator said. “It showed a lack of understanding about the dignity of a woman’s body and the need to treat it with dignity.”
“Women in the healthcare system must be given dignity,” Harris continued. “They must be listened to. They must be taken seriously. They must be given respect.”
Harris has introduced legislation aimed at reducing the disparities. The bill would create two grant programs to address implicit bias and implement Pregnancy Medical Home Demonstration programs. She also has a bill that would designate a week in April as Black Maternal Health Week.
||||| Michael Cohen, right, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, arrives at federal court for his sentencing for dodging taxes, lying to Congress and violating campaign finance laws in New York on Wednesday,... (Associated Press)
Michael Cohen, right, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, arrives at federal court for his sentencing for dodging taxes, lying to Congress and violating campaign finance laws in New York on Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2018. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez) (Associated Press)
NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, a lawyer who made his career protecting President Donald Trump, is set to learn Wednesday whether his decision to cooperate with federal investigators will lessen his punishment for crimes including making illegal hush-money payments to two women during the 2016 campaign — a scandal that could damage Trump's presidency.
Cohen said nothing to reporters as he arrived at court for his sentencing, where U.S. District Judge William Pauley III is set to decide whether the attorney will get leniency or years in prison for campaign finance violations, tax evasion and lying to Congress about the president's past business dealings in Russia.
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Cohen, 52, stands to get about four years in prison, but his lawyers have argued for leniency.
Some of Cohen's crimes, they said, were motivated by overenthusiasm for Trump, rather than any nefarious intent.
He has pleaded guilty to misleading Congress about his work on a proposal to build a Trump skyscraper in Moscow, hiding the fact that he continued to speak with Russians about the proposal well into the presidential campaign.
Cohen also pleaded guilty in August to breaking campaign finance laws by helping orchestrate payments to silence former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who said they had sexual encounters with Trump while he was married.
Daniels' outspoken lawyer, Michael Avenatti, also turned up for Cohen's sentencing. Avenatti represented Daniels in a legal dispute with Cohen, in which she sought to be released from an agreement prohibiting her from talking about the alleged affair. Avenatti has bashed Cohen for months on cable television, saying Trump's ex-lawyer deserves to go to prison.
Meanwhile, Cohen looked relaxed as he sat in court awaiting the proceeding, occasionally looking at papers on the table in front of him.
For weeks, Cohen's legal strategy appeared to revolve around persuading the court that he is a reformed man who abandoned longtime friendships and gave up his livelihood when he decided to cut ties with the president and speak with federal investigators. Cohen's lawyers have said in court filings that their client could have stayed on the president's side and angled himself for a presidential pardon.
New York prosecutors have urged a judge to sentence Cohen to a substantial prison term, saying he'd failed to fully cooperate and overstated his helpfulness.
They've asked for only a slight reduction to his sentence based on his work with the office of special counsel Robert Mueller and prosecutors looking into the campaign finance violations in New York.
A probation-only sentence, they said, is unbefitting of "a man who knowingly sought to undermine core institutions of our democracy."
"While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs" with Trump, prosecutors wrote.
Prosecutors said Cohen orchestrated payments to McDougal and Daniels at Trump's direction.
Trump, who insists the affairs never happened, said Monday in a tweet that the payments to the women were "a simple private transaction," not a campaign contribution. And if it was campaign contribution, the president said, Cohen is the one who should be held responsible.
"Lawyer's liability if he made a mistake, not me," Trump wrote, adding, "Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!"
A sentence of hard time would leave Cohen with little to show for his decision to plead guilty, though experts said Wednesday's hearing might not be the last word on his punishment.
Cohen could have his sentence revisited if he strikes a deal with prosecutors in which he provides additional cooperation within a year of his sentence, said Michael J. Stern, a former federal prosecutor in Detroit and Los Angeles.
"Few things spark a defendant's renewed interest in cooperating faster than trading in a pair of custom Italian trousers for an off-the-rack orange jump suit," he said.
Annemarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, said prosecutors appear to be angry at Cohen for limiting his cooperation.
"It could be a tactic to try to break him like they've tried to do with (Paul) Manafort," McAvoy said, referring to Trump's former campaign chairman. "It kind of shows they're putting the screws to him. If they're not mad at him, he didn't give them what they wanted."
Cohen's transition from Trump's fixer-in-chief to felon has been head-spinning.
He once told an interviewer he would "take a bullet" for Trump. But facing prosecution for evading $1.4 million in taxes, Cohen pleaded guilty in August, pledged to cooperate with Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election and changed his party registration from Republican to Democrat.
Judge Pauley, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton, may allow Cohen to begin serving any prison term he receives at a later date. But legal experts said Cohen could also be taken into custody immediately.
"If I were advising him, I'd encourage him to bring his toothbrush to court," said Stern.
Cohen's lawyers have asked for no prison time, saying he has suffered enough already.
"The greatest punishment Michael has endured in the criminal process has been the shame and anxiety he feels daily from having subjected his family to the fallout from his case," his attorneys wrote in a court filing last month. "The media glare and intrusions on all of them, including his children, the regular hate correspondence and written and oral threats, the fact that he will lose his law license, the termination of business relationships by banks and insurers and the loss of friendships, are but some of this fallout." ||||| ADDS NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS - Michael Cohen, center, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, accompanied by his children Samantha, left, and Jake, right, arrives at federal court for his sentencing, Wednesday,... (Associated Press)
ADDS NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS - Michael Cohen, center, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, accompanied by his children Samantha, left, and Jake, right, arrives at federal court for his sentencing, Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2018, in New York, for dodging taxes, lying to Congress and violating campaign finance... (Associated Press)
NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's once-devoted lawyer and all-around fixer, was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after telling a federal judge that his "blind loyalty" to Trump led him to cover up the president's "dirty deeds."
Standing alone at the defense table, Cohen, 52, shook his head slightly and closed his eyes as the judge pronounced the sentence for crimes that included lying about his boss' business dealings in Russia and funneling hush money to two women who said they had sex with Trump — payments that both Cohen and federal prosecutors said were made at Trump's direction to fend off damage to his White House bid.
Cohen is the first and, so far, only member of Trump's circle during two years of investigations to go into open court and implicate the president in a crime, though whether a president can be prosecuted under the Constitution is an open question.
Separately, prosecutors announced Wednesday that they filled in another piece of the puzzle in the hush-money case: The parent company of the National Enquirer acknowledged making one of those payments "in concert" with the Trump campaign to protect Trump from a story that could have hurt his candidacy.
At the sentencing, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III said Cohen deserved modest credit for his decision over the summer to admit guilt and cooperate in the federal investigation of efforts by Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election, but his assistance "does not wipe the slate clean."
"Somewhere along the way Mr. Cohen appears to have lost his moral compass," the judge said. "As a lawyer, Mr. Cohen should have known better."
The judge also ordered Cohen to pay $1.39 million restitution, forfeit $500,000 and pay $100,000 in fines. He was ordered to report to prison March 6 and left court without comment.
The prison sentence was in line with what prosecutors asked for. Sentencing guidelines called for around four to five years, and the government asked in court papers that Cohen be given only a slight break.
"It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light," Cohen, who once boasted he would "take a bullet" for Trump, told the judge before the sentence came down. "Time and time again, I thought it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than listen to my voice."
Cohen got choked up near the end of his remarks and paused briefly to compose himself. His daughter, seated behind him, sobbed throughout. As he returned to his seat, he ran his hand across her cheek.
Cohen's lawyers had argued for leniency, saying he decided to cooperate with investigators rather than hold out for a possible pardon.
"He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our country," defense attorney Guy Petrillo told the judge.
Cohen pleaded guilty in August to evading $1.4 million in taxes related to his personal businesses. In the part of the case with greater political repercussions, he also admitted breaking campaign finance laws in arranging payments in the waning days of the 2016 election to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.
Last month, he also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress by concealing that he was negotiating a proposal to build a Trump skyscraper in Moscow deep into the presidential campaign season. He said he lied out of devotion to Trump, who had insisted during the campaign that he had no business ties whatsoever to Russia.
The sentence was the culmination of a spectacular rise and fast fall of a lawyer who attached himself to the fortunes of his biggest client, helped him get elected president, then turned on him, cooperating with two interconnected investigations: one run by federal prosecutors in New York, the other by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Russia investigation.
Beyond the guilty pleas, it is unclear exactly what Cohen has told prosecutors, and it remains to be seen how much damage Cohen's cooperation will do to Trump. Legal experts said Cohen could get his sentence reduced if he strikes a deal with prosecutors to tell them more.
Cohen said in court that he will continue cooperating. And his legal adviser Lanny Davis, who previously represented President Bill Clinton, said the former political fixer will tell publicly "all he knows" about Trump after Mueller completes his investigation, and that includes testifying before Congress.
"Mr. Trump's repeated lies cannot contradict stubborn facts," Davis said in a statement.
In the hush-money case, prosecutors said, Cohen arranged for the parent company of the National Enquirer to pay $150,000 to McDougal. He also paid $130,000 to Daniels and was reimbursed by Trump's business empire.
Prosecutors said the McDougal payment violated federal law against corporate campaign contributions, while the money that went to Daniels exceeded the $2,700 limit on campaign donations. Also, campaign contributions must be reported under law, and the two hush-money payments were not disclosed.
Shortly after Cohen's sentencing, federal authorities announced a deal not to prosecute the National Enquirer's parent, American Media Inc. As part of the deal, AMI admitted making the $150,000 payment to McDougal to buy her silence about the alleged affair and fend off damage to Trump's candidacy.
In a court filing last week, the prosecutors left no doubt that they believe Cohen arranged the hush-money payments at Trump's direction, saying the maneuver was part of an effort to "influence the election from the shadows."
Trump had denied any sexual relationship with the women and argued on Twitter earlier this week that the payments to the women were "a simple private transaction," not a campaign contribution. And if it was a prohibited contribution, Trump said, Cohen is the one who should be held responsible.
"Lawyer's liability if he made a mistake, not me," Trump wrote, adding, "Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!"
An attorney for the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At the sentencing, a prosecutor in Mueller's office, Jeannie Rhee, said Cohen has "sought to tell us the truth and that is of the utmost value to us" and has "provided consistent and credible information about core Russia-related issues under investigation." She did not elaborate.
But the New York-based prosecutors who handled the case against Cohen had urged the judge to sentence him to a "substantial" prison term and said he failed to tell investigators everything he knows.
In addressing the judge, Cohen described the sentencing as "the day I am getting my freedom back." He said he had suffered from a "personal and mental incarceration" ever since agreeing in 2007 to work for Trump, a man he admired. "I now know there is little to be admired," Cohen said.
Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, who played a major role in exposing the hush-money discussions, said outside the courthouse: "We will not stop until the truth is known relating to the conduct of Donald Trump." But he added: "Let me be clear, Michael Cohen is neither a hero nor a patriot" and "he deserves every day of the 36-month sentence he will serve."
___
Associated Press writer Jim Mustian contributed to this report.
___
This story has been corrected to fix "felt" to "thought" in Cohen's quote about covering up "dirty deeds." | Michael Cohen's decision to cooperate with federal investigators ended up slightly lessening his punishment. The lawyer who made his career protecting President Trump was on Wednesday sentenced to 36 months for crimes including making illegal hush-money payments to two women during the 2016 campaign. He is to report for prison on March 6. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Cohen, 52, stood to get about four years in prison, with US District Judge William Pauley III deciding whether the attorney would get leniency or years in prison for campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and lying to Congress about the president's past business dealings in Russia, reports the AP. What you need to know: In advance of his sentence being handed down, Cohen had this to say to the court, per the Guardian: "This may seem hard to believe, but today is one of the most meaningful days of my life. I have been living in a personal and mental incarceration ever since the day that I accepted the offer to work for a real estate mogul whose business acumen that I deeply admired." That admiration appears gone. He then blamed Trump's "dirty deeds," saying: "Recently the president tweeted a statement calling me weak and it was correct, but for a much different reason than he was implying. It was because time and time again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds." The AP reports he "shook his head slightly and closed his eyes" as the sentence was read. |
Obesity is a condition that has been deemed an epidemic in the United States. Results of a survey by the National Center for Health Statistics found that in the years 2003 to 2004, an estimated 66% of U.S. adults were either overweight or obese. The American Obesity Association estimates that approximately 127 million adults in the United States are overweight, 60 million obese, and 9 million severely obese. It has been argued that obese individuals have been the targets of discrimination. There is no federal law that specifically prohibits obesity discrimination. However, some obese individuals have argued that their weight can be considered a disability for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and, therefore, they have legal protection against weight discrimination. Courts have evaluated numerous claims of obesity discrimination brought under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in the areas of employment, public services, public accommodations, and services operated by private entities, transportation, and telecommunications. In order to prevail in a discrimination case, the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADA defines "disability" with respect to an individual as "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual [such as walking, or working]; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment." The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has promulgated ADA regulations that give insight as to what constitutes an impairment within the meaning of the term "disability," as well as what is considered to be "substantially limit[ing] a major life activity." The ADA regulations have been used by the courts in determining the validity of obesity discrimination claims. Obesity discrimination cases have also been brought under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states that "no otherwise qualified individual ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, ... be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Courts have often applied the same standard when deciding cases arising under the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Also, the standards for determining employment discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act are identical to those used in title I of the ADA. The ADA regulations address whether obesity can be an impairment that qualifies as a disability under the ADA. In general, the regulations suggest that the ADA offers limited protection to obese individuals. The ADA regulations state that temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities. Such impairments may include, but are not limited to, broken limbs, sprained joints [and] concussions.... Similarly, except in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a disabling impairment. The EEOC has expounded on how obesity is to be covered under the ADA. In its ADA compliance manual, the EEOC states that being overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment. On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm is clearly an impairment. In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment. Based on the ADA regulations and EEOC guidance, it may be difficult for an obese plaintiff to successfully bring a discrimination claim. Still, courts have found some plaintiffs entitled to protection under the ADA. Both state and federal courts have considered whether the ADA or Section 504 applies to obesity and have used varying (and sometimes conflicting) lines of reasoning and conclusions. Courts have disagreed on issues such as (1) whether a plaintiff must have a physiological disorder in order for the plaintiff's morbid obesity to be covered under the ADA and (2) whether a plainitiff's obesity can cause a "substantial limitation of a major life activity." The following cases include some of the different arguments that courts have used in finding that a plaintiff is eligible or non-eligible for ADA or Section 504 protection. One of the first appellate decisions to address weight discrimination as a disability was Cook , which established that an obese plaintiff can be considered disabled. In Cook , the plaintiff applied for a position she had previously held as an institutional attendant. At the time Cook applied, she was five feet two inches tall and weighed 320 pounds. The institution refused to rehire Cook, claiming that Cook's weight compromised her ability to evacuate patients in an emergency situation and increased her chances of developing aliments that could lead to Cook to be out of work or claim workers' compensation. Cook brought a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as certain state statutes, claiming that the failure to hire her was based on an unlawful perceived disability—although she was fully able to perform the job, the institution considered her physically impaired. The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Cook. However, the court acknowledged that Cook could also prevail because she had an actual physical impairment. The court pointed to the fact that Cook had admitted that she was morbidly obese, and had presented expert testimony that morbid obesity is a physiological disorder, a dysfunction of the metabolic system. The institution argued that Cook's claims failed because her weight was a condition that was both "mutable" and "voluntary." The court rejected the institution's arguments and noted that nowhere in the Rehabilitation Act, nor in the regulations implementing the act, was there a mention of either characteristic disqualifying a claim. The court also discussed whether Cook's weight "substantially limited one or more [of Cook's] major life activities." The court pointed to evidence introduced by the institution demonstrating that Cook was not hired because the institution believed that her morbid obesity interfered with her ability to undertake physical activities such as walking, lifting, or bending. On this basis alone, the court stated, a jury could find that the institution perceived the plaintiff's impairment to interfere with a major life activity. In addition, the court explained that the plaintiff could be found substantially limited, without having to seek out other jobs that she was qualified to perform. The court stated that "denying an applicant ... a job that requires no unique physical skills, due solely to the perception that the applicant suffers from a physical limitations that would keep her from qualifying for a broad spectrum of jobs, can constitute treating an applicant as if her condition substantially limited a major life activity, viz., working." The First Circuit also concluded that there was no evidence that Cook could not perform the job, and it upheld the district court's decision for Cook. The Second Circuit in Francis also examined claims of obesity discrimination under disability law. In this case, the City of Meriden disciplined Francis, a firefighter employed by the city, after he failed to meet certain weight guidelines. Francis claimed that this discipline was discrimination based on a perceived disability in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The court found that Francis' claims failed because Francis only alleged that the city disciplined him for not meeting a weight standard, not because he suffered from an impairment within the meaning of the disability statutes. In its analysis, the court discussed the applicability of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to obesity. The Second Circuit stated that Francis's claim failed because "obesity, except in special cases where obesity relates to a physiological disorder, is not an impairment within the meaning of [the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act]." The court also pointed out, in dicta, that a cause of action may exist against an employer who discriminates against an employee based on the perception that the employee is morbidly obese. Still, the court concluded that simply failing to meet weight guidelines was insufficient for ADA protection. In 2006, the Sixth Circuit took up the issue of obesity discrimination in EEOC v. Watkins . In Watkins , the EEOC claimed that the defendant company violated the ADA when it discharged a morbidly obese employee after the employee sustained an injury on the job. The employee, whose weight fluctuated between 340 and 450 pounds during his employment, was injured during a routine job activity. The employee claimed he was unaware of any physiological or psychological cause for his heavy weight. After taking a leave of absence following his injury, the employee's personal doctor cleared him to work. However, a company doctor found that the employee weighed more than 400 pounds, had a limited range of motion, and shortness of breath after a few steps. The doctor determined that even though the employee met the Department of Transportation's standards for truck drivers, the employee could not safely perform the requirements of his job. The employee was terminated as a result. The EEOC argued under a "regarded as" theory, claiming that although the employee had an actual impairment, the impairment was erroneously regarded as an inability to perform his job. In its analysis, however, the Sixth Circuit did not focus on how the company regarded the employee, but instead on whether morbid obesity qualified as an ADA impairment. The court cited the ADA regulations stating that an impairment is defined in relevant part as "any physiological disorder or condition." The court interpreted this definition to require evidence of a physiological cause of morbid obesity in order for an impairment to exist under the ADA. Because the EEOC did not produce any evidence that the employee suffered from a physiological condition, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Watkins. It is likely that courts will continue to look at obesity discrimination under the ADA. Based on the various ways in which courts have interpreted the act and its supporting regulations, the outcome of these cases will remain an open question. | The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides broad nondiscrimination protection for individuals with disabilities. However, to be covered under the statute, an individual must first meet the definition of an individual with a disability. Questions have been raised as to whether and to what extent obesity is a disability under the ADA and whether the ADA protects obese individuals from discrimination. This report provides background regarding how obesity is covered under the ADA and its supporting regulations. It also discusses some of the ways in which courts have applied the ADA to obesity discrimination claims. |
This report analyzes the language contained in § 1607 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which provides that federal funds can be made available to a state by the federal government either after certification by a governor that such money will be requested and spent or after the adoption of a concurrent resolution by a state legislature. This report evaluates the authority of state legislatures to, by concurrent resolution, provide for the acceptance of federal funds. Section 1607 may be a congressional response to statements by several state governors who indicated a disinclination to seek, or have entities in their state seek, and receive funds provided under the Recovery Act. The act requires that, in order to be eligible for such funds, a governor must first either certify that such funds will be requested, or, if that does not occur within 45 days of enactment, then a state legislature may fulfill the same condition by passing a concurrent resolution (which does not generally require a governor's signature). Specifically, § 1607 of the Recovery Act provides that: (a) Certification by Governor- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. (b) Acceptance by State Legislature- If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State. (c) Distribution- After the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's discretion. The language of § 1607 contains significant ambiguities, and the terms used may not be easily reconciled with either other portions of the act or with existing statutory law. Section 1607(a), for instance, requires a governor to, within 45 days, "certify" that the state will, at some unspecified future time, request and use funds provided by this act to create jobs and promote economic growth. The language does not specify to whom such certification shall be made; nor does it specify whether, in making the certification, the state will be accepting all the funds that the state is eligible for under the act, or only some portion of the funds. Further, this subsection does not specify whether a governor's office will be the political entity requesting the funds at some time in the future, or whether such a request will come from a state agency, a local government, or other public or public-private entities within a state. Section 1607(b) provides that if funds "in any division of the Act" are not "accepted" for use by a governor, then it "shall be sufficient to provide funding to the state" for a state legislature to "accept[]" such funds by a concurrent resolution. However, the term "concurrent resolution" is not defined, and not all states appear to have this legislative vehicle. Further, "accepting funds" is not a precise term of art, and it would appear to be a description of only a portion of the process usually used to distribute federal funds. Finally, it is not clear if the language which provides that a concurrent resolution shall "be sufficient" to provide funding to the state is intended only to fulfill the "certification" requirement of § 1607(a), or whether it is intended to be a waiver of all the requirements for receiving grant monies, such as submitting a grant application or providing supporting data or required assurances. Finally, section 1607(c) provides that, after the adoption of a state legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the state "will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's discretion." In general, federal funds are by distributed by formula or by discretionary grants, depending upon the criteria specified in federal law governing a particular grant program. Thus, it is not clear if this language is intended to direct state and local officials to accept and spend these monies, or merely to indicate that the normal grant process may move forward after a state's adoption of the specified concurrent resolution. As noted, § 1607(a) of the Recovery Act provides that in order to receive federal funds, "the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth." Under a broad interpretation of this language, one could argue that a governor would need to request and use all funds provided in this act. Under this interpretation, the language of § 1607(a) should be read as follows (added text in italics): (a) Certification by Governor- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use all of the funds provided by this Act for which the state is eligible ; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. It should be noted, however, that § 1607(b) provides that a state legislature can take action "if funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor." This would seem to strongly imply that a Governor could reject some of the funds in the Recovery Act, while accepting others. Thus, a better interpretation of the language of § 1607(a) would be as follows (added text in italics): (a) Certification by Governor- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use some or all of the funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. It should also be noted that this certification by the governor is neither a present request for, nor a present acceptance of, federal funds. Rather, it is merely an indication that the state "will" request and use funds. Since the use of the term "will" indicates an event that is going to occur in the future, a more accurate interpretation of § 1607(a) would appear to be (added text in italics): (a) Certification by Governor- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State at some t ime in the future will request and use some or all of the funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. The final ambiguity is the use of the term "State." Although the governor is the chief executive officer of a state, he is generally not the only officer vested with legislative power to apply for and accept grants. That power may be distributed to various state and local officials, who are authorized to act on behalf of the state without approval of the governor. Thus, while the governor is required to certify that the "State" will request and use funds, it does not appear that the application for those funds need come from the governor in all instances. Consequently, the certification does not necessarily appear to be statement of a governor's intent to apply for funds. Rather, such certification would appear to be an acknowledgement by the governor that, based on available information, the governor, or other state or local officials are planning on applying for funds under the Recovery Act. Thus, a more accurate interpretation of § 1607(a) would appear to be (added text in italics): (a) Certification by Governor- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the Governor, state or local officials at some t ime in the future will request and use some or all of the funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. A more difficult question is how to interpret § 1607(b) of the Recovery Act. Although many of the terms and phrases used in that subsection are ambiguous, perhaps the most significant ambiguity is the meaning of the term "acceptance" and the phrase "shall be sufficient to provide funding." Without considering the context of the rest of the Recovery Act, the "acceptance" language in §1607(b) might at first be read to authorize the state legislature, by concurrent resolution, to accept the federal funds on behalf of the relevant state agency, and by doing so to waive all federal program requirements which would otherwise need to be followed for a state or local entity to apply for and receive federal funds. It might even be argued that this language could be interpreted to direct state entities to spend such monies consistent with a state legislature's concurrent resolution. If this "accept, waive and spend" interpretation is correct, then the language of § 1607(b) might be read as follows (added text in italics): (b) Acceptance by State Legislature- If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State waive all federal program requirements , and direct that relevant state entities will accept and spend those funds. As will be explored below, however, the more expansive "accept, waive and spend" interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the Recovery Act, with canons of statutory interpretation, or with constitutional doctrine. A more likely interpretation of this language is that an "acceptance ... [which] shall be sufficient to provide funding" would only trigger the authority of federal agencies to offer, and upon application of the states, distribute federal funds, but would not otherwise reallocate power within the state. Under this narrow "certification" interpretation, "acceptance" by a state legislature by concurrent resolution under § 1607(b) is merely the functional equivalent of the "certification" that can be made by a governor under §1607(a). Either of these actions would appear to be nothing more than preliminary conditions which must be met before a state becomes eligible to apply for and receive federal funds under the Recovery Act. In effect, §1607(a) gives a governor the opportunity to exercise a veto over receipt of federal funding under the act by failing to make such certification within 45 days, but then § 1607(b) gives the state legislature the opportunity to act to negate the effect of the governor's veto. If this interpretation were correct, then language of § 1607(b) might be read as follows (added text in italics): (b) Acceptance by State Legislature- If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance If the Governor does not provide such certification in 45 day s regarding funds provided in any division of this Act , then certification by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State meet the requirements of subsection (a). Under this "certification" interpretation, § 1607 would not appear intended to reallocate power between the executive and legislative branches of state governments in applying for, accepting and spending federal grants. Rather, it merely provides a preliminary federal grant condition, which could be met by either certification by the governor or by a concurrent resolution by the state legislature. After such certification has been made, federal funds may then be distributed under whatever other authority has been established for such funds in the rest of the Recovery Act or in federal law. Thus, under this narrow interpretation, even after certification by either the governor or state legislature, the governor would still have to apply for those federal funds which require an application from the governor's office. Conversely, if the governor chose not to apply for particular funds, then those funds would not be provided to the state. Similarly, other state and local officials with independent legal authority to apply for such funds would also have to submit grant applications and comply with any other such conditions as are required to gain access to those funds. Again, if those state or local officials choose not to apply for the funds, then the funds would not be provided to the state. It should be noted that this interpretation closely mirrors language found on the website Recovery.gov, which was established by the Obama Administration to explain the Recovery Act. This website, which lists state certifications submitted, notes that "In order to receive funds from the ARRA, governors have 45 days to certify that they will first 'request and use' funds from the ARRA, and second use them to create jobs and promote economic growth. If a governor does not accept funds allocated to his or her state before that window expires, the state's legislature then has the option of certifying those two conditions itself." While the terms of § 1607(c) are less ambiguous, it might also be subject to varying interpretation. For instance, one might argue that, in conjunction with § 1607(b), the language used might support the argument that a state legislature could, by concurrent resolution, direct state or local officials to spend the federal monies received. For instance, one might argue that the state legislature would have the ability to direct state or local officials to apply for and spend discretionary grant money. In this case, the language in question might be understood as if rewritten as follows: (c) Distribution- After the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's state legislature's discretion. However, as discussed in the section regarding § 1607(b), it seems unlikely that the use of the term "State's" is intended to mean the state legislature. The term "State" is used throughout § 1607 in contexts which clearly indicated that the term State is referring to entities which receive federal funds – i.e., state or local agencies or officials. As is discussed below, absent statutory context indicating otherwise, like terms in discrete sections of a statute are generally given the same meaning by a court. If this language refers to state or local officials, however, then § 1607 provides that funding will be "at state or local official's" discretion. In this case, the language in question might be rewritten as follows: (c) Distribution- After the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's state or local offic i al' s discretion. Under this reasoning, once a state legislature has authorized the distribution of funds, then it is up to the discretion of state or local officials as to whether to apply for such funds or not. This would be consistent with the provisions in the Recovery Act which provide for discretionary grants. Although, as discussed below, the nature of discretionary grants is that they are not made until after application by state or local officials, because such applications help the federal agency establish what the level of funding will be. Since the § 1607 leaves "discretion" with state or local officials as to such funding, the state or local officials could use their discretion to choose not to apply for discretionary grants. Further, as discussed below, even if federal funds were allocated to a state by formula, it is not clear whether state or local officials would be obligated to spend it. There is no language in §1607(c) that appears to require that state or local officials spend federal funds once they are allocated. It should also be noted that the distribution of federal funds by formula or discretionary grant are the two ways that federal grant funds are distributed. Thus, these are also the methods by which funds would flow under the Recovery Act after the governor has made his certification under § 1607(a). While the absence of such language does not directly lead to an ambiguity in the statute, adding that information to § 1607 may clarify the meaning of the other sections. Thus, § 1607(c) might best be interpreted as follows (added text in italics): (c) Distribution- After either the Governor's certification or the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's state or local official's discretion. Thus there appear to be two possible interpretation of the provisions of § 1607. As reworded, these interpretations would be as follows. In reading statutes, there are a variety of rules and conventions, and presumptions that courts use to evaluate statutory language. Since there seems to be little legislative history available to shed light on which of these interpretations should be favored, it would appear that other tools of statutory interpretation should be utilized. Two of the more important canons of statutory construction applicable to this statutory provision are: 1) that a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, and 2) that statutory interpretations which lead to constitutionally doubtful results are disfavored. In general, a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its various parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purposes. As discussed above, once the ambiguous terms are clarified, the narrow "certification" interpretation of § 1607(b) seems to have a relatively straight-forward application: if the governor fails to make a certification under § 1607(a), the state legislature makes it for him. There would also be no conflict between § 1607(b) and § 1607(c), as the latter would merely state a relative truism, i.e., that the federal funds "will be for" distribution under either a formula or at a state's discretion. Finally, because this narrow interpretation of § 1607(b) does not "waive" all federal grant requirements, it does not significantly conflict with the various grant conditions that are otherwise specified in the act. The broader "accept, waive and spend" interpretation, however, seems to create a significant tension between § 1607(b) and the requirements of many provisions of the act. One of the more significant features of the Recovery Act is the imposition of a variety of grant conditions on states, which, in some cases, may even require the modification of state laws. Further, some of these grant conditions would appear to require some states to expend significant additional state funds in order to comply with the grant conditions. Under this broad interpretation of § 1607, a state wishing to evade expensive grant requirements need only have their state legislature, rather than the governor "accept" the money in question by concurrent resolution. Thus, a state would be able to, relatively easily, receive all the funds available to it, with none of the attendant conditions. Although a complete analysis of how the "accept, waive, spend" interpretation of § 1607(b) would interact with other provisions of the Recovery Act is beyond the scope of this report, a sampling of three grant programs in Title XIV of the act can elucidate some issues that may arise. Thus, the following sections interpret the workability of § 1607(b) in relation to 1) funds allocated by a formula and made available only upon application of a governor under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, 2) State Incentive discretionary grants made available only upon application of a governor, and 3) Innovation Fund Awards made available upon application by subordinate governmental entities. For instance, one can evaluate how the broader "accept, waive and spend" interpretation of the phrase "acceptance ... [which] shall be sufficient to provide funding" would be reconciled with Title XIV of the Recovery Act. If this interpretation does not seem consistent with that portion of the statute, then the narrower "certification" interpretation would appear to be favored. Under § 14001(d) of the act, the United States Department of Education is given authority over a "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" (Stabilization Fund) of $53.6 billion. After providing for certain reserve funds, the Secretary of Education is directed to determine how much of these funds will be allocated to each state based on a population-related formula. Section 14005(a) & (b) provide that, in order for a state to receive its allocation from the Stabilization Fund, a state governor must do, among other things, the following: Submit an application to the Department of Education, containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably require. In that application, a governor shall provide assurances regarding "maintenance of effort" for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools, address the issue of inequitable distribution of high quality teachers, establish a longitudinal data system, and enhance the quality of academic assessments. Provide baseline data that demonstrates the state's current status in each of the areas described in such assurances. Describe how the state intends to use its allocation, including whether the state will use such allocation to meet maintenance of effort requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and, in such cases, what amount will be used to meet such requirements. Thus, the question arises whether the phrase "acceptance by the State legislature ... shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State" would give a state legislature the authority to "accept" the allocations from the Stabilization Fund, even if a governor did not make the necessary application and otherwise comply with the statutory requirements. However, "accepting" money does not, under the plain meaning of the term, address the issue of "spending" money. In theory state or local officials, even once they have accepted money, are not compelled by the federal government to spend it. In general, unspent or unobligated grant funds must be returned to the grantor agency at the end of the grant period unless the statute governing the particular grant program permits unused grant funds to be carried over to another fiscal year or grant term, or unless the grantee is permitted to apply the unspent funds toward another program. Courts have upheld the authority of federal agencies to seek recovery of grant funds where the grantee has not used the payments for authorized purposes within a prescribed period or where the grantee has not provided for an accounting of the funds within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in order to effectuate the "accept, waive and spend" interpretation, a state legislature would need to be able to direct state or local officials to spend any federal money that they receive. As is discussed below, a concurrent resolution would not generally be sufficient under state law to achieve this result. Thus, the state would need to find the authority to direct state and local officials to spend federal monies under § 1607(b). However, it is not clear that § 1607(b) could be interpreted to provide such authority. The phrase "acceptance by the state legislature ... shall be sufficient to provide funding to that State" appears to only trigger a federal obligation to provide monies. The language does not, however, further specify that "acceptance" is sufficient to "direct that relevant state entities will accept and spend those funds." In particular, it is unclear how the term "provide funding," which seems to speak to the actions of the federal government, could be interpreted to apply to state and local officials, who will be receiving the monies. Thus, it is not clear under what theory the language in § 1607(b) could be reasonably interpreted as authorizing a state legislature, by concurrent resolution, to direct the behavior of state or local officials. The Secretary is directed, under § 14001(c), to reserve certain funds from the Stabilization Fund for "State Incentive Grants" to the states. In order to receive a state incentive grant, a governor must submit an application which documents the status of the state's progress in a variety of different areas. A governor must also describe the status of the state's progress in implementing various existing federal standards. Finally, a governor must submit a plan for evaluating the state's progress in closing achievement gaps. At that point, the Secretary will determine which states receive grants and the amount of those grants on the basis of information provided by the states and such other criteria as the Secretary determines appropriate. It should be noted that, under § 1607(b), the state legislature has the authority to "accept" funds under "any division" of the Recovery Act. Thus, the power of "acceptance" by the state legislature applies to those divisions of the Recovery Act that provide for discretionary grants. However, while the "accept, waive and spend" interpretation might have some practical application regarding funds allocated by a formula, the argument that the § 1607(b) phrase "acceptance by the State legislature ... shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State" actually means "waiver of the application and other statutory conditions and requirements" appears to fail in this context. The amount of monies awarded under discretionary grants cannot be determined until after a state or local official has made an application for such funds. Absent a state or local official submitting a grant application and providing the required information, the Secretary would have no basis upon which he could distribute the state incentive grants. So, the ability of a state legislature to "accept" funds could not logically mean "waiver of the application and other statutory conditions and requirements" in this context. Finally, in some instances, an expansive "accept, waive and spend" interpretation of the language in § 1607 would appear to run counter to existing facts. For instance, § 1607(b) envisions exercise of the state legislature's authority regarding "any division of this Act ... not accepted for use by the Governor." However, a governor does not appear to have underlying authority to "accept" funds under all divisions of the act. For instance, under § 14007, the Secretary is given the authority to reserve up to $650 million to establish an Innovation Fund which will be used to provide academic achievement awards. These awards may only go to a local educational agency or a partnership between a nonprofit organization and either one or more local educational agencies or a consortium of schools. Although this section does not specify an application process, it would appear that local entities, not the governor's office, would submit the application and provide supporting data to justify such awards. Further, it may be the case that, under state law, a governor would not have a role in determining whether the local education agency will apply for or accept such awards. Again, this would seem to undercut the broader interpretation of § 1607(b), As noted, a broad interpretation of the § 1607(b) phrase "acceptance by the State legislature.... shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State" might imply that Congress intends that all statutory requirements for the receipt of federal funds, such as submitting an application and complying with grant conditions, can be waived by a state legislature. The Recovery Act, however, offers money to states both in the form of state funds allocated by formula and by discretionary grants available to states and entities within states. As noted above, the phrase under consideration could only logically be applied in the case of funds allocated by a formula, since waiving the requirement of application and provision of necessary information in the context of discretionary grants would leave no basis for determination of the amount of funds to be awarded. Thus, in order for the language of § 1607(b) to take on the broader meaning in the context of formula-allocated funds, the language "shall be sufficient to provide funding under this Act" would have to mean something different in relation to discretionary grants. However, under general rules of statutory construction, the same words of a statute cannot be interpreted differently in different contexts. As noted, a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its various parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purposes. The broader "accept, waive and spend" interpretation, however, cannot be easily applied in relation to the funding sources of the Recovery Act discussed above. On the other hand, the narrower "certification" interpretation, when viewed as merely a complement to the gubernatorial certification scheme (and having no effect on the various funding requirements such as are established in Title XIV), raises few or no statutory conflicts. Further, this interpretation would allow the terms in question—"acceptance" and "sufficient to provide funding"—to more closely relate to their plain meaning. To the extent that a proposed statutory interpretation were to raise constitutional doubts, while another interpretation was free of constitutional concerns, the former interpretation would generally be disfavored. A variety of concerns could be raised regarding both the broader "accept, waive and spend" interpretation and the narrower "certification" interpretation. These issues would include principles of federal delegation of authority, state doctrines of separation of powers, and Tenth Amendment federalism concerns. In general, however, it appears that the narrower "certification" interpretation would avoid significant constitutional challenges while the "accept, waive and spend" interpretation would, at a minimum, raise Tenth Amendment concerns. The first question that could be asked is whether the Constitution provides Congress, under either the broad or narrow interpretation of § 1607 suggested above, the authority to delegate its legislative authority in this manner. Under either interpretation, Congress has delegated to either the governor or the state legislature some authority to determine whether federal monies in the Recovery Act will be available to the states and various entities within the states. Thus, this would appear to be an attempt to delegate Congress' authority to effectuate a statute to non-federal actors. Early in the evolution of case law regarding federal power, the Supreme Court established the non-delegation doctrine—the precept that "the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated." Despite this language, the Court has long recognized that administration of the law requires exercise of discretion, and that "in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives." The Court has thus recognized that "that there is some difficulty in discerning the exact limits," and that "the precise boundary of this power is a subject of delicate and difficult inquiry, into which a court will not enter unnecessarily." In practice, the Court has rejected delegation challenges in all but the most extreme cases, and has allowed the delegation of vast powers to entities outside of Congress. One such delegation issue arises when Congress provides that a statute be effectuated, revived, suspended, or modified, upon the finding of certain facts by an executive or administrative officer. Such laws, often referred to as "contingent delegations," were approved in an early case, The Brig Aurora. After previous restraints on British shipping had lapsed, Congress passed a new law stating that those restrictions should be renewed in the event the President found and proclaimed that France had abandoned certain practices that violated the neutral commerce of the United States. The argument was made that this was an invalid delegation of legislative power. The Court had little trouble upholding the law, noting that "we can see no sufficient reason, why the legislature should not exercise its discretion in reviving the act of March 1 st , 1809, either expressly or conditionally, as their judgment should direct." The nature of the event that triggers these "contingent delegations" need not be directly related to factual findings by government entities. For instance, the Court has upheld such delegations to the relatively unfettered wishes of private persons. For example, in Currin v. Wallace , a statute that placed restrictions upon the production or marketing of agricultural commodities was to become operative only upon a favorable vote by a prescribed percentage of those persons affected. The Court's rationale was that such a provision does not involve a delegation of legislative authority because Congress has merely placed a restriction upon its own regulation by withholding its operation unless it is approved in a referendum. The same principles that apply to federal agencies or individuals appear to extend to delegations to states. Beginning in the Nation's early years, Congress enacted many statutes that contain provisions authorizing state officers to enforce and execute federal laws, and challenges to these practices have been uniformly rejected. When, in the Selective Draft Law Cases , the contention was made that the 1917 statute authorizing a military draft was invalid because of its delegations of duties to state officers, the argument was rejected as "too wanting in merit to require further notice." Congress continues to empower state officers to act. Under either the "certify" or the "accept, waive and spend" interpretation, § 1607(b) appears to allow the state legislature to, by concurrent resolution, affect the availability of federal funds. Providing assurances and certification, is a commonplace mechanism used in the federal grant area. It is only the devolution of the exercise of this authority to a state legislature by concurrent resolution that appears to be novel. As noted, a concurrent resolution is not generally a legislative vehicle by which a legislature, under a state constitution, can regulate activities outside of the state Legislative Branch. Consequently, the passage of a concurrent resolution in this case would not generally be an invocation of a state authority, but would appear more analogous to an action by a private organization or individual. Thus, the question arises, not as to whether the federal government can delegate to a state government, but whether the federal government can delegate federal authority to the functional equivalent of a private organization or individual. This form of delegation does not appear to be of constitutional concern. The Court has upheld statutory delegations to private persons in the form of contingency legislation. It has upheld, for example, statutes providing that restrictions upon the production or marketing of agricultural commodities are to become operative only upon a favorable vote by a prescribed majority of those persons affected. The Court's rationale has been that such a provision does not involve any delegation of legislative authority, because Congress has merely placed a restriction upon its own regulation by withholding its operation unless it is approved in a referendum. It should be noted, however, that the more expansive "accept, waive and spend" interpretation may raise delegation issues. As discussed below, an argument can be made that under the Tenth Amendment, Congress does not have the authority to "commandeer" state or local officials to administer federal programs. Under this analysis, it may be the case that Congress could not direct state officials to spend federal monies which it provided. Since Congress cannot delegate powers that it does not have, it would appear that a state could not, by concurrent resolution, "commandeer" state and local officials. A second concern that might arise regarding the language found in § 1607(b) would be whether allowing a state legislature to "accept" funds, by concurrent resolution, would violate the doctrine of separation of powers at the state level, as it could be argued that it was providing a state legislature the opportunity to exercise legislative power without presentment to a governor. A state-by-state analysis of state separation of powers doctrine is beyond the parameters of this report. An examination of the separation of powers doctrine as developed at the federal level, however, should be helpful in discussing the issues raised by the instant statutory provisions. This concern could be raised regarding both the narrow "certification" interpretation and the "accept, waive and spend" interpretation of § 1607 of the Recovery Act. As noted above, a concurrent resolution does not usually require approval by an executive, and thus is not generally used for substantive law-making. In particular, at the federal level, Article I of the Constitution requires that bills passed by the House be presented to the President for approval. In Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha, the Supreme Court held that every exercise of legislative power by Congress is subject to this presentment requirement. An exercise of legislative power is defined as one which has the purpose and effect of altering the legal rights, duties, and relations of persons outside of the Legislative Branch. As separation of powers jurisprudence has developed, however, the test that the Court has frequently employed evaluates whether the acting party, usually Congress, has either "impermissibly undermine[d]" the power of a coequal branch, or has "impermissibly aggrandize[d]" its own powers at the expense of another branch. Phrased another way, the Court generally considers whether the acting party has "disrupt[ed] the proper balance between the coordinate branches [by] preventing the [other] Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." In deciding cases involving the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court has wavered between two different approaches, at times relying on a strict, "formalist" approach, while in other cases opting for more of a balancing or "functional" methodology. It should be noted, however, that under the narrow "certification" interpretation of § 1607(b), the state legislature which "accepts" the federal funds may not be exercising its state authority. Instead, as noted above, the power that appears to have been delegated to the state legislature was the power to trigger federal law, which would have no significant effect on state law. In effect, as noted above, the state legislature would be essentially acting as a private organization, whose action would trigger contingent federal legislation. Exercising this preliminary trigger would not appear to intrude on powers inherent in the state executive branch, since that branch's cooperation would still appear to be needed. Thus, it would seem that, under the narrow "certification" interpretation, the exercise of authority by the state legislature would be unlikely to raise separation of powers issues. Under the broader "accept, waive and spend" interpretation of § 1607(b), however, for a state legislature to direct the activities of state and local officials by concurrent resolution would appear to be "altering the legal rights, duties, and relations of persons outside of the Legislative Branch." To the extent that such an exercise of a concurrent resolution would be beyond the legislature's authority under the state constitution, the exercise of such authority by the legislature would appear likely to raise state constitutional issues. Such a violation of a state's separation of power doctrine, however, would not mean that that implementation of § 1607 would necessarily violate the United States Constitution. If the state legislature were acting under § 1607, then it would be acting under federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution specifically provides that federal law can preempt not only state law, but also state constitutions. Thus, to the extent that the exercise of § 1607(b) by a state legislature under the broad "accept, waive and spend" interpretation would violate state constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the state constitution would be likely to be preempted. If the term "acceptance by the state legislature ... shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State" were to be interpreted broadly so as to provide for a waiver of requirements regarding applications and other statutory conditions, this might not be effective in requiring that the federal monies actually be spent by a state. For instance, in some cases, a governor might have direct control over the administrative apparatus under which a federal grant might be administered, and might decline to spend any monies received. In other instances, a governor may have significant indirect control over many aspects of state agencies, mostly exercised by his power to appoint or dismiss persons of authority in the executive branch, by which he could dissuade state officials from spending such monies. Finally, local governmental entities and other public or public-private entities which accept and utilize federal funds might have independent authority to decline to spend any monies received. In order for the state legislature to actually direct entities to spend federal monies, one would need to interpret the phrase "acceptance ... shall be sufficient to provide funding to such state" to essentially authorize the state legislature, by concurrent resolution, to direct the activities of local governments, and other public or public-private entities. On its face, §1607(b) is not consistent with such an interpretation, as the language addresses "provid[ing] funding" (which is done by federal agencies), not spending monies (which would be done by state entities). But even more importantly, an interpretation of § 1607 which provides that a state legislature could, by concurrent resolution, direct the activities of a governor, state, and local entities would appear to violate the Tenth Amendment. Since the narrow "certification" interpretation would not similarly impact state and local officials, a finding that the "accept, waive and spend" interpretation would violate the Tenth Amendment would disfavor the latter interpretation. The Tenth Amendment provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In New York v. United States , Congress had attempted to regulate in the area of low-level radioactive waste. In a 1985 statute, Congress provided that states must either develop legislation on how to dispose of all low-level radioactive waste generated within the state, or the state would be forced to take title to such waste, which would mean that it became the state's responsibility. The Court found that although Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate low-level radioactive waste, it only had the power to regulate the waste directly. Here, Congress had attempted to require the states to perform the regulation, and decreed that the failure to do so would require the state to deal with the financial consequences of owning large quantities of radioactive waste. In effect, Congress sought to "commandeer" the legislative process of the states. In the New York case, the Court found that this power was not found in the text or structure of the Constitution, and it was thus a violation of the Tenth Amendment. A later case presented the question of the extent to which Congress could regulate through a state's executive branch officers. This case, Printz v. United States , involved the Brady Handgun Act. The Brady Handgun Act required state and local law-enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers within five business days of an attempted purchase. This portion of the act was challenged under the Tenth Amendment, under the theory that Congress was without authority to "commandeer" state executive branch officials. After a historical study of federal commandeering of state officials, the Court concluded that commandeering of state executive branch officials was, like commandeering of the legislature, outside of Congress's power, and consequently a violation of the Tenth Amendment. In the instant case, if the statutory language in question were interpreted to mean that state or local public entities could be directed by the state legislature to accept and utilize federal funds, this would arguably be a commandeering of those entities for a federal purpose, which would violate the principles of the cases cited above. One might argue that the federal government is not requesting that the state expend funds, but is merely providing federal funds for the state or local officials to administer. However, the Supreme Court has specifically rejected arguments that the level of burden imposed on a state in order to administer federal programs is relevant to a Tenth Amendment analysis. In Printz , the Court stated that where the "the very principle of separate state sovereignty is ... offend[ed], ... no comparative assessment of the various interests can overcome that fundamental defect." One might also argue that since the directions would not be coming from the federal government, but from the state legislature, federalism concerns would be diminished. However, this distinction would not appear relevant if the power being exercised by the state legislature arose out of the federal law, and not state law. If Congress does not have the power to require a state to spend federal funds in furtherance of a federal program, then it would not appear to have the authority to delegate such power to others. The fact that such a law is "contingent" legislation does not appear to change its federal character. One might argue that, once Congress has distributed money to the state based on a concurrent resolution by the state legislature, that it would then have the ability to control how that money is spent. In generally, this authority would be exercised by the threat of denying or taking back the federal monies. In this case, the solution would make little practical difference. Since the grant condition at issue is that state or local officials spend the money, taking back the federal funds would not be a disincentive to those officials. It has been held, however, that Congress may not only impose grant conditions on federal monies, but it may actually exercise substantive jurisdiction over federal monies once the monies have been distributed to a state. In this case, the argument might be made, once the state legislature has accepted federal funds by concurrent resolution, Congress then has the authority to commandeer state and local officials (through the state legislature) to implement that spending program. Such an analysis, however, belies the grounds on which the federal authority to establish grant conditions is based. In general, the Court has held that the grant conditions are not a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which generally prevents Congress from "commandeering" state legislatures to implement federal programs, because the state officials are voluntarily waiving these rights in order to receive federal grants. Thus, in order for the imposition of grant conditions to be valid, is must be determined that the state, under its normal governmental processes, has voluntarily accepted such funds. Directing that some other entity, such as a private entity or a governmental body not authorized under state law to accept such funds, could make that decision on behalf of the state, would not meet the criteria for voluntariness. Section 1607(a) of the Recovery Act provides that, in order for a state to be eligible for the federal funds in the Recovery Act, a governor must certify that (1) a state will request and use funds in the future, and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and economic growth. This language does not appear to bind a governor to request or accept any particular level of governmental funding, nor does it appear that the certification must be based on the governor's future acceptance of funds, as such request or acceptance can sometimes be made by other state officials or by local officials. Forty-five days after enactment of the Recovery Act, if a governor has not provided the necessary certification, then § 1607(b) would appear to provide a state legislature the authority to step in to "accept" state funds by concurrent resolution, achieving the same result as would have been achieved by the certification. However, it seems clear that such acceptance, while "sufficient" to trigger the availability of federal funds under the Recovery Act, does not free a state from any other conditions for receiving funds, such as filling out applications, justifying needs, and providing assurance of compliance with program requirements. Many of the interpretive problems with §1607 result from the ambiguity of the terms used. However, if the statute were interpreted as if it had the following words inserted, the most likely interpretation of the language becomes clear (added text in italics): a) Certification by Governor- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State Governor, state or local officials at some time in the future will request and use some or all of the funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. (b) Acceptance by State Legislature- If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance If the Governor does not provide such certification in 45 day s regarding funds provided in any division of this Act , then certification by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State meet the requirements of subsection (a). (c) Distribution- After either the Governor's certification or the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's state or local official's discretion. Under this interpretation, it does not appear likely that § 1607 was intended to significantly reallocate powers between a state legislature and a state executive branch. Thus, once either a governor's certification or the legislature's acceptance is made, § 1607 would have little or no apparent effect on the remaining power of a governor, state or local official to choose whether or not to seek and administer these funds. The language of § 1607(b), while adding an additional requirement to the federal funding process, does not otherwise appear to supplant or replace existing federal requirements, nor does it appear to change the allocation of power within a state to make decisions regarding the application for, acceptance of and use of such federal funds. Any interpretation of this language which did provide authority to a state legislature, by concurrent resolution, to direct the acceptance and spending of federal monies would likely raise Tenth Amendment issues. Consequently, such an interpretation would be disfavored. | This report analyzes the language contained in §1607 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act or ARRA; P.L. 111-5), which provides that federal funds can be made available to a state by the federal government either after certification by a governor that such money will be requested and spent or after the adoption of a concurrent resolution by a state legislature. Although the language of § 1607 is arguably ambiguous, it does not appear likely that it would have the effect of significantly reallocating power between a state legislature and a state executive branch. Thus, once either a governor's certification or the legislature's acceptance has been made, § 1607 would have little or no apparent effect on the power of a governor, state or local official to choose whether or not to seek and administer these funds. Any interpretation of this language which did provide authority to a state legislature, by concurrent resolution, to direct the acceptance and spending of federal monies by state or local officials, would be likely to raise Tenth Amendment issues. Consequently, such an interpretation would be disfavored. |
Congress and other stakeholders have raised questions about USPS’ participation in the e-commerce area. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that USPS is establishing e-commerce products and services in competition with those already existing in the private sector, a role they regard as not appropriate for a government entity. For example, USPS has established an electronic bill payment and presentment service when many private-sector companies in the financial services industry, such as banks, already provide such services. In August 2000, USPS stated that it had a valid and appropriate role to play in the e-commerce area: “our long history as a trusted provider of universal communications services for the American people and the unquestioned value of our presence in and service to every community make it logical and, we think, imperative that we continue to develop the e-commerce products and services that our customers will need and demand both now and in the future for their business and personal lives.” USPS has stated that the pace of the e-commerce revolution is highly uncertain and that the evolution of market and customer requirements will increase the need for a more flexible, innovative, and responsive Postal Service. According to USPS, many of its direct competitors have taken their business online, and many new competitors are threatening other parts of its business. Further, competition is evolving through electronic diversion and alternatives in the areas of electronic bill payment and presentment, and payment options; secure messaging services; and digital security services, such as digital certificate authorities. Intense competition from online shipping services exists from two major competitors—FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS). The key players each have unique approaches to new electronic business opportunities. According to USPS, it also faces competition from foreign postal administrations, many of which have developed a formal strategy for e- commerce development, in some cases, supported by a dedicated business unit. USPS offers a variety of e-commerce and Internet-related products and services that deal with the delivery of money, messages, and merchandise. Over the past year, USPS has added specific goals and strategies for its e- commerce program. In September 2000, USPS stated that the e-commerce goal for fiscal year 2001 was to “Use the Internet channel to offer new and enhanced products and services that provide the U.S. Postal Service with revenue such as license fees and user charges.” More specific e-commerce fiscal year 2001 goals included (1) generating $104 million in revenue from e-commerce initiatives, (2) increasing customer traffic to USPS’ Web channel (USPS.com), and (3) improving customer overall satisfaction with USPS’ channel/service offerings. In February 2001, USPS’ three primary goals for USPS.com, from which many e-commerce and Internet-related offerings are accessed, were to (1) increase USPS revenue, (2) maximize customer satisfaction, and (3) reduce costs for USPS. In June 2001, USPS said that its goals were to use the best available and emerging technologies, including the Internet, to enhance the value, availability, and affordability of postal products and services for all customers and to expand universal access to the delivery of messages, merchandise, and money by providing customers with choices when doing business with USPS. Recently, USPS appears to be narrowing its focus in the e- commerce area. In September 2001, the Postmaster General stated that “I will take a close look at our e-commerce activities and we will retain those that support growth of our core products and others that are profitable.” Significant changes have affected the marketplace in the past year, particularly in the e-commerce sector, with many dot.com companies going out of business. Due to this market volatility, some e-commerce providers, such as USPS, have experienced slower rates of adoption and lower revenue than anticipated. Yet e-commerce plays an ever-growing role in the national economy. According to a recent report, the number of American adults with Internet access grew by 16 million in the second half of 2000. More than half of those surveyed for the report who had Internet access had bought a product online at one time or another. The Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce estimated that total e-commerce sales for 2000 were $25.8 billion, about 0.8 percent of total retail sales, and for the second quarter of 2001, about 0.9 percent. Privacy concerns are widely regarded as one of the main issues delaying greater use of the Internet and e-commerce. In particular, consumers appear concerned about the extent to which some Web site operators collect personal information and share that information with third parties without the consumer’s knowledge. Surveys have also shown that some potential e-commerce customers avoid using these products and services because of fear that their personal information will be misused. Since we issued our report in September 2000, USPS has taken actions to respond to our recommendations, but it has only made limited progress in resolving the problems that our recommendations were aimed to correct. Over the past year, USPS has continued to struggle with the management and performance of its e-commerce program. Implementation of USPS’ e- commerce initiatives has continued in a fragmented and inconsistent manner. We recommended that the Postmaster General (1) take appropriate actions to help ensure that e-commerce and related initiatives are appropriately identified and maintain accurate and complete information related to the status of these initiatives, (2) follow processes and controls that have been established for developing and approving e- commerce initiatives, and (3) provide complete and accurate information on costs and revenues for the financial data on e-commerce initiatives. USPS continues to have difficulty defining, identifying, and classifying its Internet-related initiatives, including e-commerce initiatives; and inconsistency remains in the implementation of its processes and controls for developing, approving, and monitoring the performance of e-commerce initiatives. Finally, financial information related to USPS’ e-commerce and Internet-related activities is still not complete, accurate, and consistent. We discussed USPS’ difficulties with its e-commerce program with the Deputy Postmaster General. He acknowledged the difficulties and described USPS’ planned actions for addressing the problems. He stated that USPS intends to be able to provide complete financial reporting on all of its e-commerce initiatives by the end of calendar year 2001. USPS continues to have difficulty defining and determining which of its Internet-related initiatives are e-commerce initiatives. In our previous report, we recommended that USPS take actions to appropriately identify e-commerce and related initiatives and maintain complete information on their status. At the time we issued our previous report, USPS defined its e- commerce activities as those products and services that required the Internet to do business and generated revenue to USPS through user charges or licensing fees. Throughout our review, USPS was in the process of revising this definition. According to the Deputy Postmaster General, USPS was refining the definition to deal with what it says were anomalies that have surfaced that made this definition confusing and inappropriate. In October 2001, he stated that USPS’ difficulty in reaching agreement among its various business units on which initiatives were e-commerce was faced by many companies where there was an overlap between e- commerce and core product activities and infrastructure development to reduce costs. Differing internal views about the definition and classification of Internet- related initiatives, including e-commerce initiatives, made it difficult for USPS to provide us with a complete list of e-commerce initiatives. Over the past few months, USPS officials explained the difficulties they had experienced due to differing opinions as to how e-commerce initiatives should be defined and what initiatives should be considered e-commerce versus those that support or enhance existing core products and services. E-commerce initiatives are just one subset of USPS’ new products and services, which may include other Internet-related initiatives as well as retail and advertising initiatives. How an initiative is defined and classified also affects how its costs, particularly indirect costs, and revenues are reported. Without a clear understanding of which initiatives are e- commerce, USPS cannot provide complete, accurate, and consistent information on its e-commerce program. USPS’ criteria for different categories of e-commerce and other Internet- related initiatives have changed several times over the past few months. In a letter dated December 4, 2001, commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Postmaster General stated that USPS now defines as e-commerce “those products or services that require the Internet for the customer to do business with us and whose primary objective is to directly generate new revenue.” Further, he stated that USPS also said that it recognized that some of its new products and services might either use the Internet or generate new revenue, but only those that met both tests would be defined as e-commerce. However, USPS noted that initiatives defined as “non-e- commerce” would not receive any less management scrutiny. Applying this definition, USPS stated that it currently has 5 e-commerce initiatives: ePayments, PosteCS, NetPost Certified, NetPost Mailing Online/NetPost Cardstore, and Secure Electronic Delivery Services/Electronic Postmark. USPS officials explained that the difficulty they have encountered in attempting to define and classify e-commerce and Internet-related initiatives is due to differences in the purposes for various initiatives. They further explained that these different purposes could be grouped into three major categories of Internet-related initiatives. First, some initiatives are intended to directly generate revenue as stand-alone products. Second, other initiatives may indirectly generate revenue by supporting existing core products and services. Third, still other initiatives may or may not generate revenue, but are primarily intended to provide customers with easier access to other products and services. Examples of these different categories follow. An example in the first category would include eBillPay. According to USPS, eBillPay, part of USPS’ ePayments initiative, was developed primarily for the purpose of directly generating revenue from retail customers and has not generated revenue toward any existing core postal product, such as stamps. Thus, USPS considers ePayments a stand-alone e-commerce initiative. Other examples of stand-alone initiatives include NetPost Certified and PosteCS (see app. II for more details on the initiatives). An example of the second category of initiatives is the Postal Store (an enhancement of its previous initiative, Stamps Online), which was intended primarily to provide an electronic alternative for customers desiring to purchase stamps via the Internet. Thus, according to USPS officials, it indirectly generates revenue toward an existing USPS core product, that is, postage stamps, and is not considered an e-commerce initiative. The third category of initiatives includes Delivery Confirmation, which is a special feature added to other products and services that is intended to provide customer ease of use as well as generate direct revenue. USPS also does not consider Delivery Confirmation to be an e- commerce initiative. USPS officials have noted that it has become increasingly difficult to separate e-commerce initiatives from core products because in the future many new products and services will involve some form of Internet component. Since our previous report was issued in September 2000, USPS has implemented four e-commerce-related initiatives or enhancements to initiatives that were mentioned in that report, with the exception of Net Post Cardstore: NetPost Mailing Online was implemented in September 2000, NetPost Cardstore in December 2000, and NetPost Certified in January 2001. In addition, USPS implemented enhancements to its ePayments initiative in September 2001. Two other e-commerce initiatives—the Postal Store and MoversNet (MoversGuide.com)—also mentioned in our previous report were implemented, but as of December 2001, USPS no longer considers these to be e-commerce initiatives. Overall management of USPS’ e-commerce program has been fragmented and inconsistent across the nine business units involved in developing and managing e-commerce and Internet-related initiatives. There has been no clear accountability or consistency in the development, approval, implementation, performance and day-to-day monitoring of initiatives. Since our September 2000 report recommending that USPS follow its processes and controls for developing and approving e-commerce initiatives, USPS has made several revisions to its processes for approving and implementing e-commerce and other new Internet-related products and services. However, over the past year inconsistencies remain in the implementation of USPS’ processes for its e-commerce activities. In September 2001, the Postmaster General announced a sweeping management restructuring, changing both the reporting structure and managers responsible for its e-commerce program. Management of USPS’ e-commerce program has been fragmented because of various factors. The internal processes and requirements for developing and approving e-commerce initiatives have been revised twice in just over 1 year. As noted in our previous report, USPS recognized that its New Products Development process for reviewing and approving new products that it established in 1996 was not suited to e-commerce initiatives. Consequently, in May 2000, it set up the eBusiness Opportunity Board (eBOB) review and approval process. The eBOB process was intended to result in quicker approval of initiatives than had occurred using its previous review and approval process for new products and services. However, over the past year, the eBOB process was not consistently followed for business development and planning for e-commerce initiatives. Since we issued our previous report, some business plans for the e-commerce initiatives were not regularly updated to reflect changing market conditions and required approvals were not always obtained consistently under the eBOB process. Implementation of initiatives has been inconsistent, with some initiatives being implemented either before business plans were prepared or without business plan approval, such as NetPost Cardstore. In July 2001, about a year after setting up the eBOB process, USPS revised its review and approval process, creating both another process—BizDev— and a new management group—Corporate Business Development (CBD). BizDev was intended to be a process through which all new business development ideas would be channeled. In July 2001, CBD officials told us that they intended to update business plans every 6 months. They also told us that business plans were not only to contain new elements but were to be prepared following more strict guidelines. For example, a USPS official noted that a tool kit would be used to specify how business plans were to be written. In September 2001, USPS announced a reorganization and shifted responsibility for e-commerce initiatives to new management and to a new group called Product Development. Although it is not yet clear what processes will be used for approving and reviewing e-commerce initiatives, and it is too soon to determine whether the fragmentation and inconsistency across units has been addressed, recent actions to clarify management responsibility appear to be a step in the right direction. In our previous report, we found deficiencies in the financial information that USPS provided on its e-commerce initiatives and reported that the steps USPS took in this area were important and needed to be effectively implemented. We recommended that USPS provide complete and accurate financial information on costs and revenues for its e-commerce initiatives. Without reliable financial information, USPS will not be in a position to assess its progress toward meeting its overall financial performance goals. USPS’ ability to report accurate and complete financial data for its Internet-related initiatives, including e-commerce, is important to the budget process, ratepayers, and congressional oversight. USPS agreed with this recommendation, and at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 began instituting a standard financial reporting procedure for the seven e- commerce initiatives that were planned or implemented at that time, which USPS continues to refine. The Deputy Postmaster General stated in USPS’ comments on our draft report dated December 2001 that USPS intends to be able to provide complete financial reporting on its five current e-commerce initiatives by the end of calendar year 2001. Although some improvements have been made to the financial statements provided to us during this review, these statements, which have been prepared on a quarterly basis, still are not complete, accurate, and consistent. In September 2000, we reported that because of the data deficiencies, we lacked confidence that the financial information was sufficiently reliable. USPS officials have since told us that USPS has made progress in tracking and reporting e-commerce financial data, including creating a detailed statement of revenues and expenses for each e- commerce initiative; providing a more complete set of costs, such as tracking direct costs on an initiative-specific basis; and providing training to help managers report costs on a consistent basis. We agree that the financial statements provided to us for fiscal year 2001, quarters 1 through 3, were improved. They included more detailed information on expenses, such as developmental and operational expenses; planned revenue and net income; and actual net income (loss); as well as program information, such as volume, number of accounts; and identification of opportunities for improvement. However, these financial statements do not currently capture all of the revenues and costs associated with the e-commerce initiatives, and it is not clear how USPS plans to report the necessary financial information that is not included in the current financial statements. Numerous deficiencies remain in USPS’ financial information for its e- commerce initiatives. USPS has not reported aggregate data on its e- commerce activities as a whole, which would be necessary to track its progress toward USPS’ financial goals for its e-commerce activities. In July 2000, USPS stated that “. . . infrastructure and other costs associated with eCommerce . . . will be calculated as part of our ongoing obligation to appropriately report those incurred costs.” However, in August 2001, USPS officials told us that USPS did not yet have a system to attribute costs for infrastructure that supports e-commerce products and services (e.g., the “Web site infrastructure” initiative). Additionally, in order to compile aggregate costs on USPS e-commerce activities as a whole, the following information would also need to be included: Any common costs to the e-commerce area that could not be allocated to specific e-commerce initiatives. Operating costs and revenues for any e-commerce products and services discontinued during the fiscal year, or whose development is discontinued during the fiscal year, for the fiscal year that aggregate costs are to be reported. Depreciation costs for capital assets acquired for discontinued e- commerce products and services that have not been written off or fully depreciated. USPS stated last year that it would “require that complete and accurate cost, revenue, and performance data be tracked and periodically reported to senior management” for each e-commerce initiative. We are concerned that USPS may only be preparing quarterly financial statements for its current five e-commerce initiatives. Other Internet-related initiatives, that are not considered e-commerce, have generated revenues and expenses in fiscal year 2001 but are not tracked through quarterly financial statements. For example, USPS data for the Delivery Confirmation initiative, which is not considered e-commerce, showed revenues of over $278 million and expenses of over $35 million through the first 3 quarters of fiscal year 2001. Given USPS’ difficulties in determining e-commerce versus other Internet-related initiatives and the probability that many, if not most, future new products and services that generate revenues will have some Internet-related component, it is not clear why quarterly financial statements are required only for e-commerce initiatives at this time. The Deputy Postmaster General stated in USPS comments on our draft report dated December 4, 2001, that “This does not mean, however, that initiatives defined as ‘non-e-commerce” will receive any less management scrutiny.” We also found that USPS reported inaccurate and/or inconsistent cost and revenue data on some e-commerce initiatives. For example, although some postage revenues for Mailing Online were reported as e-commerce revenue, the corresponding processing and delivery costs associated with this mail volume were not reported as e-commerce costs. Further, as the following examples show, revenue and cost data were calculated and reported inconsistently in the quarterly financial statements provided to us: Revenues were reported differently across e-commerce initiatives. For Mailing Online, 38 percent of the postage revenues were estimated as “new postage” generated by this e-commerce initiative—that is, additional postage generated because Mailing Online gave customers an additional way to mail material to consumers. In contrast, no revenues generated by the Postal Store were reported as e-commerce revenues—that is, according to the Postal Store financial statement, the revenues generated via the sale of postal merchandise (e.g., Postal Service bicycling merchandise, stamps, and philatelic products) through the Internet-based Postal Store initiative were not considered e-commerce revenues. Although no revenues for the Postal Store initiative were reported as e- commerce revenues, all costs for this initiative were reported as e- commerce costs. Thus, the net income reported for this initiative factored in only the costs, but not the corresponding revenues. Although most financial statements covered only one e-commerce initiative, others covered multiple initiatives. For example, a single statement for the ePayments initiative covered both eBillPay and other ePayment enhancements that had not yet been implemented. In this statement, eBillPay costs were not reported separately from other ePayment initiatives that were under development. Thus, the net income that was reported was the consolidated net income for the eBillPay initiative as well as the ePayment initiatives. No Postal Store costs were reported in fiscal year 2001 for 8 of 10 cost categories that generated direct costs in prior years, including supplies and services, equipment rent and repair, communications, and travel. USPS stated that costs reported for these eight categories prior to fiscal year 2001 were “start-up costs.” However, according to the Postal Store financial statement provided to us, the total direct costs for these eight categories prior to fiscal year 2001 were $1.4 million, while the “Developmental/Start-up Expenses” were only $800,000. Further, USPS said that to the extent that such costs were incurred in fiscal year 2001 for these eight categories, they were included under “Other Allocated Expenses” or “rolled into a separate administrative budget for a wider function that includes the Postal Store.” However, for other initiatives after their start-up periods, costs for these eight categories continued to be itemized, rather than being included as other allocated expenses. According to a USPS official, the e-commerce financial statements are provided to top USPS officials, including the Board of Governors and the Postmaster General, so that they can have summary information on the performance of the e-commerce initiatives. Complete, accurate, and consistent information would assist these top USPS officials in tracking, evaluating, and making decisions about the e-commerce initiatives. In this regard, we have additional concerns that the financial statements for USPS’ e-commerce products and services were not as useful as they could have been. These concerns include the following: Although the financial statements included quarterly revenue goals and planned costs for the e-commerce initiatives, based on what had been approved during the budgeting process, the statements did not include revised revenue and cost expectations—that is, goals that have changed during the fiscal year from the original budget goals—to clearly indicate what goals e-commerce program managers are working to achieve. Specifically, the financial statements did not disclose substantial downward revisions made during fiscal year 2001 to planned revenues and costs. The financial statements reported total planned revenues for each e- commerce initiative for the full fiscal year, but did not report total planned costs for the full year. For example, planned advertising and program staff costs were not included in the planned full-year costs reported in the financial statements. In certain cases (i.e., ePayments and NetPost Certified) these expenses have made up a significant portion of total expenses. During this review, we identified several issues concerning the e- commerce financial data that remain unresolved, which include (1) whether some or all of the revenues and the corresponding costs of e- commerce products and services are being included with other postal product revenues for budgeting and reporting purposes, including reporting to the PRC; (2) how capital outlays and related depreciation costs for each e-commerce initiative and discontinued initiatives are to be reported; and (3) how costs for e-commerce products and services that are under development (e.g., in a pilot or testing phase) are to be reported. Currently, USPS does not have clear and comprehensive policies and procedures that would address how all of the direct and indirect revenues and costs, including those mentioned above, associated with its e- commerce and other new products and services are to be reported. Without comprehensive policies and procedures in this area, inconsistencies in reporting are likely to continue. USPS is attempting to resolve the problems we have identified. The Deputy Postmaster General discussed with us the difficulties USPS has encountered in trying to refine its financial reporting. He stated that USPS intends to be able to provide complete financial reporting on all e- commerce initiatives by the end of calendar year 2001. We also discussed with the Deputy Postmaster General the difficulties involved in developing a consistent approach to attributing all of the appropriate costs, both direct and indirect, to its e-commerce initiatives. According to USPS, its e- commerce products have some particular characteristics that must be addressed when attributing costs, such as when a new product makes use of already existing infrastructure (e.g., computer system). Other challenges include determining how research and development costs should be attributed. Concerns continue to be raised as to whether USPS’ e-commerce initiatives in the aggregate are being cross-subsidized by other postal products and services. Without complete, accurate, and consistent information, USPS will not be in a position to assess progress toward meeting its overall financial performance goal that e-commerce products and services in the aggregate are to cover their incremental costs and thus not be cross-subsidized. Although USPS intends to provide complete financial reporting on its e-commerce activities by the end of calendar year 2001, we remain concerned that USPS may not meet this goal because of recent changes under way in USPS’ management structure and uncertainty about when USPS’ e-commerce program will stabilize. Given the difficulties USPS has had in distinguishing between e-commerce, Internet- related, and its core products and services and, according to USPS officials, the probability that most new products and services are likely to have some Internet-related component, in our opinion, the need for improved financial information extends not just to e-commerce initiatives but to all of its new products and services. For example, revenues and costs for some ongoing Internet-related activities that have been implemented do not have a financial statement (such as revenues and costs relating to Web affiliates with banner ads/links on USPS.com, and other new revenues and corresponding costs generated by USPS.com). Thus, we believe that financial reporting requirements should apply to all new products and services. Many stakeholders are interested in the performance of USPS’ new products and services initiatives. Congress has also repeatedly expressed interest in more information about USPS’ activities aside from its traditional mail products and services. In the Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, USPS was requested to report on its nonpostal activities, including an estimate of the net revenue generated. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1999 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, USPS was requested to report on its commercial activities, including their revenues and costs. More recently, in the Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2002 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, USPS was requested to provide a report detailing and supporting USPS’ position as to the scope of its existing authority under current law to introduce and provide new products and services. The report also requested information on USPS’ use of such authority to provide new products and services. In view of USPS’ problems in distinguishing between e-commerce, Internet-related, and its core products and services, and USPS’ difficulty in providing complete, accurate, and consistent financial information in this area, Congress could take further action to help ensure better transparency and more reliable information on all of USPS’ new products and services. As we mentioned previously, to develop complete and consistent financial information, USPS needs to have clear and comprehensive policies and procedures for reporting. We also believe that a regular review of USPS’ financial reports in this area is needed to ensure that the information is reliable and complete. The review could include annual USPS information on volume, revenue, and cost information related to its new products and services. Such a review could be conducted by an independent entity, such as an independent auditor or the PRC, in a manner similar to that required for international mail. The results of the review could be reported on an annual basis to Congress. USPS officials told us that they would prefer a review by an independent auditor. We would agree that such a review could ensure that USPS is adhering to its policies and procedures and that information was reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If an audit by an independent auditor does not result in acceptable financial information on USPS’ new products and services, then PRC may be another alternative for reviewing USPS’ financial information in this area. To date, performance of the e-commerce initiatives has reportedly fallen short of USPS’ expectations. USPS officials said that this was because the initiatives were relatively new, with most being less than a year old, and that the business plans were overly aggressive. In September 2000 we reported that, in some cases, business plans had been presented for approval after e-commerce initiatives had been implemented. In addition, we found that business plans had not been updated regularly to reflect changing market conditions, thereby resulting in unrealistic performance expectations. Without more timely and complete business planning, USPS management will not be able to create a more realistic baseline against which to measure and monitor the performance of each e-commerce initiative and thus be able to determine whether a specific initiative should be modified or discontinued. USPS has recognized that it needs to improve in this area. USPS has begun updating and revising business plans and developing mechanisms to more regularly monitor and report on the performance of e-commerce initiatives. Further, in September 2001, the Postmaster General said that he would be taking a close look at USPS’ e- commerce activities and that USPS will retain those that support growth of its core products, as well as others that are profitable. Although USPS does not yet have complete revenue and cost information on its original e- commerce initiatives, none of the e-commerce initiatives for which financial information was provided to us in seven financial statements for the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2001 were profitable. In developing its fiscal year 2001 performance expectation for the overall e-commerce program, USPS management used available business plans, including one that had been prepared in 1996. According to USPS officials, the goal for expected e-commerce revenue in fiscal year 2001 was $104 million. At the end of the first three-quarters of the fiscal year, according to the financial statements provided to us, e-commerce initiatives had generated less than 1 percent in actual revenues toward the planned annual revenue goal of $104 million. During our review, we noted that information in USPS’ e-commerce business plans had not been regularly updated to reflect changing market conditions. For example, although acknowledging in the 1996 business plan that NetPost Mailing Online’s use of new technology made it difficult to estimate its market share and size, USPS did not update that plan until March 2001, after it was implemented in September 2000, over 5 years later. Expected performance in the updated plan had been revised to reflect anticipated changes in the adoption rates and revised implementation dates for this initiative, information that should have been provided in a more timely manner to USPS management so that decisions could have been based on more meaningful data. Some of the updated business plans provided to us included revised forecasts of expected performance, based in part on USPS’ actual experience with its e- commerce initiatives. Business planning is very important because, as we recently testified, electronic government initiatives should be supported by a well-developed business case that evaluates the expected returns against the costs. The business case provides the forum for the evaluation of the project’s costs, benefits, and integration with the agency performance and results strategy. Conditions affecting performance goals can change significantly during the course of a year. For example, the March 2000 ePayments business plan, which includes eBillPay, was updated a year later in February 2001. The February business plan reflected substantially revised performance expectations based on lowered forecasts by market analysts of consumer adoption of electronic bill payment as well as USPS’ actual experience in offering this initiative. Revenue, cost, and operating contribution expectations for fiscal year 2001 had been decreased by about 96 percent, 66 percent, and 33 percent, respectively, when compared to the expectations in the March 2000 business plan. Without more regular updating, management may not be able to gauge an initiative’s progress toward performance goals and thus determine whether set goals are realistic. USPS officials also told us that they recognize the need to more regularly monitor the performance of e-commerce and Internet-related initiatives. In addition to updating business plans every 6 months, USPS officials told us in July 2001 that USPS was developing a performance report to track all new products and services, including e-commerce initiatives, which it reportedly implemented in September 2001. The performance indicators in the performance report are to be taken from the business plans for each initiative, according to USPS officials. USPS management would then be able to use these reports, or scorecards, to assess a particular product’s viability or as a factor in their decisionmaking. In addition to monitoring an initiative’s performance, it may be necessary to discontinue an initiative should it continue to perform below expectations. USPS also reportedly implemented a reporting tool in September 2001 that includes information on its new revenue-generating business activities. Among other things, the report is to identify those initiatives whose contribution, after a specified implementation period, falls below their expected contribution. After being given a certain amount of time for corrective actions, such initiatives may be discontinued. In May 2000, after the initiatives had been in place about a year, a USPS official noted that the “bubble burst and there was a market downturn” referring to the recent economic slowdown. Business plans prepared in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 that were provided to us projected that the Postal Store and NetPost Cardstore would be profitable by the end of fiscal year 2001, while the remainder of the initiatives would become profitable between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2005. In our 1998 report on new products and services, we acknowledged that it might not be reasonable to expect all new products to become profitable in their early years because new products generally take several years to become established and recover their start-up costs. However, throughout this time, management needs to be provided with timely and accurate information on each initiative’s performance so that decisions can be made concerning whether the initiative is progressing as planned or needs to be either modified or discontinued. With respect to privacy protections provided to customers of e-commerce and other Internet-related activities, USPS has stated that its customers are afforded greater protection than those of private-sector providers, chiefly because of the requirements in the combination of three laws—the Privacy Act of 1974, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the Postal Reorganization Act. Also, USPS recently stated that its voluntary compliance with other federal privacy laws and guidance to which USPS is not subject provides additional protection. Selected private-sector e-commerce providers we contacted generally disagreed with USPS’ contention that its customers are afforded greater privacy protection, stating that private-sector e-commerce providers, while not subject to the Privacy Act and the Postal Reorganization Act, are subject to ECPA and several other federal privacy-related laws and regulations, as well as applicable state laws that do not apply to USPS. In comparing the privacy protections USPS reports to offer its customers with those privacy protections private-sector providers report to offer to their customers of e-commerce products and services, we noted that different federal privacy laws apply to USPS than apply to private-sector providers. For example, the Privacy Act and the Postal Reorganization Act do not apply to the private sector, but other federal laws, such as the FTC Act, may apply to the private sector but not to USPS. In addition to the requirements in federal privacy laws, and in response to privacy concerns, both USPS and private-sector providers told us that they were voluntarily engaging in additional self-regulatory privacy practices to safeguard customers’ personal information. We did not review actual privacy practices of USPS or selected private-sector providers; therefore, we could not assess either their voluntary privacy practices or whether they were complying with all applicable privacy laws. In comparing the privacy protections that USPS reports that it provides to its e-commerce customers with those that private-sector providers report that they provide to their customers, we noted that different federal privacy laws apply to USPS than to private-sector providers. Although the Privacy Act and the Postal Reorganization Act do not apply to private- sector providers, the ECPA and other applicable federal privacy laws do. The Privacy Act is a comprehensive privacy statute that provides certain safeguards to protect individuals’ personal privacy. The Privacy Act limits the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies, including USPS, and grants individuals access to information about themselves. Under the Privacy Act, USPS, its contractors, and other federal agencies are generally prohibited from disclosing to third parties personal information maintained on individuals (not businesses) without their consent. In addition, while under the Privacy Act, USPS may be authorized to disclose personal information to other government agencies under certain circumstances, the ECPA further restricts any such disclosure. Under the ECPA, USPS may only disclose stored electronic communications to a governmental entity possessing a search warrant, or certain subpoenas. In addition, while the Privacy Act generally prohibits the sale or rental of an individual’s name and address by a federal agency, the Postal Reorganization Act restriction on USPS goes further. It provides that no officer or employee of USPS shall make available to the public by any means or for any purpose any mailing or other list of names or addresses of postal patrons or other persons, except for census purposes or as otherwise specifically provided by law. The Privacy Act allows individuals the right to sue federal agencies for violations of the statute and provides for damages. In addition, the Privacy Act provides criminal penalties and fines for willful, wrongful disclosure of information and willful failure to meet the notice requirements of the act. Depending upon the particular e-commerce initiative, information collected by USPS from customers may include the following: name and address, fax and telephone numbers, e-mail address, social security number, and credit card information. On September 26, 2001, USPS implemented MoversGuide.com, an e- commerce initiative that allows electronic change of address for postal patrons via the Internet. Customer change-of-address information provided through MoversGuide.com will be incorporated into USPS’ National Change of Address Program (NCOA). Through NCOA, USPS collects and disseminates change-of-address information reported by postal customers to qualified private firms licensed by USPS to provide address correction services. In July 1999 we reported that, in our view, the use of NCOA-linked data to create or maintain new movers lists by USPS licensees, who are viewed under the Privacy Act as if they were USPS employees, would not be consistent with limitations imposed by the Privacy Act. USPS disagreed and told us that the Privacy Act does not restrict USPS licensees or their customers’ use of NCOA-linked data to create or maintain new movers lists. We also reported that USPS restricts its licensees from using NCOA-linked data to create or maintain new movers lists through its licensing agreements as a “good business practice” not because USPS considers it to be required by law. While the Privacy Act places restrictions on the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information collected by federal agencies, it does have its limitations. For example, the Privacy Act only applies to personal information maintained in an agency’s “system of records.” The Privacy Act defines a system of records as any group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by (not collected or maintained by) the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In addition, the Privacy Act only applies to information about individuals, not businesses. Furthermore, the act contains 12 exceptions to its general prohibition on the disclosure of personal information. For example, the act authorizes an agency to disclose a record for a routine use, for law enforcement purposes, pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or to either House of Congress. Under the Postal Reorganization Act, as previously stated, USPS employees and officers are prohibited from disclosing to the public lists of names or addresses of postal patrons or other persons. In addition, the Postal Reorganization Act exempts USPS from mandatory Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure for the name or address, past and present, of any postal patron and for information of a commercial nature that would not be disclosed under good business practice. USPS told us that although it is subject to FOIA requests for information, USPS would not release information collected from e-commerce customers. USPS said that FOIA does not compel disclosure that is otherwise prohibited by law. In this regard, USPS told us that “in our opinion, it would not be good business practice to disclose private information obtained in the provision of electronic services.” No comprehensive law comparable to the Privacy Act regulates the private sector’s collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information. Rather, the federal government’s policy, from the onset of the Internet, has been to allow the private sector to regulate itself to the greatest extent possible. However, Congress has regulated the private sector’s collection and dissemination of personal information on a sector- by-sector basis when it has found it necessary to do so. In addition, some private-sector e-commerce providers may also be subject to the enforcement provisions of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in and affecting commerce. FTC has successfully used the FTC Act against private-sector e-commerce providers who misrepresented, in a privacy notice, how they were using personal information collected over the Internet. However, the FTC Act can only be used in this manner if a private-sector company actually posts a privacy notice—which is not always required by law. Private-sector providers could be subject to the FTC Act and a variety of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information on a sector- by-sector basis, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and the ECPA, which prohibits disclosure of stored electronic communications to a governmental entity without a search warrant or certain subpoenas. However, it does not appear that USPS is subject to the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,or COPPA. (See table 1 for a description of these laws.) According to UPS, one of the selected private-sector e-commerce providers we contacted, private-sector providers, while not subject to the Privacy Act, are subject to several other federal privacy-related laws as well as state laws and regulations, in addition to ECPA, that do not apply to USPS. According to UPS, these legal requirements may impose economic consequences for noncompliance, while the Privacy Act and ECPA do not impose such consequences upon USPS, in the absence of intentional violations of these statutes. Financial institutions, some of which provide electronic bill payment and presentment services in competition with USPS, would be subject to the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Among other things, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, enacted in November 1999, generally prohibits financial institutions from disclosing nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties without providing customers the opportunity to decline such disclosures. It also generally prohibits financial institutions from disclosing account numbers to nonaffiliated third parties for use in marketing, and requires financial institutions to give notice to their customers of their privacy policies, including their policies regarding the sharing of information with affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties. Regulations implementing these privacy protections were promulgated and became effective on November 12, 2000. Authority to enforce these privacy protections is provided to a number of federal financial regulators, state insurance authorities, and FTC, based on already existing jurisdiction over the covered financial institutions. According to the American Bankers Association (ABA), which represents financial institutions, the financial services industry, based on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and other applicable statutes, provides vastly more privacy protection than any other industry or government agency. ABA noted that “the volume of statutes, the examination of compliance with those laws by the banking agencies, and the clear commitment by the industry to assist customers in understanding these standards makes this evident.” In addition, private-sector providers of e-commerce products and services directed at children are subject to the provisions of COPPA. COPPA requires the operator of a commercial Web site or online service targeted at children under the age of 13 to provide clear notice of information collection and use practices; to obtain verifiable parental consent prior to collecting, using, and disseminating personal information from and about children under age 13; and to provide parents access to their children’s personal information and the option to prevent its further use. On October 20, 1999, FTC issued a final rule to implement COPPA. COPPA authorizes FTC to bring enforcement actions and impose civil penalties for violations of the rule in the same manner as for its other rules. Table 1 focuses on how selected federal privacy laws may apply to USPS and some private-sector providers of e-commerce products and services. In some cases, USPS business partners may also be subject to these laws. In other cases, the laws may apply to some, but not necessarily all, private- sector e-commerce providers. When comparing the privacy protections offered by USPS and private sector providers of e-commerce products and services, we found that the legal requirements may vary depending upon the particular type of e- commerce provider, product, or service. These differences are of particular interest with regard to the potential disclosure of personal information to third parties. For example: Regarding personal information collected in connection with eBillPay and competing electronic bill payment programs, both USPS and financial institutions in the private sector are generally required by federal law to provide notice to their customers of the uses to which personal information may be put. The requirements to provide such notice are included in the Privacy Act for USPS, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for the private-sector providers. In addition, both USPS and private-sector providers of electronic bill payment services are generally required under the Privacy Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, respectively, to provide their customers with a choice as to whether personal information will be disclosed to third parties. The laws provide for disclosure under certain circumstances. Exceptions to this general rule concerning the provision of choice exist for both USPS and private sector providers. For example, with respect to USPS, the combined effect of the ECPA and the Privacy Act would authorize disclosure of personal information to third parties without obtaining the prior consent of the individual for (1) a “routine use” of the information, (2) for law enforcement purposes pursuant to a search warrant, (3) pursuant to certain court subpoenas, and (4) to either House of Congress. In addition, under the Postal Reorganization Act, USPS is generally prohibited from disclosing lists of names or addresses to the public. Currently, under the routine uses for its eBillPay service, USPS provides personal information to its business partner, CheckFree, and to the Credit Reporting Agency in the provision of its eBillPay service. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, financial institutions in the private sector, some of which provide bill payment and presentment services, are generally prohibited from disclosing account numbers to nonaffiliated third parties for use in marketing. However, financial institutions are authorized to disclose personal information, without providing its customers the opportunity to decline, or “opt out” of the disclosure, to third parties that perform services for or on behalf of the financial institution if confidentiality of the information is provided for by contract. Regarding personal information collected in connection with the sale of merchandise through an e-commerce program, USPS would still generally be required under the Privacy Act to provide notice to its customers of the uses to which personal information may be put and to provide a choice before it is disclosed. The same exceptions, mentioned in the above example, to this general rule would apply. On the other hand, a private- sector company selling merchandise through an e-commerce program would generally not be required by federal law to provide notice to its customers of the uses to which personal information may be put or to provide a choice before it has disclosed such information. However, if the e-commerce program targeted children under the age of 13, the provider would be subject to the provisions of COPPA. In addition, if certain private-sector companies voluntarily provided notice that disclosure of personal information to third parties would be restricted, FTC could bring an enforcement action against the company for failure to follow those restrictions. In response to concerns that have been raised by advocacy groups and others about the privacy of customer information collected on the Internet, various providers of e-commerce services in the public and private sectors began to develop and adopt various business practices to protect the privacy of customer information. In particular, consumers appear concerned about the extent to which some Web site operators collect consumer information and share that information with third parties without the consumer’s knowledge. Surveys have shown that some potential e-commerce customers avoid using these products and services because of fear that their personal information will be misused. Both USPS and selected private-sector providers, including associations that represent such providers, have reported that they use many of these voluntary privacy business practices. A variety of tools and methods have been developed by both the public and private sectors to develop, assess, and monitor their privacy practices. For example, privacy policy generators, offered by such groups as the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), Microsoft, and TRUSTe, have been used to create draft privacy policies for private-sector providers. In addition, privacy risk assessment tools, such as the Internal Revenue Service’s privacy impact assessment, have been used to evaluate the privacy of customer information. Finally, some private-sector providers have used privacy seal programs and independent audits to develop, assess, and monitor their privacy practices. Privacy seal programs, such as those administered by TRUSTe, BBBOnline, and CPA Webtrust are independent, third-party enforcement programs that provide a way to monitor company practices and enforce privacy policies. A number of private-sector providers have also had independent entities, such as accounting firms, conduct independent audits to determine whether they are following their stated privacy policies. USPS notes it is also subject to independent audits by us and the USPS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG). After discussions with key stakeholders, such as FTC staff and OMB officials and selected private-sector providers, we compiled a list of voluntary privacy business practices that the private and public sectors have developed to protect customers’ information. While we recognize that there are numerous private-sector e-commerce providers, we contacted the providers included in table 2 because they offered e- commerce products and services similar to those offered by USPS. These providers include ABA, whose members include community, regional and money-centered banks and holding companies as well as savings associations, trust companies, and savings banks; DMA, whose members include users and suppliers in the direct, database, and interactive marketing field; and UPS, a leading delivery and logistics company. We recognize that this list is not complete as self-regulatory practices are continually being developed. We sent this list to USPS and the selected private-sector providers and asked whether they used these practices. We did not verify whether USPS or the selected private-sector providers we contacted actually adhered to their privacy policies or followed the privacy practices they said they used. We did not assess these practices to determine their effectiveness, or address the security aspects of the protection of customers’ data. Table 2 describes some of the privacy business practices that USPS and the selected private-sector providers of e-commerce products and services reported that they used. As shown in table 2, USPS and all of the selected private-sector providers we contacted reported that they have privacy policies posted on their Web sites that state how customers’ information will be collected, safeguarded, and used. They also reported that they incorporate standard privacy clauses in contracts with e-commerce suppliers, contractors, and affiliates. USPS has reported that its contractors, such as its business partner in offering USPS eBillPay, are bound by contract to the same disclosure requirements that apply to USPS. USPS and the selected private-sector providers stated that they either have a chief privacy officer or an officer who performs the functions of a chief privacy officer. USPS stated that it adhered to all, and some of the selected providers reported that they adhere to most, of the FTC’s fair information principles (notice, choice, access, and security). The selected private-sector providers reported that they provide training to employees regarding the protection of customers’ personal information and the organizations’ privacy policies and practices. USPS officials stated that they plan to implement P3P (a technological solution that is intended to enable individuals to control their personal information and make decisions based on their individual privacy needs) this fiscal year, and initiate a training program in the future. Regarding processes, USPS’ Chief Privacy Officer stated that USPS has established, among other things, an internal cross-functional advisory board, and a privacy assessment tool to ensure privacy compliance and set security requirements in product development. Regarding voluntary adherence to federal laws and regulations, USPS’ Chief Privacy Officer told us that USPS generally voluntarily follows the requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, COPPA, FTC guidance related to privacy issues, and OMB’s privacy memorandums. Further, the Deputy Postmaster General stated in February 2001 that although USPS does not consider itself subject to OMB guidance, it has decided to voluntarily comply with the following two OMB Memorandums related to privacy matters. First, OMB Memorandum M-99-18, issued in June 1999, requires federal agencies to post clear privacy policies on their principal Web sites; to any other known, major entry points to their Web sites; and to any other entry points to their Web sites where the agency collects substantial personal information from the public. The memorandum also requires such policies to inform Web site visitors what information the agency collects about individuals, why it is collected, and how it is used, and requires the policies to be clearly labeled and easily accessed when someone visits the site. Second, OMB Memorandum M-00-13, issued on June 22, 2000, details OMB’s requirements related to cookies. It established a new policy concerning cookies by stating that cookies should not be used at federal Web sites, or by contractors when operating Web sites on behalf of agencies, unless clear and conspicuous notice is given and the following conditions are met: (1) there is a compelling need to gather the data on the site, (2) the agency takes appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards for handling information derived from cookies, and (3) the head of the agency has personally approved the use of cookies. In addition, the memorandum states that it is federal policy that all federal Web sites and contractors when operating on behalf of agencies shall comply with the standards set forth in COPPA with respect to the collection of personal information on-line at Web sites directed at children. In October 2000, we found that USPS used persistent cookies,which USPS fully disclosed in its privacy policy. With respect to private- sector e-commerce providers, some may disclose the extent and purpose of their use of cookies while others may not. Although USPS has actions under way to respond to the recommendations in our previous report, it has not yet fully addressed them. Over the past year, USPS has continued to struggle with the management and performance of its e-commerce program. Implementation of USPS’ e- commerce initiatives has continued in a fragmented and inconsistent manner. USPS has had difficulty both identifying and classifying its Internet-related initiatives, which include e-commerce initiatives. Further, it does not have reliable financial information for all of its e-commerce and Internet-related initiatives. USPS is attempting to resolve the deficiencies we identified and has recently reorganized its management structure for its e-commerce program. We believe that efforts to establish better transparency and accountability for performance results are steps in the right direction. USPS has aggressively taken a number of steps to implement a privacy program. Although the selected private-sector providers we contacted and USPS are subject to different privacy-related laws, both have reportedly developed privacy policies and practices that exceed those required by federal law. Given the myriad federal and state privacy laws applicable in this area as well as the numerous private-sector providers with varying privacy practices, we did not attempt to determine which privacy practices might afford customers greater privacy protection. Concerns continue to be raised in Congress about whether USPS’ e- commerce initiatives in the aggregate are being cross-subsidized by other postal products and services. In responding to our previous report, USPS told us that in providing e-commerce products and services, it would ensure that in the aggregate, the revenues generated by such products and services would cover their direct and indirect costs as well as make a contribution to overhead. To date, although USPS does not yet have complete revenue and cost information on its original e-commerce initiatives, based on the financial information that was provided to us, none of the e-commerce initiatives were profitable. Without complete and reliable financial information on its e-commerce initiatives, USPS is hindered when assessing its progress toward meeting its e-commerce performance goals or determining whether and when those initiatives that are not meeting their goals should be modified or discontinued. Although USPS intends to provide complete financial reporting on its e- commerce activities by the end of calendar year 2001, we remain concerned about its ability to meet this goal because of recent changes under way in USPS’ management structure and uncertainty about when USPS’ e-commerce program will stabilize. Given the difficulties USPS has had in distinguishing between e-commerce, Internet-related, and its core products and services and, according to USPS officials, the probability that most new products and services are likely to have some Internet- related component, we believe that the need for improved financial information extends not just to e-commerce initiatives but to all new products and services. Further, we are concerned that currently USPS does not have clear and comprehensive policies and procedures that would address how all of the direct and indirect costs associated with its e-commerce and other new products and services are to be reported. Without comprehensive policies and procedures in this area, inconsistencies in reporting are likely to continue. Accordingly, we believe that the Postmaster General should take steps to develop reliable and consistent financial information for all of its new products and services. If these steps do not result in better transparency of and accountability for USPS’ new products and services, Congress may want to consider requiring USPS to have an annual review by the PRC on the performance of its new products and services, including its e- commerce activities, and PRC to submit a report to Congress annually on the results of this review. To ensure that USPS develops reliable and consistent financial information for all of its new products and services, we recommend that the Postmaster General develop a comprehensive set of policies and procedures for capturing, attributing, and reporting revenues and expenses associated with its new products and services and that are consistent with PRC’s cost attribution policies; provide an annual report to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, House Committee on Government Reform, and PRC showing its revenues and expenses for new products and services individually and in aggregate that has been audited by an independent entity for the purpose of determining that the report was prepared in accordance with the Service’s policies and procedures and generally accepted accounting principles; and provide the audited report for fiscal year 2001 by May 1, 2002, and by May 1 for each subsequent year. In view of congressional interest in USPS’ new products and services and the difficulty USPS has had in providing reliable information on its Internet-related activities, if the steps taken by USPS do not prove effective, Congress may wish to consider requiring USPS to report annually to PRC on the performance of its new products and services, including its e-commerce activities, and having PRC evaluate the quality of the data and submit a report annually to Congress on the results of this review. The information provided by USPS could correspond to that currently provided to PRC and Congress for the volumes, revenues, and costs of its international mail products and services. USPS provided comments on a draft of this report in a letter from the Deputy Postmaster General dated December 4, 2001. These comments are summarized below and included as appendix III. We also incorporated technical comments provided by USPS, FTC, and UPS officials into the report where appropriate as well as oral comments provided by PRC’s Director of Rates, Analysis and Planning on the Matter for Congressional Consideration. USPS said that the draft report pointed out some areas in which it had done a good job and other areas that it said we believed it had considerable work to do. USPS acknowledged that it while it had made progress in responding to our earlier recommendations, it had not made all of the progress we would have liked. With respect to its privacy protections, USPS said that it appreciated our evaluation. It said that in this area of evolving law, regulation, and good business practice, it was confident that it was an industry leader. Through the protections it provides, USPS said, that its customers have strong assurance that their privacy is respected and protected. As we noted in our report, in contrast to its fragmented approach to e-commerce programmatic activities, USPS has created a focused privacy program headed by a Chief Privacy Officer. USPS reportedly has developed privacy policies and practices for its e- commerce customers that exceed those required by federal law, and is also voluntarily engaging in additional self-regulatory privacy practices to safeguard customers’ personal information. USPS said that it was continuing to implement several organizational and process changes that would result in a better and more sharply focused approach to developing and launching not only e-commerce initiatives but also other new products and services. Further, USPS said that in the restructuring of a number of headquarters functions by the Postmaster General in early September, marketing was one of the areas in which significant changes had been made. All units responsible for developing and rolling out new products and services, including e-commerce, have now been combined into one department to increase management oversight, program discipline, and financial control over the initiatives. We believe that such steps, if properly implemented, should assist USPS management in resolving the fragmented approach to management that we observed during our review. It appears to us that this fragmented approach was due, in part, to many business units having responsibility for e-commerce initiatives. However, since USPS is still in the process of implementing organizational changes, it may take some time before the results of this reorganization are apparent. USPS said that it was no longer struggling with a definition for e- commerce. It now defines its e-commerce initiatives as “those products or services that require the use of the Internet for the customer to do business with us and whose primary objective is to generate new revenue.” USPS said that the reason for the emphasis on new revenue was that by expanding its product base, it could develop additional revenue streams to help its “bottom line.” USPS also said that it recognized that some of its new products and services might either use the Internet or generate new revenue, but only those that met both tests would be defined as e-commerce. However, USPS noted that initiatives defined as “non-e- commerce” would not receive any less management scrutiny. Applying this definition, USPS stated that it currently has 5 e-commerce initiatives: ePayments, PosteCS, NetPost Certified, NetPost Mailing Online/NetPost Cardstore, and Secure Electronic Delivery Services/Electronic Postmark. While we believe that it is important for USPS to have a good definition for e-commerce, it appears to us that USPS faces considerable challenges in consistently applying its revised definition and in categorizing its new products and services that involve use of the Internet in a manner in which its various stakeholders would concur. For example, USPS’ revised list of e-commerce products and services did not include revenue-generating advertisements and links to advertisers placed on USPS’ Web site. It is unclear to us why these advertisements would not fit USPS’ definition since they require use of the Internet and are likely there primarily to raise revenue. Our recommendations that USPS develop policies and procedures for reporting revenues and expenses and provide financial reports on all of its new products and services are aimed in part at addressing the challenge that USPS has faced, and continues to face, in consistently applying an e-commerce definition. With respect to the recommendations contained in the draft report, USPS agreed with our first recommendation that it provide a comprehensive set of policies and procedures for capturing, attributing, and reporting revenues and expenses associated with its new products and services. It noted that these would be consistent with cost attribution policies as required in the Postal Reorganization Act and sound business practices for new product introduction and costing. We believe that providing such policies and procedures would be a step in the right direction if properly implemented. It is important that such polices and procedures ensure that USPS tracks and reports consistent information on all of its new products and services and that they are consistent with PRC cost attribution policies. In response to our recommendations concerning annual reporting, USPS said that it would continue its practice of program-specific profit and loss statements, and that these reports would be available to appropriate Senate and House Committees, GAO, and the PRC. USPS noted that these reports would cover those products and services not subject to PRC jurisdiction for pricing, for which a process is already in place to examine their costs and revenues. USPS said that since its financial statements are audited on an annual basis by an independent certified public accounting firm, it planned to have the profit and loss statements reviewed by the accounting firm at the same time for adherence with its reporting policies and generally accepted accounting principles. USPS said that the statements would be submitted by May 1 of each year to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Government Reform, and to the PRC. In preparing these statements, it is important that USPS be able to track revenues and expenses of all of its new products and services individually as well as in the aggregate so that it can develop complete and consistent program information and ensure that there is no cross-subsidization. Without an aggregate report, USPS and others will have difficulty determining whether USPS is recovering its overall costs. We plan to discuss our views on reporting new products and services financial data with USPS officials as they develop their approach to implementing our recommendations over the next few months. USPS offered no comments on the Matter for Congressional Consideration in this report. In oral comments, the PRC Director of Rates, Analysis and Planning said that if Congress elects to require USPS to report annually to PRC on the performance of all of its new products and services, then certain aspects of USPS reporting on international products and services would be a good model to follow. He noted that PRC had a formal proceeding with the input of interested parties to establish reporting policies and procedures in the international area. He also said that PRC’s review provides assurance that the data in this area conform to its reporting policies and procedures. PRC has made recommendations for improving the quality of USPS financial data in the international area. In its most recent report, PRC noted that USPS had made improvements that enhanced the reliability of PRC conclusions regarding the potential for cross-subsidization of international mail. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform; Mr. John E. Potter, Postmaster General/Chief Executive Officer; Mr. George Omas, Chairman, Postal Rate Commission; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. Staff acknowledgments are included in appendix IV. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8387 or at [email protected]. For this report, our objectives were to (1) determine what actions USPS has taken to respond to the recommendations in our September report relating to its e-commerce activities; (2) update the status and performance of USPS’ e-commerce initiatives; and (3) compare federal privacy laws, regulations, and policies that apply to USPS in the e- commerce area to those that apply to private-sector providers and discuss voluntary privacy protections provided by USPS and selected private- sector providers. To determine actions taken by USPS to respond to our recommendations, we attempted to obtain an updated definition of what USPS considered to be an e-commerce initiative and a listing of e-commerce initiatives, which were also to correspond to USPS’ updated definition. We asked for a description of each initiative, along with available supporting documentation. During our review, USPS was in the process of defining, identifying, and classifying its Internet-related initiatives, which include e- commerce initiatives, as well as updating its definition of e-commerce. E- commerce initiatives are just one subset of USPS’ new products and services, which may include other Internet-related initiatives as well as retail and advertising initiatives. USPS provided us with information on initiatives that were implemented, piloted, or planned as of September 2001, but did not finalize its definition of e-commerce initiatives or its listing of Internet-related initiatives, which were to include e-commerce initiatives, until December 2001. We obtained additional information on USPS e-commerce initiatives from the Postal Rate Commission (PRC) and other public sources, such as the USPS Internet site. To update the status and performance of USPS e-commerce initiatives, we obtained documentation from USPS on its goals and strategies, expected performance, and results through the third quarter of fiscal year 2001, relating to its e-commerce initiatives. The documentation included, for example, available performance measures, targets, and expected performance and results; documentation of processes applicable to USPS e-commerce initiatives and the approval of specific initiatives under those processes; e-commerce business plans, minutes of the eBusiness Opportunity Board and relevant meetings of the Board of Governors; and available financial data. We interviewed USPS officials responsible for USPS e-commerce initiatives, including the Deputy Postmaster General, the Vice President for e-Commerce, the Vice President for Corporate Business Development, and other e-commerce program officials. We also interviewed officials responsible for compiling financial data. In all cases, we obtained, when possible, documentation to corroborate oral statements. To obtain information on financial results for the e-commerce program, we obtained information from USPS on revenues and expenses generated by its e-commerce initiatives through the third quarter of fiscal year 2001, although some did not have reported revenues because they had not been implemented by that time. However, these data were not provided for all of the e-commerce and other Internet-related initiatives included on lists that USPS provided to us in August 2001. We did not review or independently audit the overall integrity of USPS’ data, but we examined it for consistency, clarity, and completeness. To compare federal privacy laws, regulations, and policies that apply to USPS in the e-commerce area to those that apply to private-sector providers, we built on information already compiled in our previous report on USPS e-commerce activities as well as in other GAO reports on Internet privacy. We interviewed USPS officials, including USPS’ Chief Privacy Officer, as well as OMB officials and FTC staff. We reviewed documents and other information obtained from USPS and selected private-sector providers. We reviewed the material obtained for internal consistency and completeness, but we did not verify the information provided by USPS or the selected private-sector providers. We also reviewed USPS information as well as information on some of its partners and affiliates that was available on their respective Internet sites. We also reviewed reports and studies on Internet privacy prepared by FTC and the Congressional Research Service, among others. We researched and analyzed selected federal privacy laws including the Privacy Act, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act, and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. To provide information on voluntary privacy policies and protections provided by USPS and private-sector providers of e-commerce products and services, we obtained written information from USPS and selected private-sector providers. While we recognize that there are numerous private-sector e-commerce providers, we selected the United Parcel Service (UPS), the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), and the American Bankers Association (ABA) because they, or their members, offered e- commerce products and services similar to those offered by USPS. For example, they or their members offered or used e-commerce services such as electronic bill payment and presentment services, online shipping services, and direct mail marketing. ABA members include community, regional, and money-center banks and holding companies as well as savings associations, trust companies, and savings banks. According to ABA, most community banks are members and substantially all large banks are members of ABA. The DMA’s members, users and suppliers in the direct, database, and interactive marketing field, may provide similar services to those of USPS or be customers of USPS’ e-commerce services. DMA has more than 4,700 member organizations, commercial as well as not-for-profit, from the United States and over 53 nations on 6 continents. UPS is a leading delivery and logistics company. We did not review actual privacy practices of USPS or selected private- sector providers; therefore, we did not assess either their voluntary privacy practices or whether they were complying with all applicable privacy laws. Given the myriad federal and state privacy laws applicable in this area, as well as the numerous private-sector providers with varying privacy practices, we did not attempt to determine which privacy practices might afford customers greater privacy protection. We conducted our review at USPS headquarters in Washington, D.C., between January 2001 and October 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Status Implemented 4/2000. Provides integrated ePayment solutions: eBillPay allows consumers to pay bills, businesses to send bills, consumers to pay each other, and consumers to receive financial statements. eBillPay was implemented 4/2000, and the other enhancements were implemented 9/2001. MoversNet was implemented summer 1996. MoversGuide.com was implemented 9/2001. Implemented 12/2000. Implemented 1/2001. Implemented 9/2000. Implemented 5/2000. MoversNet includes three products and services: the hard copy publications—Movers Guide and Welcome Kit—and the Internet application called MoversNet.com. Currently MoversNet.com allows downloading a form for customers to submit changes of physical addresses and is accessible via the USPS Web site and via direct link. It is offered through a strategic alliance with a private company. MoversGuide.com, an enhanced version of MoversNet, allows change of address orders to be accepted electronically and securely via the Internet, with proper identity validation. Allows customers to send greeting cards via a Web interface. Customers can choose from a menu of existing cards for multiple business and personal occasions. Allows secure electronic exchange of data and documents. The program is supported by digital certificates and electronic postmarks issued by USPS. The service is currently in use with government agencies. Allows mailers to electronically transmit their documents, correspondence, newsletters, and other First-Class Mail and Standard-A mail (primarily advertising mail), along with mailing lists, to USPS. Electronic files would then be securely distributed to printing contractors who print documents, insert them into addressed envelopes, sort the mail pieces, and transport the mailing to post offices for processing and delivery. An electronic courier service, it provides a secure, private, Internet- based document delivery system. USPS has joined with Canada Post and LaPoste of France to provide this service globally. The Postal Store, formerly StampsOnline, allows postal customers to purchase stamps, philatelic products, phone cards, and other USPS merchandise via the Internet. Postal Store replaced Stamps Online in 11/2000. These e-commerce initiatives, with the exception of NetPost Cardstore, were included in our September 2000 report. As of December 4, 2001, USPS no longer considered MoversGuide.com or the Postal Store as e-commerce initiatives. Teresa Anderson, Hazel J. Bailey, Joshua Bartzen, Kenneth E. John, Jill Sayre, and Albert Schmidt made key contributions to this report. Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management (GAO-01-959T, July 11, 2001) Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of “Cookies” (GAO-01-424, Apr. 27, 2001) Bank Regulators’ Evaluation of Electronic Signature Systems (GAO-01- 129R, Nov. 8, 2000) Internet Privacy: Federal Agencies Use of Cookies (GAO-01-147R, Oct. 20, 2000) Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices With FTC’s Fair Information Principles (GAO-01-113T, Oct. 11, 2000) Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices With FTC’s Fair Information Principles (GAO/AIMD-00-296R, Sept. 11, 2000) Internet Privacy: Agencies’ Efforts to Implement OMB’s Privacy Policy (GAO/GGD-00-191, Sept. 5, 2000) U.S. Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to Electronic Commerce (GAO/GGD-00-188, Sept. 7, 2000) U.S. Postal Service: Electronic Commerce Activities and Legal Matters (GAO/T-GGD-00-195, Sept. 7, 2000) U.S. Postal Service: Status of Efforts to Protect Privacy of Address Changes (GAO/GGD-99-102, July 30, 1999) U.S. Postal Service: Development and Inventory of New Products (GGD- 99-15, Nov. 24, 1998) U.S. Postal Service: Unresolved Issues in the International Mail Market (GAO/GGD-96-51, Mar. 11, 1996). | Management of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) e-commerce program has been fragmented, and implementation of e-commerce initiatives has varied at different business units. Overall, USPS' performance in this area has fallen short of expectations. Last year, the Postmaster General announced a sweeping management restructuring that changed both the reporting structure and program managers. USPS also revised its procedures for approving and implementing new Internet initiatives, including e-commerce. However, concerns persist about whether USPS' e-commerce initiatives are being cross-subsidized by other postal products and services. USPS managers contend that e-commerce products and services must cover their incremental costs. GAO found that this goal has not been met and it is unclear when it might be achieved. Without accurate, complete, and consistent financial information, USPS cannot assess its progress toward its financial performance goals for e-commerce. USPS also lacks clear and comprehensive policies and procedures for reporting direct and indirect revenues and costs for e-commerce and other new products and services. As a result, reporting inconsistencies are likely to continue. In contrast, USPS has reportedly developed privacy policies and practices for its e-commerce customers that exceed those required by federal law. |
As parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, World Trade Organization (WTO) Members must grant immediate and unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to the products of other Members with respect to customs duties and import charges, internal taxes and regulations, and other trade-related matters. Thus, whenever a WTO Member accords a benefit to a product of one country, whether it is a WTO Member or not, the Member must accord the same treatment to the like product of all other WTO Members. Free trade agreements (FTAs) are inconsistent with this obligation because of the favorable treatment granted by FTA parties to each other's goods. FTAs, however, have generally been viewed as vehicles of trade liberalization; therefore, the GATT contains an exception for such agreements. Article XXIV of the GATT requires that parties must notify the WTO of these agreements, which are then subject to WTO review. The exception applies both to completed FTAs as well as to the interim agreements leading to their formation. The increasing number of regional agreements and the substantial amount of trade covered by them led GATT parties to try to strengthen the existing multilateral discipline during the GATT Uruguay Round. GATT parties have never expressly disapproved an FTA, despite misgivings about the consistency of particular provisions with GATT requirements. The Uruguay Round Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV (the 1994 Understanding) attempts to increase multilateral surveillance over regional trade arrangements by "clarifying the criteria and procedures for the assessment of new or enlarged agreements, and improving the transparency of all XXIV agreements." In 1996, WTO Members created the permanent Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), which conducts reviews of new and existing FTAs and studies the overall impact of such agreements on the world trading system. Further improvement in this area is also a part of the negotiating mandate for the WTO Doha Round. On December 14, 2006, the WTO General Council established a new transparency mechanism for FTAs which, among other things, provides for early notification of FTA negotiations. To comply with Article XXIV, FTAs must meet four fundamental requirements: (1) duties and other restrictive commercial regulations must be eliminated; (2) substantially all trade must be covered; (3) external tariffs and commercial regulations—that is, measures applicable to nonparties—may not be higher or more restrictive than those in effect before the FTA or interim agreement was formed; and (4) interim agreements must contain a plan and schedule to achieve these goals within a reasonable period of time. Even though the GATT requires that FTAs eliminate tariffs and restrictive regulations, it allows FTA parties to apply tariffs, restrictions, and GATT-inconsistent measures imposed under specified GATT articles, "where necessary." WTO Members entering into an FTA or an interim agreement must promptly notify the WTO and provide information that will enable reports and recommendations to be made to WTO Members. FTA agreements have traditionally been examined by ad hoc working parties that prepare reports on their findings and present them to WTO Members for consideration. The 1994 Understanding provides that working parties will report to the WTO Council on Trade in Goods, which will make appropriate recommendations to WTO Members. Under Article XXIV, paragraph 10, WTO Members may, by a two-thirds vote, approve proposals that do not fully comply with Article XXIV, providing they lead to the formation of an FTA as contemplated by the Article. Parties to a noncomplying agreement may also seek a waiver of obligations under Article IX of the WTO Agreement, which allows waivers in "exceptional circumstances" if agreed to by three-fourths of WTO Members. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which also contains a general MFN obligation, provides an exception for trade liberalizing regional service agreements, so long as barriers and other restrictions on trade in services be eliminated immediately or within a reasonable time frame and, the agreement provides substantial sectoral coverage. In addition, nonparties must not be subject to higher or more restrictive trade in services barriers as a result of the agreement. Finally, parties to the agreement must notify the Council for Trade in Services of the existence of such an agreement and, if implementing on a time frame, report periodically to the Council. The GATS also contains an exception for agreements establishing full integration of the parties' labor markets, provided that the agreements exempt citizens of parties from residency and work permit requirements. One of the most problematic aspects of Article XXIV, particularly as it applies to the exclusion of economic sectors from FTAs, is the meaning of the term "substantially all trade." The term has not been defined either by GATT Parties acting jointly or by GATT working parties, whose reports have tended to be inconclusive. The 1994 Understanding does not expressly define the term; however, the preamble states that the trade expansion to which regional agreements contribute "is increased if the elimination between the constituent territories of duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce extends to all trade, and diminished if any major sector is excluded." In examining whether FTAs comply with this obligation, working parties have taken into account both quantitative and qualitative factors. The working parties did express concerns regarding the exclusion of certain agricultural trade in the U.S. FTAs with Israel and Canada, but neither panel recommended the disapproval of the FTAs, and both reports were subsequently adopted. Article XIX of the GATT, as expanded upon in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, allows parties to impose temporary restrictions on imports in the event of import surges. Article 2.1 of the Safeguards Agreement states the general rule that a WTO Member "may apply a safeguard measure to a product only if that Member has determined ... that such product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products." Article XIX is not listed as an FTA exception in Article XXIV, paragraph 8(b), and the Safeguards Agreement leaves open the question of the relationship of safeguards to FTAs. WTO Members have expressed differing views on the subject, arguing that (1) safeguards may not be imposed against FTA partners because such measures are not exempted in paragraph 8(b); (2) safeguards must be applied on an MFN basis, in part because of the requirement in Article 2.2 of the Safeguards Agreement that a safeguard "be applied to a product being imported irrespective of source"; and (3) safeguards are allowed among FTA parties so long as third-party rights are not infringed. While not ruling on the relationship of Article XXIV to the imposition of safeguards, WTO panels and the Appellate Body have identified a requirement of "parallelism" in the Safeguards Agreement dictating that if serious injury were to be based on all imports, including those from the FTA, the safeguards should apply to the same imports. For example, in the WTO challenge to the now-removed safeguard on steel imports imposed by the United States in March 2002, the panel, as upheld by the Appellate Body, faulted the United States for including the imports of affected products from U.S. FTA partners in its investigation of whether increased imports were the cause of serious injury, while excluding these countries' imports from the remedial safeguard without providing a "reasoned and adequate" explanation for why the imports covered by the safeguard alone satisfied the requirements for imposing the measure. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as U.S. FTAs with Israel, Canada, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Oman and Peru, and the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), contain safeguards provisions for originating goods. Safeguards provisions are also included in recently signed FTAs with Colombia, Panama and the Republic of Korea, all of which are awaiting approval by Congress. The 1994 Understanding on Article XXIV, at paragraph 12, provides that WTO dispute settlement procedures may be invoked with respect to matters arising under Article XXIV provisions relating to free-trade areas and interim agreements. The provision clarifies that the review provisions of Article XXIV are not the only vehicle for examining the compatibility of FTAs with GATT rules. WTO dispute settlement is also available with respect to all obligations under the GATS. Both the U.S.-Israel FTA and the U.S.-Canada FTA were presented to the GATT Contracting Parties as interim agreements for the formation of a free-trade area. The NAFTA, and FTAs with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, and the DR-CAFTA were submitted both as free trade and services agreements. A draft report on NAFTA was issued for consideration by the WTO Committee on Regional Trade Agreements in September 2000. The United States has also entered into FTAs with Oman, Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. While implementing legislation for the FTAs with Oman and Peru has been enacted into public law, neither FTA has yet entered into force. Implementing legislation for the FTA with Colombia was introduced April 8, 2008 ( H.R. 5724 ; S. 2830 ), but expedited legislative procedures that would have applied to the bill were suspended by the House on April 10, 2008 ( H.Res. 1092 ). Implementing bills for the FTAs with Panama and South Korea have not yet been introduced. The Administration has also begun negotiating FTAs with Thailand, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). | World Trade Organization (WTO) members must grant immediate and unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to the products of other members with respect to tariffs and other trade matters. Free trade agreements (FTAs) are facially inconsistent with this obligation because they grant countries who are party to the agreement more favorable trade benefits than those extended to other trading partners. Due to the prevailing view that such arrangements are trade-enhancing, Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) contains a specific exception for FTAs. The growing number of regional trade agreements, however, has made it difficult for the WTO to efficiently monitor the consistency of FTAs with the provided exemption. Negotiations on rules for regional trade agreements are part of the WTO Doha Round; separately, the WTO General Council in December 2006 established a new transparency mechanism for FTAs which provides for early notification by WTO Members of FTA negotiations. The United States is presently a party to nine bilateral or regional trade agreements. While Congress has approved FTAs with Oman and Peru FTAs, these have not yet entered into force. In addition, the Administration has entered into FTAs with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea FTAs, all of which are pending approval by Congress. Implementing legislation for the FTA with Colombia was introduced April 8, 2008 (H.R. 5724, S. 2830), but expedited legislative procedures that would have applied to the House bill were suspended by the House on April 10, 2008 (H.Res. 1092). The Administration has also been involved in FTA negotiations with several other countries, including Thailand, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and the South African Customs Union. This report will be updated as events warrant. |
Chief Executive Officer Dick Costolo said on the earnings call that the company is addressing the slowing growth with a plan to increase the number of users and engagement, primarily by making the site easier to use.
Twitter Inc. posted slowing user growth and a net loss that was wider than analysts’ estimates in its first earnings report as a public company, sending shares down as much as 19 percent in extended trading.
There were 241 million monthly active users in the fourth quarter, Twitter said in a statement today, up 30 percent from 185 million a year earlier and slower than 39 percent seen in the prior period. Usage also declined, with 148 billion views of Twitter timelines compared with 159 billion views in the third quarter. Net loss was $511.5 million compared with $8.7 million a year earlier, and was more than double analysts’ projections of $253.5 million.
The results indicate that Twitter may find it difficult to justify its $37.4 billion market capitalization, a valuation that is higher than Target Corp. and Salesforce.com Inc., as some of its early rapid growth may be leveling out. Since its November initial public offering, Twitter’s stock has soared on optimism that sales will grow as the company rolls out new targeting and mobile-advertising products.
“We are concerned about the slowing user growth and the lower engagement data and whether or not they’re going to be able to sustain momentum,” said Scott Kessler, an analyst at S&P Capital IQ Inc., who has a sell rating on the stock. “If they’re not sustaining momentum in those areas, it’s going to call into question the value proposition that they can provide to global advertisers.”
Comeback Plan
Chief Executive Officer Dick Costolo said on the earnings call that the company is addressing the slowing growth with a plan to increase the number of users and engagement, primarily by making the site easier to use.
“It will be a combination of changes introduced over the course of the year that will start to change the slope of the growth curve,” he said.
The stock dropped in extended trading after declining less than 1 percent to $65.97 at the close in New York. Twitter has more than doubled since it debuted on the stock market at $26 a share on Nov. 6. Twitter trades at 33 times projected 2014 sales, making it pricier than Facebook Inc., at 17 times, and LinkedIn Corp., at 12 times.
Revenue was $243 million in the fourth quarter, up from $112 million a year earlier, the San Francisco-based company said. Analysts had projected an average $218.1 million, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg. About 75 percent of Twitter’s advertising revenue came from mobile devices.
Twitter said its fourth-quarter net loss was driven by a $521 million stock-based compensation expense, while the company’s total spending jumped to $752 million, up more than six times from $121 million a year earlier.
User Engagement
Over the quarter, the number of timeline views may have decreased because Twitter has been working to make each timeline view more valuable, with more people sharing and clicking to “favorite” each others’ messages, Costolo said on the call.
Brian Blau, an analyst at Gartner Inc., said the slowing user growth was troubling, given that Twitter’s advertising business depends on more people spending time on the service.
“They’ve got some user engagement issues,” said Blau. “What I don’t see here is any kind of formula that says they’ve got the killer gigantic big kinds of products and revenues that you see from companies like Facebook and Google. They’re trying to fix it, but they’re not there yet.”
Twitter’s Guidance
Twitter forecast first-quarter revenue of $230 million to $240 million, topping analysts’ estimates of $214.9 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The company said revenue for the full year could reach $1.15 billion to $2 billion. It projected 2014 capital expenditures of as much as $390 million.
Twitter, which initially didn’t price its IPO aggressively, is seeking to avoid the fate of some other Internet companies that went public in the past few years that were hyped at the time of their offerings. Facebook, Groupon Inc. and Zynga Inc. all dropped more than 50 percent within a few months of their initial share sales. While Facebook’s stock has since recovered, Groupon and Zynga remain below their IPO prices.
Facebook last week said quarterly revenue rose 63 percent from a year earlier, with more than half of advertising sales coming from mobile devices, while net income increased more than eightfold. The results sent the social network’s stock soaring.
Mobile Ads
Twitter is trying to capitalize on the growth of advertising on smartphones and tablets, where most of its users spend their time. The company has added features for advertisers, such as one that lets them target people who are already interested in a brand’s products. Twitter is also working to expand promotions outside of its social network after acquiring MoPub, a mobile ad exchange.
The company has stepped up the pace of its product development in order to attract users. Twitter began highlighting images in timeline feeds over the past few months and enabled people to send photos through direct messages, in competition with applications such as Facebook’s Instagram and Snapchat Inc.
Twitter will also focus on improving its messaging capabilities and experiment with displaying information in a more topic-based format, which helps newer users understand the service more than chronological displays can, Costolo said.
Twitter isn’t predicted to make a profit until 2016. Analysts have been split on the company’s potential, with price targets as low as $20 from Hudson Square Research or as high as $75 at Stifel Nicolaus.
To contact the reporter on this story: Sarah Frier in San Francisco at [email protected] ||||| Twitter's stock was punished by the market after its first-ever post-IPO earnings disclosure when investors saw anemic growth in the number of active users on the site. Shares immediately traded down by as much as 17% after hours.
Monthly active users were 241 million. The company added only 9 million more users since the last quarter — that is very weak progress. Only 1 million users were added in the U.S.
Worse, timeline views (a measure of how engaged users are with Twitter) actually declined sequentially.
Wall Street analysts pounded CEO Dick Costolo repeatedly on the call, trying to get him to explain why user growth was slowing down and why engagement was decreasing. Costolo didn't give specifics, but said the company was experimenting with changes and was heartened by early results.
The bad news obscured the good: Revenues were $242.7 million, up 116%. Earnings per share were $0.02.
Both were solid beats. Analysts had been expecting EPS of -$0.02 on revenues of $217.82 million.
The company now gets 75% of its total ad revenue from mobile. Twitter is basically a mobile app company at this point, not a desktop company.
Right now, it looks like the future for Twitter will be all about increasing average revenue per user and revenue per 1,000 timeline views (that's a specific measure that Twitter uses to gauge how much money it can make from running ads in people's tweet streams.)
It will not, pointedly, be about challenging Facebook for dominance of social media. Twitter is a niche social media platform — a niche of a quarter billion users, granted — but does not look right now as if it is going to break out of its core base of social media power-users.
CEO Dick Costolo began the call by admitting Twitter was difficult to use for new users. "We are doubling down in 2014 to accelerate growth of our core user base," he said, and taking steps to make user interface easier for new users. "These initiatives are working well."
This is the chart that's killing the stock. User growth shows only 1 million new U.S. members in the last quarter, and international growth slowed too:
Timeline views, a measure of engagement were down sequentially — yikes! — but up year over year:
To put that in perspective, note that the percentage growth of timeline views was already declining before it declined as a whole:
Here are the revenue charts:
And revenue per 1,000 views:
Here is the full earnings release.
Some revenue highlights:
Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2013 totaled $243 million, an increase of 116% compared to $112 million in the same period last year.
Advertising revenue totaled $220 million, an increase of 121% year-over-year.
Mobile advertising revenue was more than 75% of total advertising revenue.
Here's the guidance:
Q1 Revenue is projected to be in the range of $230 million to $240 million.
Full year 2014: Revenue is projected to be in the range of $1,150 million to $1,200 million.
Revenue v. profit:
Highlights from the call: Twitter chose classical music for listeners on hold prior to the call — a stark departure from the usual upbeat lite rock that most tech companies use for conference calls.
CEO Dick Costolo: He begins with a backgrounder on what Twitter is for analysts who haven't been paying attention. "Twitter has created a level playing field essentially democratizing content creation."
There were 5.4 million tweets on the death of Nelson Mandela.
User growth: "we are confident in our ability to scale revenue."
"We are doubling down in 2014 to accelerate growth of our core user base."
Taking steps to make user interface easier for new users.
"These initiatives are working well."
Simpler user onboarding experiences also coming.
"A combination of changes over the year."
Some changes we make could result in changes to our metrics, such as timeline views.
"We are essentially increasing the value of each timeline view."
Threaded conversations are a great example ... make it easier to follow conversations ... but that cuts timeline views because no need to scroll. ... helps new users more quickly grasp conversational nature of platform.
Costolo says he wants Twitter to reach entire world.
Looking to enhance conversational nature of Twitter.
We want to do a better job of organizing content along topic lines not just chronological.
CFO Mike Gupta: company made a "series of product changes across both iOS and Android designed to increase user interaction per timeline view."
Questions from analysts!
Changes that were negative factors on timeline growth: Did it also impact user growth?
Costolo: Until last year our growth was viral and organic ... "growth happened to us." ... but then company made changes ... hypotheses we have .... "that gives us confidence that roadmap would be successful." "We don't think we need to change anything about the characteristics of our platform we simple need to make Twitter a better Twitter..... we will improve the new user experience particularly on mobile. ... improve onboarding, native mobile sign up, connections, ... looking to make Twitter more accessible ... more visually engaging medium ... a better tool for conversations both public and private ... "you often want to whisper to the person next to you about the thing you are observing." ... better job of organizing content along topical and relevance lines rather than just chronological lines.
You said no. 1 priority is driving MAU [monthly active users] ... did any of these new rollouts create MAU churn?
Costolo: We have benefit of infrastructure allows testing simultaneously ... that will deliver "the change in the slope of the growth curve we want to see." ... seeing early results ... confident in plan.
What happened with timeline views?
Costolo: The volume of interactions for timeline view was something we were hoping to drive in Q4 and that was successful ...
Gupta: We will see fluctuations especially as we're experimenting ... think of timeline views as long term.
[Opinion: Costolo hasn't given any detail on what these experiments are or why they would would hurt timeline views or slow user growth. Hmm.]
Another question about user and timeline growth.
Gupta: We've seen strong growth in revenue per 1000 timeline views. ... big increase in ad engagement ... we improved prediction and targeting caps ... modest inc in ad load ... we have meaningful revenue in front of us.
Question on ad load re Facebook, etc. Also, Amplify (Twitter's video ad product):
Gupta: Amplify adoption early but strong. ... sports leagues signed on ... ad load: we're not sharing a specific no. ... it's very light.
(They're taking Q's from analysts' Twitter accounts!)
Another brutal question on user U.S. growth: "Even if you triple the current growth, it will take you 12 years to get to 200 million domestic users. Can you get there?"
Costolo: "We have a plan to make a broader audience to get Twitter to understand more broadly. We've seen success on preliminary steps on that, we believe the cumulative effect of changes we make over the course of the year ... will result in changing the slope of the growth curve. We have every confidence that will happen. What exactly the slope of that growth curve will look like and when it will occur we cannot guess at.
How many people come on the platform, try Twitter and then leave? ... that seems to be the problem.
C: We're not going to speak specifically to any specific no.s of new user retention. ... [We want to change Twitter so that users see that] it's not just 'get it' in the first weeks or months on Twitter, it's get it on the first day on twitter ... so that's a focus.
Question on whether Twitter will get video ads:
C: There is an enormous opportunity there and we will continue to invest there. ... [on mobile ads] ads perform better [on mobile] when they are content first. ... beauty of one to one marketing.
Last question: How dependent is 2014 guidance on user engagement?
Gupta: "From a user perspective we are not assuming any inflection in the user growth curve." ... More dependent on the timeline view side.
Costolo ends the call by promising to call his mom!
This was the background before the numbers were released:
Analysts were all over the place with their estimates prior the call, according to Barron's:
In the absence of a clear view on Twitter – difficult when the 27 analysts who follow it are sharply divided on earnings – it is probably best to treat Twitter like a spring-loaded mystery. Estimates range from earnings of four cents a share to a loss of 13 cents. The consensus estimate is a loss of two cents.
The risk to the mystery view is that Twitter, like Facebook, is a cult-theme stock. People own Twitter and Facebook (FB) because of what they will be tomorrow and earnings are incidental to the theme. Remember Google (GOOG), which went public a decade ago at $85? The same valuation debates engulfed Google that now envelop social-media stocks. Google recently traded around $1,165.
The main metric to watch for will be monthly active users. In Q3 2013, Twitter reported it had 232 million users. Bullish investors will want to see that number growing robustly. If it does not, that may suggest that Twitter is more of a niche social product than a mass medium like Facebook, the company to which it is frequently compared.
Even so, Twitter has made progress with advertisers over the last year. The question is, can the company produce the kind of explosive sales growth seen at Facebook and Google after their IPOs?
Analysts on average expect revenue to be $217.82 million. That would be nearly 100% growth in revenue: in the year-prior period it was just $112.3 million. Sequentially, in Q3 2013, it reported $168.6 million.
There are, of course, some skeptics. The stock is currently trading around $66 but one analyst believes it is only worth $26 because dilution from executives and inside investors who hold options has yet to hit. | Twitter beat Wall Street's earnings and revenue expectations in its first quarter as a public company. But investors were looking for even more—including more user growth—and the company's stock dipped as much as 12% in after-hours trading today. Twitter ended the quarter with 241 million monthly users. And while that's up 30% from a year earlier, it's fewer than most analysts expected and down from a growth rate of 39% in the previous period, reports Bloomberg. "Worse, timeline views (a measure of how engaged users are with Twitter) actually declined sequentially," notes Business Insider. That offset the better news: that revenue more than doubled to $243 million from $112 million, beating expectations of $218 million. Twitter reported a loss of $511 million, or $1.41 per share, in the October-December quarter. That compares with a loss of $8.7 million, or 7 cents per share, a year earlier. Adjusted earnings were 2 cents per share. The stock closed at about $66 today but was down to $54 this evening. |
RICK CHASE, The Waterloo Courier/AP
Individual neurons in birds' brains can relay crucial information about Earth’s magnetic field, possibly providing the animals with an ‘internal GPS’, according to research into magnetoreception.
Pigeons’ remarkable navigational feats have long been pegged to the birds’ ability to sense magnetic fields, but pinning down how they do so has frustrated scientists for years. Work published today in Science shows that individual cells seem to encode information on a magnetic field’s direction, intensity and polarity1. The work also suggests that these signals come from a part of the inner ear called the lagena, further complicating matters for researchers in the field.
Until recently, the two best candidate sites for the location of birds’ magnetic sensors were the eyes and the beak. There is good evidence for a form of magnetic ‘compass’ in the eye that uses a mechanism linked to light. And many believed that iron deposits found in the beak were also functioning as magnetic sensors.
But last year, David Dickman and Le-Qing Wu, now at Baylor college of Medicine in Houston, Texas, reported that bird magnetoreception seemed to be linked to the lagena2, resurrecting suggestions from earlier research3 that had generally fallen by the wayside.
For their latest research, the subject of today's Science paper, Wu and Dickman restrained seven homing pigeons (Columba livia) and placed them in a dark room. A magnetic field was created to cancel Earth’s field, and the researchers then monitored the birds’ brain activity while creating and rotating carefully controlled artificial magnetic fields around the pigeons.
The authors found that vestibular neurons — which are linked to balance systems in the inner ear — fired differentially in response to alterations in the field’s direction, intensity and polarity, and that these cells were especially sensitive to the bandwith that covers Earth’s geo-magnetic field.
Combining information on direction, intensity and polarity could provide more than just a compass heading; it could be used to produce positional and directional information because of the way Earth's field varies in different locations. “It could theoretically be used as a GPS unit,” says Dickman.
Magnetic men
“If this work can be independently replicated it is very important,” says Henrik Mouritsen, who works on magnetoreception at the University of Oldenburg in Germany. Mouritsen adds that it is now vital to do behavioural work to show that the vestibular system is performing magnetoreception — for example, by severing the nerves and then testing birds’ ability to sense magnetic fields. Mouritsen is working with Dickman on some of this work.
Mouritsen also cautions that there have been many findings in the field that could not be replicated. One example, he says, is a 2002 Nature paper suggesting that robins had compass magnetoreception in only one eye4. His team has since disputed this finding5, although the original team stands by its conclusions6.
The Science paper comes just days after a report in Nature revealed that cells in pigeons' upper beaks are not magnetoreceptors but immune cells called macrophages, which could not be a part of this avian ‘sixth sense’7.
This does not necessarily mean that there is not a magnetoreceptor in the beak region. There is a considerable amount of evidence linking the ability to this body region, not all of which rests on the structures now identified as macrophages8.
“I would say now there are three potential places where magnetoreceptors may rest,” says David Keays, a neuroscientist at the Institute of Molecular Pathology in Vienna, who led the team behind the macrophage paper. These are the beak, the eyes and the ears. “Our paper and this paper are in a sense raising more questions than answers,” Keays adds. “It’s an extremely exciting time to be in the field.” ||||| The huge gap between current CMS offerings and what the world needed occurred to me during my time as CTO of The Huffington Post. When we were acquired by AOL in 2011, I inherited 53 properties built on dozens of different content management systems. It wasn't long after that I soon realized they were all built by IT people who didn't fully grasp the concepts of traffic and distribution. That's why in 2012 I launched RebelMouse as the first platform to create the "social front page" — a hub where users could aggregate social feeds all in one place. It went viral with eight million users worldwide. The viral success made me realize that there wasn't a CMS to bring it all together, yet.
One of the main reasons I launched RebelMouse was because I recognized that a huge shift in advertising would happen, and that content would become marketing very quickly. And it did.
Today, I am extremely proud of the powerful product we've created. RebelMouse was built to solve the complex intersection of product, engineering, editorial, and revenue. It's allowed us to create a next-generation CMS unlike any other — backed by some of the best venture capitalists in the world — and is responsible for launching some of the biggest media sites such as Axios and The Dodo, both of which saw massive success upon launch.
But our team still sees plenty of sites — including brands, publishers, and personal influencers — not reaching their full potential. A lot of the time it's because they're bogged down with a clunky CMS like WordPress. We're all trying to publish and make money in a competitive industry that's always changing. But to be frank, WordPress isn't keeping up with the industry fast enough. There's a lot you need in and out of a CMS to survive and succeed in this digital climate, and we've created a solution that quickly responds to every industry shift and algorithm curveball.
Here are six reasons why RebelMouse is different from WordPress and worthy of a replatforming process that's simple and can be completed in a matter of days.
1. RebelMouse Is a Centralized CMS
RebelMouse is a centralized CMS, unlike other common web solutions like WordPress and Drupal. WordPress is a decentralized model that requires every platform update to be completed independently. This means that — of the 87 million plus versions of WordPress that are currently live on the internet — each update has to be implemented one by one.
Operating your business on a decentralized model is a big security risk. Every time there's a security threat, the core developers at WordPress must deploy patches in the form of product updates. From there, it's up to the managing developers of each individual site to deploy and configure around these updates to avoid breaking custom code and plugins. And this happens a lot. Since its launch in 2003, WordPress has released 238 product updates, many of them to address gaps in security.
Since we operate on a centralized model, every update on our platform is updated at one time, and sometimes multiple times a day. Usually our clients never notice the difference. We protect the data of our clients and make sure their sites are not only risk-free, but also operating at continuous peak performance.
But this doesn't mean our platform is closed off by any means. We use the languages of the open web, and any developer can easily learn our platform to create high-quality work without the burden of relying on unstable and fragmented WordPress plugins and updates.
2. More Than Just Tech
We've never been one to stick to boxes at RebelMouse. We started out on the cutting edge of social in 2012, and stayed close to the heart of digital publishing ever since. That's why our clients don't get a stagnant software platform like WordPress. Instead, they get a full-service creative agency full of content optimization specialists, social media gurus, and monetization experts. We blur the line between product and strategy to drive success.
Our content migration process from WordPress to RebelMouse is simple. And once it's completed, we don't waste any time optimizing your site for page speed. From there, we restructure your content strategy so you can see results at scale. Here are some of the strategy services we offer:
Monetization: We believe saving costs is the new revenue stream. Our lean tech model creates new opportunities for monetization, and our strategy team uses data-driven methods to make sure your site is getting maximum return.
We believe saving costs is the new revenue stream. Our lean tech model creates new opportunities for monetization, and our strategy team uses data-driven methods to make sure your site is getting maximum return. Social: In 2018, engagement is the key metric to watch to drive sustainable growth. Using our social tools, we can help you create deep connections that spark conversation in the social ecosystem.
In 2018, engagement is the key metric to watch to drive sustainable growth. Using our social tools, we can help you create deep connections that spark conversation in the social ecosystem. Audience Loyalty: It's easy to have viral moments both on site and via social, but those instances can be fleeting. Organic loyalty is what's required to ensure steady growth. We help you take advantage of the social ecosystem's universe of creators and influencers to help you grow a loyal community.
It's easy to have viral moments both on site and via social, but those instances can be fleeting. Organic loyalty is what's required to ensure steady growth. We help you take advantage of the social ecosystem's universe of creators and influencers to help you grow a loyal community. Search: The RebelMouse CMS has the tools to help you optimize each post for SEO. LIke everything else in the current digital climate, the strategy around search is always changing. We'll make sure your current efforts are up to snuff.
3. User-Focused Site Experience
Media sites have become really complicated over time. The industry let intrusive ads take over the internet, and now we're all left cleaning up the mess and re-prioritizing user experiences to get users back and make them stick. When we launched Axios on our new Social UX for Media layout in 2017, it mimicked the social feeds to drive more pageviews, engagement, and user satisfaction. It's a design structure that sees success on our other properties, too, including Dance Magazine and EcoWatch.
Our platform also has a powerful layout tool called Particle Assembler which creates beautiful designs. Instead of leaning heavily on an expensive developer team, Particle Assembler lets content creators design gorgeous layouts within a few clicks. Whatever works best for your brand, we'll guide you through the right design and site navigation that will bring next-level growth to your business.
4. Better Social Distribution Tools
A lot of publishers were slower to understand the importance of distributed publishing when digital started to gain steam. Luckily, it's something we've been working to perfect since we launched our CMS in 2012. Producing quality content is only half the battle — after all, there's no point in publishing engaging content if nobody is around to read it. This is why dynamic distribution is so important in order to succeed in today's digital world. And the good news is that tackling this doesn't have to be a solo effort.
At RebelMouse, we believe we live in a universe of creators. Not only will your fellow creators take interest in the topics you publish about, but they'll also share your content and validate your message.
That's why we created Discovery, an important part of our enterprise-level toolset that's available from right within our Entry Editor where you create articles. Using proprietary technology, Discovery enables you to identify key pages and profiles that could be interested in sharing your content. And through varying levels of social outreach, you can repurpose and share content from your Discovery findings in a way that validates the original message of those influencers. From there, you amplify the content through your own social channels.
This sharing cycle has led to the success of some of our biggest clients. The Dodo — one of the most successful new media companies to date — used Discovery to become the center of all things animals on the internet. It can do this for you, too.
5. Modern Authoring Tools
Chances are the CMS platform you're using was created before social. If that's true, you may still view content on your website and in social feeds as two different entities you have to control and manage. We're here to blur those lines for you and take publishing where it needs to be in 2018.
Our Entry Editor isn't simply a way to publish articles. It's a full-blown toolset for content creators. Before each piece of content is pushed live, it can be optimized for design, social, and SEO. We've also created a new content workflow that ensures every content team is on the most efficient path to publish.
Your writers, editors, creators, and community deserve tools that make them fast and efficient. It's also important that they follow a process that enforces best practices, so that the CMS itself is training your team with every post as they onboard.
6. Easy-to-Understand Analytics
It's important for you to manage your writers, see their performance, enable them to learn from each other, and help them become data driven. RebelMouse analytics provide you with a clear view of who is performing, what posts are working, and where that content is gaining traction.
Our CMS operates on a data-driven product cycle. Everything we release at RebelMouse is subjected to a small percentage of traffic and A/B tested for performance impact. Our testing includes how each version affects pagespeed and user experience. We then take these results and check to see how they correlate with bounce rate, time on site, pages per session, and conversion to goals — such as shares, subscriptions, and purchases. We also take big data and distill it into easy-to-consume insights that you can quickly act upon. You can view how each post is performing on search and social, right from within the Entry Editor.
In addition, we have a deep Google Analytics integration, so you can easily add in components, promos, third-party units, and ad units. But most importantly, as these pieces are being added, they're set up in staged environments automatically, and the traffic performance from these tests can be traced back to impact on bounce rate, pages per session, session duration, number of shares, percent of shares per visit, and unique custom goals for your business.
Let's Start Working Together
We migrate sites from WordPress all the time, and it's a fast process. Even if replatforming isn't an option for you at the moment, we can still offer you our creative agency services to make sure you're reaching your biggest audience possible. Let's create something together. Request a proposal to get in contact with a Rebel. ||||| Neurons in the brains of pigeons encode the direction of Earth's magnetic field, endowing the birds with an innate internal GPS system, according to a new study. Scientists have long known internal magnetic field receptors exist in many animals — from birds to foxes and possibly even people — but this is the first time someone has tried to explain the brain wiring that can actually use these receptors and provide a sense of direction. They did it by putting some pigeons in the dark and monitoring their brains.
Writing in Science, Le-Qing Wu and J. David Dickman at Baylor College of Medicine cite previous research identifying magnetic receptors in bird beaks, as well as in other areas in other vertebrates. They set out to find the neural network responsible for making sense of those signals.
Working with seven awake pigeons, the researchers used a Tesla coil to cancel out the effects of Earth's magnetic field and induce an artificial one. They put the pigeons in a completely dark room to cancel out any light-polarization effects, which have also been suggested as a mechanism for animals' magnetic navigation capabilities. They also stabilized the birds' heads so they couldn't rely on inner-ear cues to determine their directions.
Then Wu and Dickman turned up the magnetic field, adjusting its magnitude, elevation and other variables. They used a gene marker to identify when neurons were activated, focusing on neural areas that were already good candidates for this type of information processing. Ultimately, they pinpointed 53 neurons in the birds' brain stems that had greatly enhanced activity. What's more, those cells were most sensitive to the magnetic field ranges that correspond to Earth's real ones — 20 micro-Tesla (μT) at the magnetic equator to more than 60 μT at the magnetic poles.
The poles shift over time, however, so the researchers note that these neurons must be somewhat adaptable, either through evolution or brain plasticity.
As for the origin of the signals? Wu and Dickman believe the magnetic information is transmitted to the neurons via the inner ear, although it's also possible that beak and/or retinal receptors are involved.
"[The neurons] encode a geomagnetic vector that could be used by the neural population to computationally derive the bird's position and directional heading," they write. In other words: A neural global positioning system.
Exactly how these cells are used for orientation and navigation is still a mystery, however.
The research appears today at Science Express and will be published in the journal Science. | It's no wonder pigeons are renowned for their sense of direction: Their brains function like biological GPS units, say two researchers. As Nature explains, scientists already knew that pigeons used the Earth's magnetic field to get around, but the new study shows for the first time how specific parts of their brains process the information. The researchers think those brain signals come from the inner ear, though it's possible that receptors in their beaks and eyes also take in and pass along information, notes Popular Science. “We have found cells in the (pigeon) brain that signal the direction, intensity and polarity of an applied magnetic field,” a study co-author from the Baylor College of Medicine tells Discovery News. “These three qualities can be used by the brain to compute heading information, like a compass, and latitude on the Earth surface.” A researcher not involved with the study calls it "the most thorough investigation of the magnetic sense so far." |
Back during the no-carb diet craze of the early 2000s, I joked that I wanted to try a diet consisting of nothing but carbs and lipids. I would call it the Fatkins Diet. Guess what? I just did exactly that. I ate ice cream, and only ice cream, for four days straight. Yes, it's the world's first Ice Cream Cleanse, and no, I didn't just make it up.
Welcome to Fitmodo, Gizmodo's gym for your brain and backbone. Don't suffer through life as a sniveling, sickly weakling—brace up and get the blood pumping! Check back on Wednesdays for the latest in fitness science, workout gear, exercise techniques, and enough vim and vigor to whip you into shape.
Advertisement
What the Hell?
I came about this cleanse innocently enough. A friend and I were told we should try the ice cream at a place called Kippy's in Venice, California. We went—and it was delicious—but, as we sat there eating, we noticed a sign on the wall advertising an Ice Cream Cleanse. It seemed insane, so we had to ask.
Kippy's, let the record state, is not your traditional ice cream. It's entirely raw, organic, and coconut-based. Every week, Kippy's brings up roughly 1,000 mature, organic coconuts from Mexico, tastes each one to make sure there hasn't been any fermentation, and then cold-presses them to make a rich coconut cream. The cream is then sweetened with honey, and other raw, natural flavors (orange, vanilla, etc.) are added, and voila! A delicious frozen dessert that technically is frozen cream—so, yeah, it's ice cream. It's just non-dairy ice cream.
Advertisement
But, if you're looking at it and thinking, "Yeah, that still sounds like a ton of saturated fat and sugar," well, you're not wrong. In the name of science, though, I had to try it, and luckily my girlfriend agreed to join me on this strange mission so we could find out how it affects both male and female physiologies.
How It Works
The Ice Cream Cleanse is definitely still in the early stages of development. How early? My girlfriend (who wishes to remain anonymous, in case you hadn't guessed) and I were roughly the eleventh and twelfth people to try it. As a result, things are still being refined somewhat.
Advertisement
The cleanse, as it stands now, lasts for four days. At the beginning of it, you pick up your supply of ice cream from Kippy's. It's five meals a day: one pint of ice cream for each meal. For those of you playing the home game, that means you will be eating 20 pints of ice cream in four days, and that's all (aside from plenty of water). Luckily, each of your meals are a different flavor. It goes like this:
Meal #1: Coconut Yogurt
For breakfast, you've got your raw coconut cream, but it's fermented and has probiotics added to the equation (similar to real yogurt) and then sweetened with raw honey. It's creamy and doesn't taste particularly yogurty—but it's tasty, at least.
Advertisement
Meal #2: Orange Crème
Mid-morning snack time is this pale, orange-ish ice cream that supposedly tastes like a Creamsicle. In actuality, it's a little mild on the orange side, which makes it too similar to meal number one. Kippy seemed to sense this, and for the final two days she subbed in a Honey-Grapefruit sorbet-like thing, which was a marked improvement.
Advertisement
Meal #3: Dark Chocolate with Himalayan Fire Salt
Lunchtime! This is by far the heartiest meal. This one is absolutely loaded with dark chocolate and cacao. It's high in antioxidants and is most definitely a stimulant. Kippy claims the salt gives the thyroid some "much needed iodine," and that it's "essential for cell water content & this hydration initiates metabolism..related to energy, mood, beauty, and longevity." Maybe. But definitely tasty.
Advertisement
Meal #4: Master Cleanse
For your late afternoon snack, some lighter faire. The master cleanse is lemony with a cayenne spice kicker. It seems a bit lighter than the others, which is definitely refreshing at this point in the day. Kippy claims the Lemon/Cayenne is "A very Delicious & Detoxifying Combo! Burns FAT! FAST!" Another winner on flavor.
Advertisement
Meal #5: Superfood Ice Cream
Dinner. I'll just let this quote from the description here do the talking. "Bee Pollen, Cinnamon, Raw Honey! SYNERGY! Loads of Vitamins and Mineral [sic] in Bee Pollen, and Raw Honey/Cinnamon Combo fight inflammation and digestion issues! 'Bee pollen is more rich in proteins than any animal source. It contains more amino acids than beef, eggs, or cheese of equal weight. About half of its protein is in the form of free amino acids that are ready to be used directly by the body.'" So, there's that.
Advertisement
One of the positive things about this cleanse is that it's not quite as strict as others, and there's a bit of flexibility to help you get through, should you need it:
"If you feel the need..drink water plenty of it, and please make this cleanse a beneficial and positive cleanse..if you need to have a bit of food…have an organic raw meal such as an avocado w. mango and lemon juice, or a salad….Have a Raw Organic Green Juice if that helps get you thru! Just make sure everything is organic and raw! If you cant finish a portion of ice cream..don't sweat it! Eat what you want, and keep the rest for when you are hungry…so maybe you need a little more punch in the afternoon and little less in the am…do what fits your schedule!.."
Advertisement
For these 20 pints of ice cream, you pay $240, but that also includes free yoga classes at Ra Ma Yoga (which is next door to the ice cream parlor) for the week. Steep? Yes, but comparable to a lot of high-end juice cleanses you can buy ready-made. Right now it's something you have to come and pick up, but, if it becomes hugely popular, perhaps she'll start shipping the cleanse elsewhere, packed in dry ice or something. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
The Claims
From Kippy's email introduction to the cleanse:
"Raw saturated fat is nothing short of a miracle worker in the human body. It helps us digest, repairs the gut, feeds the brain, boosts the metabolism and is a powerful agent of detoxification. Raw saturated fat from the meat of organic coconuts pressed in-house is the main ingredient of Kippy's! Ice Cream, and the magic behind our first ever Ice Cream Cleanse. When you cleanse from eating Kippy's Ice Cream, you are feeding your body not only the raw saturated fat from the coconuts, but living nutrients from the fruit and Superfoods present in the ice cream. The raw honey used to sweeten Kippy's Ice Cream is a double whammy of amino acids and living enzymes, which aid digestion and reduce inflammation. Fat solubility will help your body more efficiently absorb the nutrients present in the ice cream. Your body, in the course of the cleanse will also release heavy metals, plastics and other toxins, and the raw saturated fat will function as a carrier to rid your body of them for good. The metabolically active properties present in the raw saturated fat (think coconut oil) will increase your metabolism and help you to actually burn fat. Basically, you can expect to lose weight and feel great! And since it's Kippy's Ice Cream, you know it'll be delicious… and fun!"
Advertisement
I showed that to my brother, who is about to start his medical residency. To say he was incredulous would be to put it very mildly, but his specialty isn't nutrition, so I brought in an expert.
We talked to Maren Robinson, CNC, MPH, formerly of the CDC and Harvard School of Public Health, now with Kaiser Permanente in California. She was a bit more measured in her analysis of these claims:
"While virgin, cold pressed coconut oil has a high level of saturated fat—a characteristic that has made it a controversial food source—numerous studies have found that high quality coconut products may contain health properties that far outweigh any health implications associated with a high saturated fat content. In fact, while other oils with a similar level of saturated fat (e.g., butter) are associated with heart disease and cholesterol issues, regular coconut consumption can improve the cholesterol ratio (decrease LDL, increase HDL). Evidence suggests that it actually may reduce risk of heart disease and atherosclerosis—the precursor to heart disease."
Advertisement
She went on to say that coconut has also been shown to have anti-fungal agents, to improve digestion and bowel function, to have insulin-regulating properties, and even to help improve skin and mucous membrane tissue health. She did, however, note that consuming too much of a "good thing" can be problematic, that a balanced diet is extremely important, and that you should definitely consult your healthcare provider before trying something like this—especially if you are diabetic, have a history of heart conditions, are breastfeeding and/or are taking medications, and pregnant women should definitely avoid this.
She also said, in general, she prefers cleanses on the less extreme side of the spectrum.
Really, I just wanted to know if my heart was going to explode if I tried this. It sounded like that was probably unlikely, so we decided to go for it. While I wasn't able to obtain nutritional information from Kippy for each of the five flavors, once the cleanse was over I picked up a half-pint of Kippy's Truly Raw Coconut ice cream from a local store, which seemed like a good baseline. The numbers were staggering.
Advertisement
Each serving contained 9 grams of fat, 8 of which were saturated. There are four of those servings per pint, and we each ate five pints a day. Some quick math will tell you that that's 180 grams of fat, 160 of which are saturated. Wait, it gets worse. In terms of recommended daily allowance, we're looking at 280 percent of your RDA for total fat and... get ready for this... 820 percent of your RDA for saturated fat. Eight-hundred-and-twenty!
Suddenly I understood why Kippy kept forgetting to send me the nutritional info. The 360 grams of sugar each day probably didn't help, either. Perhaps it's for the best that we didn't know. We proceeded in our blissful ignorance.
Advertisement
The Experience: The Good, The Bad, The Poops
Day 1
The first thing we both noticed is that it's not so fun to eat something ice-cold first thing in the morning. We were excited to start this, though, and the breakfast was tasty. After the first couple bites I was thinking, "There's no way I'm going to be able to eat all of this," but psych! I finished it all. After the first meal we both felt ever so slightly queasy.
Advertisement
Got hungry for the second meal about three hours after the first. I wasn't starving, but I was ready to eat. Definitely wanted Meal #2 to be orangier than it was. Much too similar to the first one. We still managed to finish it all. Noticeable increase in thirst, and we started really putting the water away. I felt surprisingly clear-headed afterwards, and even had a good meditation session (which I'd been struggling through, lately).
Roughly three more hours, and then meal three had superpowers. My girlfriend loved it and found it extremely satisfying. The chocolate was almost too intense for me. And then, suddenly, Poopintimes! I don't know if it was the salt or just the accumulated saturated fat, but it was like, "Hey! You need to go, like, now!" Not emergency style, but it was definitely assertive. It wasn't horrible or acidic, but it was a long way from solid. Is this why they call it a cleanse? Girlfriend reported that she was in the same boat.
Suddenly I felt a bit off. Super high energy, but also slightly weak and shaky. Almost like a caffeine spike (likely from all the dark chocolate, which I'm fairly sensitive to). I couldn't sit still. At the risk of having a heart-attack I decided to go for a run. Ended up doing three miles and feeling much better afterwards. Similarly, my girlfriend did one of those Core Power hot yoga classes (which are pretty intense) that afternoon and felt good. We were both pleasantly surprised by how much energy we had.
Advertisement
I had to cover a press event that first night, so I shoved my fourth meal into a thermos and ate it while driving. I liked the flavors but wished it was more lemony (as did the lady). Still had plenty of energy and felt very sharp and focused. Ate meal five when I got home. Lots of flavor, and very heavy on the cinnamon. I ate it all and felt kind of sick afterwards. Went to bed and had weird dreams.
Day 2
Day two was a slog. We weren't hungry, and, while we weren't craving junk food, we most definitely didn't feel like eating more ice cream. But we did. Energy wasn't a problem, but we struggled with motivation. Knowing we weren't even half-way through was tough. We both had lower energy, and we both pushed through our meals, despite not really wanting them. My girlfriend was craving seaweed salad like crazy, which neither of us saw coming. Me? I dreamed of pretzels.
Day two was the day of many poopings, each less solid than the preceding one. All of them small, none of them satisfying. Our stomachs gurgled a lot, loudly. Basically the novelty had worn off, and we were just kind of mopey and pissed at ourselves for having taken this on.
Advertisement
Day 3
Surprise! We both woke up feeling better, more motivated, and ready to eat. I don't know if we'd just resigned ourselves to it, or if we were now on the other side of the half-way point, but we both felt energized and powered through breakfast. The new Honey Grapefruit flavor for the mid-morning snack was a very welcome change of pace. It was a lot lighter than the others and had a different flavor profile all together. I think we were craving that diversity.
My girlfriend was pleasantly surprised when she stepped on the scale, which helped motivate her. I'd started dropping weight as well. I suspected it was just from our guts being more or less empty, but I figured we'd soon see. She also noticed that her skin felt absolutely fantastic and softer than ever. I hadn't noticed a change in mine. This was the day of ZERO poops at all. Go figure. We did however notice that there was a bit of bad breath thing going on, though. Had this been happening for two and a half days and we just noticed? Hope not. We both slept horribly, tossing and turning all night.
Day 4
We were both happy to be launching into the final day of this, and that really propelled us through it. Very similar to yesterday in that we both had plenty of energy and felt pretty good in general. A couple poops here and there (now slightly more solid), a good four mile run in the evening, and the day came and went.
Advertisement
By the end of it, I definitely felt lean, but I was aware that it didn't really look like I'd lost any body fat. I couldn't really see my abs any better than when I'd started. We both felt good and were surprised that we hadn't really craved any junk food that whole time, but were fixated on the good stuff we wanted to eat when it was all over. Pretzels and seaweed salad, forever.
Conclusions and Aftermath
So, did it work? Did we lose weight? Yes. We used a Withings Smart Body Analyzer scale to keep track the whole way through. As you can see above, I was actually already on a weight-loss trend going into the cleanse (just from eating more veggies, tracking what I was eating, and exercising a bit more, basically), but there was a serious drop-off during the cleanse to the tune of roughly six pounds. My girlfriend lost approximately the same amount. But then, look what happened.
Advertisement
In the span of one long weekend, I managed to put all of that cleanse-weight back on (plus another pound or so). Now, admittedly, this long weekend was a reunion in a cabin, and there was a lot of food, and I ate too much of it, but most of it was pretty healthy, and I didn't go that far overboard. My girlfriend experienced the same thing: She lost 5.1 pounds, and gained 5 pounds back over the weekend. This leads me to think that the weight lost during the cleanse is just a temporary result of being a weird state without any solid food in our guttyworks. Not only was there no discernible loss of body fat, but there was likely even a little bit of muscle atrophy, considering we basically had no protein for four days.
But do we feel cleansed? I don't think so? First, to be totally frank, I'm not a big believer in cleanses. Most of them put your body in a state not unlike starvation, which generally results in gaining back any weight lost and possibly leading to bigger health concerns (i.e. screwing up your metabolism and insulin production). So, I don't really know what "cleansed" is supposed to feel like. My girlfriend says her skin felt great, and it felt good to be able to exercise that kind of willpower, but, to be honest, our digestive systems haven't really fully recovered from the whole (traumatic?) experience.
At the same time, we were both surprised by how much energy we had throughout the experience. A few years ago, she and I tried a juice cleanse just for the hell of it, and it was an incredibly miserable experience, complete with extremely low energy, giant emotional mood-swings, and splitting headaches. The Ice Cream Cleanse had none of that. We generally felt pretty good for most of it. Plus, there's the novelty element, and at no point did we ever feel truly hungry. Even cravings were very manageable, which was pretty shocking.
Advertisement
But then again, dealing with transporting ice cream around when you're not going to be home for a meal is a pain. It's hard to avoid meltage and it requires careful planning. It's not fun to eat ice cream in the morning (or cold things all day long), and it's not subtle. People will be constantly asking you, "Are you eating ice cream?" at which point you'll have to explain the whole cleanse thing, which will make you feel like a jackass.
Finally, at $240, it ain't cheap, and lest we forget, you'll be taking in 820-percent of your recommended daily amount of saturated fat, which I'm sorry, even if it's raw, organic coconut fat, there's still no possible way that much is good for you.
Advertisement
So, would we do it again? No. But here's the upshot: Even after eating nothing but Kippy's ice cream for four days, here we are, just a few days later, and my girlfriend and I were both contemplating digging into the pint we have in our freezer. That's high praise! The ice cream really is delicious and I'd definitely recommend it without hesitation (in small, normal-sized doses).
That said, if you're absolutely determined to do a cleanse, there are definitely worse ones you could do. Just make sure you talk to your doctor about it first, and be prepared for them to pee themselves laughing. [Kippy's Truly Raw Gourmet]
Big thanks to Kippy Miller for the ice cream, to Maren Robinson for her expertise, and to my girlfriend for going through this ridiculousness with me and helping to document the absurdity.
Advertisement
Photos: Brent Rose ||||| VENICE (CBSLA.com) — There’s a new diet in town and it sounds like heaven.
You get to eat ice cream for four straight days and your exercise consists of yoga.
Kippy Miller, who owns Kippy’s! Ice Cream Shop in Venice, and a neighboring yoga instructor in Venice came up with the cleanse.
Miller calls the product ice cream but it doesn’t actually contain milk or dairy products. The frozen treat contains “plant-based, raw coconut cream. So it is no dairy, no sugar and no soy.”
For $240, customers can indulge in five pints of ice cream per day. It translates to an intake of 1,200 calories, 70 grams of fat and more than 120 grams of sugar.
Miller says 12 people did the yoga-ice cream cleanse in February and lost weight, but she didn’t provide specifics.
“The ice cream is fantastic,” said one woman enjoying a bowl. “It sounds great if you can eat ice cream for four days on the cleanse.”
Sound too good to be true? Nutritionist Jason Song, of Zen Foods, doesn’t recommend the cleanse. He says those looking to shed pounds should instead try to work on portion control.
“What kind of stood out to me was the calorie range…it is a great range because it’s from 1,000 to 1,200. But while I was reading more up on, it’s very high in saturated fat and sugar and that concerned me,” Song said.
While Song doesn’t support the ice cream cleanse, he does agree that the frozen treat makes for a good alternative for the lactose-intolerant. ||||| A California ice cream shop claims you can lose weight with a "cleanse" that consists of eating five pints of a frozen non-dairy ice cream-like treat for four straight days. The cleanse offered by Kippy's! Ice Cream Shop in Venice, Calif., also includes daily yoga exercises, and costs $240 for the four-day plan, CBS Los Angeles reported.
Owner Kippy Miller says the frozen treat is "plant-based, raw coconut cream. So it is no dairy, no sugar and no soy."
The five pints work out to about 1,200 calories per day, with 70 grams of fat and more than 120 grams of total sugars, according to the station. Twelve people completed the yoga-ice cream cleanse and lost weight, Miller said.
Kippys' website notes all the ice creams are made from coconut water, coconut cream, fresh fruit and raw local honey.
Gizmodo's Brent Rose completed the 20-pint cleanse with his girlfriend, writing a diary of their experience on the website. He said he and his girlfriend lost between 5-6 pounds, but the weight came back after a long weekend.
Would experts recommend it?
Weight gain comes down to calorie intake, so reducing calorie intake could conceivably lead to weight loss. But with any low-calorie diet, the weight might come back once you return to a typical routine.
"While I was reading more up on, it's very high in saturated fat and sugar and that concerned me," nutritionist Jason Song told CBS Los Angeles.
While the sugar may not be processed, honey and fruit contain natural sugars. The World Health Organization recently said sugar from all sources should only take up 5 percent of your daily calorie intake.
Dr. Christopher Ochner, an assistant professor of pediatrics, adolescent medicine and psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an email to CBS News that a cleanse like this might lead to two pounds of weight loss, which would almost certainly come back the following week.
"As far as risks, individuals would be ingesting a boat load of processed saturated fat and sugar every day; pretty much the two worst things you can put in your body," he said.
He added that there is "absolutely zero" scientific evidence that cleanses can improve health, and they are recognized in the medical community "as a complete and utter gimmick to make a buck."
"It truly pains me to see people taking advantage of the desperation experienced by so many obese individuals wanting to lose weight," said Ochner. "Not only is something like this unhealthy, ineffective and expensive but it perpetuates the false belief that a better body can be achieved without effort, which discourages people from doing what is actually necessary in order to lose weight and improve their health." | Juice cleanses are all the rage these days—but doesn't it sound more fun to go on an ice cream cleanse? If you live in California, you can. Kippy's! Ice Cream Shop in Venice is now offering a four-day cleanse, although its version of ice cream doesn't contain any dairy products—it's made from coconut cream. For $240, you get five pints of the stuff each day, plus free daily yoga classes. Owner Kippy Miller tells CBS Los Angeles that 12 people did the cleanse last month and lost weight—and over on Gizmodo, Brent Rose, who was one of those lucky dozen, writes about doing it with his girlfriend. Yes, they lost weight—about 6 pounds for Rose, and closer to 5 pounds for his girlfriend—but they both gained it back within days. The big question: Is it healthy? The weight loss can probably be explained by the calorie count (the ice cream adds up to 1,200 calories per day, which one nutritionist says is "a great range" to stay in while dieting), but you're also ingesting 70 grams of fat and more than 120 grams of sugar per day. That concerns the nutritionist, and a doctor agrees, telling CBS News that the cleanse involves "a boat load of processed saturated fat and sugar every day; pretty much the two worst things you can put in your body" and adding that any weight lost would almost certainly come right back. If, however, you are more concerned with how it tastes, Rose and his girlfriend found the ice cream delish. |
In January 2001, we reported on Department of Defense management challenges and noted that the Department has had serious weaknesses in its management of logistics functions and, in particular, inventory management. We have identified inventory management as a high-risk area since 1990. In 1999, we reported on the Air Force’s specific problems in managing spare parts and noted an increase in the percentage of some of its aircraft that were not mission capable due to supply problems. (See appendix I for examples from our reports on management weaknesses related to the Air Force.) Also, the Secretary of the Air Force reported that the readiness of the Air Force has declined since 1996 and attributed this overall decline, in part, to spare parts shortages. Table 1 shows the percentage of all aviation systems that were mission capable and the percentage of aircraft that were not mission capable due to supply problems from fiscal year 1996 through the first quarter of fiscal 2001. As table 1 shows, the percentage of all Air Force systems reported as not mission capable due to supply problems steadily increased from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000. The Air Force requested additional funding to address concerns with spare parts shortages. The Air Force states in the Department of Defense Quarterly Readiness Report to the Congress for July through September 2000 that funding Congress provided in earlier years has begun to improve the availability of spares, citing a 58-percent reduction in parts that have been ordered but not received since December 1998. The Secretary also expressed cautious optimism that recent congressional funding would improve the availability of spare parts and aircraft mission-capable rates. In the most recent quarterly readiness report (Oct. through Dec. 2000), the Air Force cautions that although as of early December 2000 overall mission-capable rates had improved from average fiscal year 2000 rates, this improvement had come at the cost of the increased use of the practice of removing parts from one aircraft for use on another, that is, cannibalization. Because of concerns that spare parts shortages were causing readiness problems, the Air Force received in fiscal 1999 an additional $904 million in obligation authority from the Department of Defense to buy more spare parts. This amount consisted of $387 million to buy spare parts attributable to the Kosovo operation, $135 million to buy engine-related spare parts for the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, and $382 million to overcome the accumulated shortfall of spare parts inventories. Also in 1999, the Department of Defense announced plans to provide $500 million to the Defense Logistics Agency to purchase spare parts for all the services over fiscal years 2001-2004. Of that $500 million, $213.8 million is to be for parts to be used on Air Force aircraft. According to a Department of Defense official, the Air Force was provided the first $50 million in fiscal 2001 to pass on to the Defense Logistics Agency to pay for Air Force parts ordered in fiscal year 2000. The Air Force and the other military services received additional funds in fiscal year 1999 that, unlike the funds cited above, were placed largely in operations and maintenance accounts. In a separate report issued earlier this year, we indicated current financial information did not show the extent to which these funds were used for spare parts. However, the Department plans to annually develop detailed financial management information on spare parts funding uses but does not plan to provide it to Congress. We, therefore, recommended to the Secretary of Defense that the information to be developed annually by the Department and the services on the quantity and funding of spare parts be routinely provided to Congress as an integral part of the Department’s annual budget justification; the Department agreed to do so. The aviation systems that we reviewed are vital to the Air Force achieving its missions. The E-3 provides surveillance of the airspace and manages the flight of all aircraft in an assigned battlefield area. The Air Force first received E-3s in 1977, and an Air Force official told us that it is the oldest aircraft in the Air Force in terms of operational hours flown. The C-5 is the Air Force’s largest cargo aircraft, carrying cargo such as Army tanks, and is one of the largest aircraft in the world. About 70 percent of the oversized cargo required in the critical first 30 days of one major war scenario would be the type of cargo the C-5 carries. The Air Force first received operational C-5 aircraft in 1970, and according to Air Force officials, one of the reasons for the lower than expected mission-capable rates in recent years for the C-5 aircraft is its age. The F-100-220 engine powers many of the Air Force’s F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft and, according to an Air Force official, will become increasingly critical to operations as some older engines are replaced with the F-100-220. For each of these systems, we judgmentally selected for review 25 parts, a total of 75, with the highest number of hours or incidents of unavailability for given time periods. Air Force spare parts are classified as either consumables or reparables. Consumable items, which are mostly managed by the Defense Logistics Agency, are those items that are discarded when they fail because they cannot be cost-effectively repaired. The Defense Supply Center Richmond is the lead center for managing aviation consumable spare parts. Reparable items, managed by the Air Force Materiel Command, are items that can be cost-effectively repaired. The Command’s mission is to research, develop, test, acquire, deliver, and logistically support Air Force weapon systems. The shortages of spare parts for the three aircraft systems we reviewed have not only affected readiness but also have created inefficiencies in maintenance processes and procedures and may adversely affect the retention of military personnel. Two aircraft we reviewed, the E-3 and C-5, did not meet their mission-capable goals in fiscal years 1996-2000 and were not mission capable due to supply problems from 7.3 percent to 18.1 percent during the same period. The number of usable spare F-100-220 engines that the Air Force had on hand fell short of its goal by as few as 6 and as many as 104 engines during the same period. The Air Force did not achieve its mission-capable goals during fiscal years 1996-2000 for any of the three Air Force aircraft systems we reviewed, in part, due to spare parts shortages. Table 2 shows the mission-capable goals and actual rates for the E-3 aircraft for fiscal years 1996-2000, and table 3 shows the rates at which the E-3 was not mission capable due to supply problems during the same period. The goal for the E-3 was lowered to 73 percent from March through September 2000 based on an Air Force assessment of its ability to achieve its mission-capable goal. The Air Force recognized that it had failed to achieve historical performance levels to the point that falling short of the standard had become the norm. Citing constraints regarding spare parts, maintenance personnel, and repair equipment, the Air Force lowered mission-capable goals for the E-3 and other aircraft with the intent of providing maintenance personnel with more achievable targets. The mission-capable goal for the E-3 aircraft rose to 81 percent in fiscal year 2001, and it is planned to return to 85 percent in fiscal year 2002. The goal was 12 percent or less from March through September 2000 and was raised based on an Air Force assessment of the aircraft’s ability to achieve the not mission capable due to supply problems goal for the E-3 and other aircraft. The Air Force recognized that it had failed to achieve historical performance levels to the point that falling short of the standard had become the norm. Citing constraints regarding spare parts, maintenance personnel, and repair equipment, the Air Force raised its goal for not mission capable due to supply problems for the E-3 and other aircraft with the intent of providing maintenance personnel with more achievable targets. The not mission capable due to supply problems goal changed to 8 percent in fiscal year 2001, and it is planned to return to 6 percent in fiscal year 2002. The reported rate for total not mission capable due to supply problems in fiscal year 2000, 11.3 percent, equated to about 3 or 4 E-3s of the total of 32 aircraft being not mission capable due to supply problems. The C-5 also did not achieve its goals during fiscal years 1996-2000. Table 4 shows the C-5’s mission-capable goals and actual mission-capable rates for those years, and table 5 shows the rates at which the C-5 was not mission capable due to supply problems as well as its goals during the same period. The reported rate for total not mission capable due to supply problems in fiscal year 2000, 18.1 percent, equated to almost 23 C-5s of the fleet of 126 aircraft being not mission capable, at least in part, due to supply problems. With regard to the F-100-220 engine, the Air Force never met its goal, called the war readiness engine goal, during fiscal years 1996-2000 (see table 6). The goal can change each fiscal year for the number of usable— ready to be installed in an aircraft—spare engines the Air Force would like to have on hand to meet wartime needs. In some cases, it has had F-15s or F-16s grounded due to the lack of the engine. When the number of usable spare engines is shown as a negative number, there are not enough engines for all the aircraft required for peacetime operations; in other words, aircraft that would otherwise be available to fly are grounded because they lack engines. During fiscal years 1996 through 2000, this occurred in five different quarters. To compensate for a lack of spare parts, maintenance personnel sometimes remove usable parts from aircraft for which spare parts are unavailable to replace broken parts on others. Maintenance personnel at Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base said that this practice is necessary to attempt to maintain mission-capable rates when spare parts are not available. As we have previously reported, the result of this practice is that maintenance personnel spend a large amount of time cannibalizing parts and performing double work. According to a Naval Postgraduate School thesis, there is also the potential for breaking the needed part or causing collateral damage while removing the part. Additionally, a part removed from another aircraft will likely not last as long as a part from the supply system and will require maintenance sooner. Additionally, our past work shows that spare parts shortages may affect retention. In August 1999, we reported on the results of our December 1998 through March 1999 survey of about 1,000 Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps active duty personnel that were selected based on their work in jobs in which the Department of Defense believed were experiencing retention problems. More than half of the respondents stated that they were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military. The majority of factors were associated with work circumstances such as the lack of parts and materials needed to successfully complete daily job requirements. Both officers and enlisted personnel ranked the availability of needed equipment, parts, and materials among the top 2 of 44 quality-of-life factors that caused their dissatisfaction. Spare parts shortages on the three systems we reviewed occurred for various reasons. In addition, an internal Department of Defense study found similar reasons for spare parts shortages. Both the Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency have encountered a variety of problems in contracting for spare parts needed for repairs. Ten (about 13 percent) of the parts we reviewed were unavailable, at least in part, because of contracting issues. These issues included lengthy price negotiations, a contract requirement to have a minimum number of units before beginning repairs, failure of a contractor to meet the delivery date, and termination of a contract. For example, the Defense Logistics Agency did not have a straight pin for the F-100-220 engine in stock because the sole-source company wanted a price that the Agency was unwilling to pay. This resulted in extended negotiations with the company before an award could be made. By the end of April 2000, the lack of this part had caused F-100-220 engines to be not mission capable in nine cases. In another case, to obtain an acceptable price for a contract for the repair of a temperature indicator for the E-3 aircraft, the Air Force was required to provide a minimum of 10 regulators for repair. By the time 10 units were accumulated and shipped, the demand for the part had exceeded the supply. Through March 2000, E-3 aircraft were not mission capable over 19 operational days due to the lack of this part. Also, a contract for an axle beam fitting for the C-5 aircraft had to be terminated because the contractor requested too many delivery schedule extensions. As of July 2000, the equivalent of one C-5 aircraft was not mission capable for 124 operational days. Twelve (16 percent) of the parts we reviewed were unavailable for reasons other than those we have already cited. In one case, the Air Force used an incorrect replacement rate for an engine core, and as a result, the repair of parts was not timely. Through April 2000, F-100-220 engines were not mission capable due to the lack of this part in 33 cases. Also, the limited repair facility capacity for certain spare parts, such as electric generators, created shortages of the parts. By the end of March 2000, E-3 aircraft had been not mission capable for almost 10 operational days due to the lack of this part. In another case, because maintenance facilities prioritize repairs based on current Air Force requirements, a receiver transmitter was not repaired in time to avoid a shortage because higher priority items had to be repaired first. As a result, over 15 operational days of not mission capable time had been accumulated on E-3s by the end of March 2000. In another case, the required part, a vaneaxial fan, was on hand, but E-3 aircraft had accumulated over 15 operational days of not mission capable time by the end of March 2000 because of the time it took to ship the part overseas. In some cases, no spare parts had been purchased when an aircraft was being modified or the technical data for the modification was incomplete. At the end of March 2000, over 10 operational days of not mission capable time had accumulated for E-3 aircraft due to the lack of a control indicator that fell into this category. An internal study conducted by the Department of Defense found similar reasons for Air Force reparable spare parts shortages. The study examined parts causing aircraft to be not mission capable and found that there were two reasons for the shortages. The first reason was an insufficient inventory of certain reparable parts. The second was that although there were enough parts in the system, other constraints prevented a repair facility from repairing the parts in a timely manner. The study states that this may have happened for several reasons. The parts may not have been returned from units to the repair facility, a repair facility may have lacked capacity in certain key areas such as manpower or testing equipment, the consumable parts required to fix the reparable item may not have been available, or the item managers may not have requested the repair facility to repair a part because of a lack of funding.The study contained a recommendation that the Air Force provide $609 million for fiscal years 2002 to 2007 to improve the availability of reparable spare parts. According to a Department of Defense official, the Air Force plans to provide the funds. The Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency have overall initiatives under way or planned to improve the availability of spare parts. The initiatives are intended to improve the efficiency of the supply system and increase the requirements for spare parts. The initiatives generally address the specific reasons for shortages identified by our review, with the exception of changes in the location of repairs that is not a recurring problem. The Air Force has developed a Supply Strategic Plan that includes a management framework and specific goals and outcome- oriented measures for its initiatives. We have made various recommendations to address this issue. The Air Force has actions under way to respond to address these recommendations; therefore, we are not making any additional recommendations at this time. We will be reviewing the strategic plan’s initiatives, once they are more developed, to evaluate their likely effectiveness and to assess whether additional initiatives are needed. The Air Force is regularly monitoring which spare parts are unavailable for the longest period of time and undertakes ad hoc actions to resolve the problems causing the shortage. In 1999, the Air Force developed the Supply Strategic Plan to help create an integrated process for supply planning, to facilitate the exchange of information throughout the supply system, and to improve measures of effectiveness for the supply system. The plan, which was updated in January 2001, establishes five goals for the Air Force supply community to achieve by 2010. Manage assets effectively Organize, train, and equip supply personnel Support Department of Defense operations Establish and implement fuel policy Each goal has associated objectives to be achieved in the next 4 to 7 years and tasks to be completed in the next 1 to 4 years. In support of the Supply Strategic Plan, the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations and Logistics, Directorate of Supply, established in 1999 the Supply Foundation Project, which includes 10 objectives with associated initiatives for each. The Directorate views the project as a comprehensive means of improving the supply system. The first objective is to improve spare parts management. The intent is to determine the baseline for formulating a spare parts policy; to determine the overall trend for spare parts, that is, are shortages increasing or decreasing; and to develop and implement initiatives to reduce the shortages of spare parts. Within the objective of improving spare parts management, the Directorate has initiatives within the goal of managing assets under way or under study. Improve the process for determining requirements for spare parts Improve the process for funding the parts Increase the stock of certain parts Increase the parts contained in readiness spares packages (deployment kits for maintaining aircraft) Coordinate with the Defense Logistics Agency to ensure that it buys the most critically needed parts from the Air Force portion of the $500 million provided by the Department of Defense for fiscal years 2001 to 2004 Reduce the time that customers wait for parts For each of these initiatives, the Air Force has established short-term and long-term milestones and accountability for implementation by assigning program responsibility to specific offices and individuals. The measures for success include achieving goals such as (1) increasing the issuance of parts when requested, (2) increasing the stock of certain parts, (3) improving total rates for aircraft not mission capable for supply reasons, and (4) lowering cannibalization rates. (See appendix IV for a complete listing of these Air Force initiatives.) In addition to the initiatives contained in the Air Force Supply Strategic Plan, the Air Force Materiel Command also has actions under way and planned to separately address more specific aspects of spare parts management and policies. According to Air Force officials, these actions are being coordinated with the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations and Logistics, Directorate of Supply. As part of its Constraints Analysis Program, the Air Force Materiel Command identified six major problems that had prevented it from providing timely support to the warfighter. These problems were unavailability of consumable parts; unreliability of parts; poor management of the suppliers of parts; inadequate workload planning; ineffective inventory management; and inefficient policies regarding which parts are repaired and, if repair is needed, where the repairs should be made. The Command focused its initial efforts on studying ways to resolve the problems with supplier management, parts reliability, and unavailability of consumable parts. Implementation plans are being developed for actions for each of these problems while the remaining problems are being studied. The Command is also developing (1) a model to forecast the repair facilities’ demands for consumable spare parts and electronically transmit this data to the Defense Logistics Agency and (2) a pilot program to have contractors bypass the supply system and fill the supply bins for maintenance personnel directly. Among the efforts the Defense Logistics Agency has under way to improve the availability of spare parts are its Aviation Investment Strategy and Aging Aircraft Program. The Defense Logistics Agency’s major initiative to resolve aircraft spare parts shortages is its Aviation Investment Strategy. This fiscal year 2000 initiative focuses on replenishing consumable aviation repair parts with identified availability problems that affect readiness. Of the $500 million that the Defense Department budgeted for this purpose, $213.8 million was the Air Force portion. As of December 2000, $95.3 million had been targeted for Air Force spare parts and $22.3 million worth of parts had been delivered. The goal of the Defense Logistics Agency’s Aging Aircraft Program is to consistently meet the goals for spare parts availability for the Army, Navy, and Air Force aviation weapon systems. The program’s focus will be to (1) provide inventory control point personnel with complete, timely, and accurate information on current and projected parts requirements; (2) reduce customers’ wait times for parts for which sources or production capabilities no longer exist; and (3) create an efficient and effective program management structure and processes that will achieve the stated program goals. The Agency plans to spend about $20 million during fiscal years 2001-2007 on this program. We recommended in November 1999 that the Secretary of the Air Force develop a management framework for implementing best practice initiatives based on the principles embodied in the Government Performance and Results Act. The Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Air Force is revising its Logistics Support Plan to more clearly articulate the relationships, goals, objectives, and metrics of logistics initiatives. As a part of the Supply Strategic Plan, the Air Force included initiatives intended to improve the availability of spare parts. We also recommended in January 2001 that the Department develop an overarching plan that integrates the individual service and defense agency logistics reengineering plans to include an investment strategy for funding reengineering initiatives and details on how the Department plans to achieve its final logistics system end state. Since the Air Force and the Department of Defense are taking actions on our previous recommendations to improve overall logistics planning, we are not making new recommendations at this time. The Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in commenting on a draft of this report, indicated that the Department of Defense generally concurred with the report. The Department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix V. To determine the impact of the shortages of spare parts, we reviewed data on the Air Force’s mission-capable goals and actual rates and goals and actual rates for aircraft not mission capable due to supply problems for selected months from the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Installations and Logistics Directorate. We did not independently verify these data. From these data, we selected three systems for review that had experienced difficulties in achieving mission-capable goals or in the case of the F-100-220 engine readiness goals for the number of usable engines on hand. We also reviewed data on cannibalizations provided by the Air Combat Command, Hampton, Virginia; the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Installations and Logistics Directorate, Washington, D.C.; and Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, North Carolina. Using the data, we discussed with maintenance personnel the impact of cannibalizations on spare parts shortages. We also used data from studies conducted by the Department of Defense regarding spare parts shortages and their impacts. Lastly, we drew relevant information from our recently issued reports. To determine the reasons for these part shortages, we visited the air logistics centers at Tinker Air Force Base (E-3), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Warner-Robins Air Force Base (C-5), Robins, Georgia; Kelly Air Force Base (F-100-220 aircraft engine), San Antonio, Texas; and the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Richmond, Virginia. To identify specific reasons, we discussed the specific parts shortages with those who manage these items at these locations. We also reviewed our related work on Air Force and Department of Defense inventory management practices to identify systemic management problems that are contributing to spare parts shortage. To determine what overall actions are planned or under way to address overall spare parts shortages for Air Force aircraft and the management framework for implementing the overall initiatives, we visited the Air Force headquarters, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Logistics Directorate, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, located in the Washington, D.C. area; the Defense Logistics Agency located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and the Defense Supply Center located in Richmond, Virginia; the Air Force Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio; and the air logistics centers at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (E-3), Warner-Robins Air Force Base, Georgia (C-5), and Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (F-100-220). We discussed with officials at each of these locations Air Force initiatives regarding spare parts, their progress and results to date, the planned completion dates for some initiatives, and additional steps needed to address spare parts shortages. We also compared the reasons for the shortages we found with the overall initiatives under way or planned to determine if there were any areas that were not being addressed. We did not review these plans or the specific initiatives. Our review was performed from February 2000 to April 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and the Director, Defense Logistics Agency. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were Lawson Gist Jr., John Beauchamp, Willie Cheely Jr., and Nancy Ragsdale. Our high-risk reports over the past several years have noted that Department of Defense inventory and financial management weaknesses have contributed to parts not being available when needed. In January 2001, we reported on Department of Defense management challenges and noted it has had serious weaknesses in its management of logistics functions and, in particular, inventory management. Although not specifically identified with the systems we reviewed, these management weaknesses directly or indirectly contribute to the shortages of spare parts the Air Force is facing, as the following examples show. We reported in January 2001 that nearly half of the Department’s inventory exceeded war reserve or current operating requirements and that the Department had inventory on order that would not have been ordered based on current requirements. Purchasing items that exceed requirements use funds that could be used to purchase needed parts. We reported in April 1999 that because the Air Force had reduced the supply activity group’s budget by $948 million between fiscal year 1997 and 1999 to reflect efficiency goals and because these goals were not achieved, fewer items than projected were available for sale to customers. As a result, military units had funds to purchase spare parts, but the supply group did not always have sufficient funds to buy new spare parts or pay for repair of broken parts that customers needed. We also reported that because of poor management practices, over $2 billion worth of spare parts in the Air Force’s “suspended inventory category,” which cannot be issued because of questionable condition, was not reviewed for years. As a result, the Air Force is vulnerable to incurring unnecessary repair and storage costs and reducing its readiness. Better management of these parts could increase the number of spare parts available. In addition, the Department of Defense’s long-standing financial management problems may also contribute to the Air Force’s spare parts shortages. As we recently reported, existing weaknesses in inventory accountability information can affect supply responsiveness. Lacking reliable information, the Department of Defense has little assurance that all items purchased are received and properly recorded. The weaknesses increase the risk that responsible inventory item managers may request funds to obtain additional, unnecessary items that may be on hand but not reported. Parts production problem, contracting issue Changes in location of repair Changes in location of repair Actual demands were greater than anticipated and parts production problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated and other—repair facility capacity/priority and incomplete technical order Parts production problem and component reliability Other-repair facility capacity/priority and test equipment software problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Parts production problems and contracting issues Changes in location of repairs, actual demands were greater than anticipated, and parts production problems Actual demands were greater than anticipated Other—shipping time Actual demands were greater than anticipated and other—repair facility capacity/priority Actual demands were greater than anticipated Changes in location of repairs Other – shipping time Other—no spares purchased for modifications Changes in location of repairs and other—repair facility capacity/priority Contracting issues and other—incomplete technical data for modification Changes in location of repairs and actual demands exceeded anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated and other—suitable substitute not linked to master Changes in location of repairs Reason for shortage Component reliability Component reliability Parts production problem Changes in location of repairs Changes in location of repairs and parts production problems Actual demands were greater than anticipated Changes in location of repairs and parts production problems Contracting issue and parts production problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Component reliability Changes in location of repairs Actual demands were greater than anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated and parts production problems Component reliability Reason for shortage Component reliability and parts production problem Changes in location of repairs Changes in location of repairs and component reliability Component reliability, contracting issue, and parts production problem Changes in location of repairs and parts production problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Component reliability and parts production problems Changes in location of repairs Contracting issues Component reliability Parts production problem Parts production problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated Contracting issue and parts production problem Reason for shortage Contracting issue Contracting issue Actual demands were greater than anticipated and parts production problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated Component reliability Component reliability Component reliability and other—information system problem Actual demands were greater than anticipated Changes in location of repairs Component reliability and other—information system problem Changes in location of repairs Changes in location of repairs and other—information system problem Component reliability Changes in location of repairs and demands were not anticipated Actual demands were greater than anticipated Changes in location of repairs and demands were not anticipated Changes in location of repairs Changes in location of repairs Contracting issue The spare parts with the same name have different stock numbers. Defense Inventory: Opportunities Exist to Expand the Use of Defense Logistics Agency Best Practices (NSIAD-00-30, Jan. 26, 2000). Air Force Depot Maintenance: Analysis of Its Financial Operations (AIMD/NSIAD-00-38, Dec. 10, 1999). Defense Inventory: Improvements Needed to Prevent Excess Purchases by the Air Force (NSIAD-00-5, Nov. 1, 1999). Air Force Depot Maintenance: Management Changes Would Improve Implementation of Reform Initiatives (NSIAD-99-63, June 25, 1999). Department of Defense: Status of Financial Management Weaknesses and Actions Needed to Correct Continuing Challenges (T-AIMD/NSIAD-99-171, May 4, 1999). Defense Inventory: Status of Inventory and Purchases and Their Relationship to Current Needs (NSIAD-99-60, Apr. 16, 1999). Defense Inventory: DOD Could Improve Total Asset Visibility Initiative With Results Act Framework (NSIAD-99-40, Apr. 12, 1999). High Risk Series: An Update (GAO/HR-99-1, Jan 1999). Air Force Supply: Management Analysis of Activity Group’s Financial Reports, Prices, and Cash Management (AIMD/NSIAD-98-118, June 8, 1998). Defense Depot Maintenance: Use of Public-Private Partnering Arrangements (NSIAD-98-91, May 7, 1998). Defense Inventory: Management of Surplus Usable Aircraft Parts Can Be Improved (NSIAD-98-7, Oct. 2, 1997). | Spare parts shortages on the three Air Force systems GAO reviewed have undermined the performance of assigned missions and the economy and efficiency of maintenance activities. Specifically, the Air Force did not meet its mission-capable goals for the E-3 or C-5 aircrafts during fiscal years 1996-2000, nor did it have enough F-100-220 engines to meet peacetime and wartime goals during that period. These shortages may also affect personnel retention. GAO recently reported that the lack of parts and materials to successfully complete daily job requirements was one of six major factors causing job dissatisfaction among military personnel. Item managers at the maintenance facilities often indicated that spare parts shortages were caused by the inventory management system underestimating the need for spare parts and by delays in the Air Force's repair process as a result of the consolidation of repair facilities. Other reasons included difficulties with producing or repairing parts, reliability of spare parts, and contracting issues. The Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency have planned or begun many initiatives to alleviate shortages of the spare parts for the three systems GAO reviewed. |
Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees take up their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees, and their family members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another; are treated differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following passage of these bills by the respective legislative bodies, a conference committee is usually convened to resolve the various differences between the House and Senate versions. In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem likely to generate high levels of congressional and constituent interest, and tracks their status in the House and Senate versions of the FY2015 NDAA. The initial House version of the Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, H.R. 4435 (113 th Congress), was introduced in the House on April 9, 2014; reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 13, 2014 ( H.Rept. 113-446 ); and passed by the House on May 22, 2014. A Senate version, S. 2410 (113 th Congress), was introduced in the Senate on June 2, 2014, and reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services ( S.Rept. 113-176 ) on the same day. However, the Senate did not consider this bill. Instead, members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees drafted H.R. 3979 , a proposed final version of the FY2015 NDAA. On December 4, 2014, the House approved this H.R. 3979 . Related CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issues. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Some issues were addressed in the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act, and discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], or earlier versions of reports on this act. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with a " * " in the relevant section titles of this report. Background: The authorized active duty end-strengths for FY2001, enacted in the year prior to the September 11 th terrorist attacks, were as follows: Army (480,000), Navy (372,642), Marine Corps (172,600), and Air Force (357,000). Over the next decade, in response to the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress increased the authorized personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Some of these increases were quite substantial, particularly after FY2006, but Congress began reversing these increases in light of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 and a drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan which began in 2012. In FY2014, the authorized end-strength for the Army was 520,000, while the authorized end-strength for the Marine Corps was 190,200. Given the budgetary outlook, particularly the future impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), the Army plans to reduce its active personnel strength to between 420,000 and 450,000 by FY2017, while the Marine Corps plans to reduce its active personnel strength to between 175,000 to 182,600. End-strength for the Air Force and Navy has decreased gradually since 2001. The authorized end-strength for FY2014 was 327,600 for the Air Force and 323,600 for the Navy. Discussion: In light of the ongoing drawdown in Afghanistan and the budgetary environment, the Administration requested major reductions in Army (-30,000), Air Force (-16,700), and Marine Corps (-6,100) end strengths in comparison to their FY2014 authorized end-strengths. The end-strength request for the Navy remained stable at 323,600 in comparison to FY2014. The figures in H.R. 3979 are identical to the administration's end-strength request except for the Air Force; the proposed final bill recommends an Air Force end-strength slightly higher (+2,080) than the Administration's request. Taken together, the proposed final bill stipulates a total active duty end-strength which is 50,720 lower than the FY2014 level. The committee report which accompanied H.R. 4435 noted that "the services plan for more drastic reductions in end strength and force structure in fiscal year 2016 absent a change in the Budget Control Act of 2011" and expressed concerns that "This continued stress on the force, coupled with potential further reductions as a result of the BCA's discretionary caps, may have serious implications on the capacity and capability of the All-Volunteer Force and the ability for the services to meet the National Defense Strategy." Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Although the Reserves have been used extensively in support of operations since September 11, 2001, the overall authorized end strength of the Selected Reserves has declined by about 4% over the past twelve years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 842,700 in FY2014). Much of this can be attributed to the reductions in Navy Reserve strength during this period. There were also modest shifts in strength for some other components of the Selected Reserve. For comparative purposes, the authorized end strengths for the Selected Reserves for FY2001 were as follows: Army National Guard (350,526), Army Reserve (205,300), Navy Reserve (88,900), Marine Corps Reserve (39,558), Air National Guard (108,022), Air Force Reserve (74,358), and Coast Guard Reserve (8,000). Between FY2001 and FY2014, the largest shifts in authorized end strength have occurred in the Army and Navy Reserve (-29,800 or -33.5%), Army National Guard (+3,674 or +1.1%), Air Force Reserve (-3,958 or -5.3%), and Coast Guard Reserve (+1,000 or +12.5%). A smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (-2,622 or -2.4%), while the authorized end strength of the Army Reserve (-300 or -0.15%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (+42 or +0.11%) have been largely unchanged during this period. Discussion: For FY2015, the Administration requested an authorized Selected Reserve end strength lower than those for FY2014 for all of the reserve components. The reductions in comparison to FY2014 are as follows: Army National Guard (-4,000), Army Reserve (-3,000), Navy Reserve (-1,800), Marine Corps Reserve (-400), Air National Guard (-400), Air Force Reserve (-3,300) and Coast Guard Reserve (-2,000). The recommendations in the proposed final bill are identical with the administration's request. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Increasing concern with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with longstanding congressional interest in recruiting and retaining high quality personnel to serve in the all-volunteer military, have continued to focus interest on the military pay raise. Section 1009 of Title 37 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual increase in basic pay that is indexed to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The increase in basic pay for 2015 under this statutory formula would be 1.8% unless either: (1) Congress passes a law to provide otherwise; or (2) the President specifies an alternative pay adjustment under subsection (e) of 37 U.S.C. 1009. The FY2015 President's Budget requested a 1.0% military pay raise, lower than the statutory formula of 1.8%. This is in keeping with Department of Defense (DOD) plans to limit increases in basic pay through FY2017: As part of the FY 2014 President's Budget, the Department had already planned on limiting basic pay raises through FY 2017 to levels likely below those called for under the formula in current law, which calls for a raise to equal the annual increase in the wages and salaries of private industry employees as measured by the ECI. This FY 2014 plan called for pay raises of 1.0 percent in FY 2015 and FY 2016, 1.5 percent in FY 2017, and then returned to more likely ECI levels of 2.8 percent in FY 2018 and beyond. Similar to FY 2014, the FY 2015 President's Budget again seeks a 1.0 percent basic pay raise for military members in FY 2015, which is less generous than the 1.8 percent increase in ECI as of September 30, 2013. Discussion: The House bill contained no provision to specify the rate of increase in basic pay, although the report accompanying it ( H.Rept. 113-446 ) contained the following statement: The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation programs are central to maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the committee supports a 1.8 percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2015, in accordance with current law, in order for military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in the private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost Index. The Senate committee-reported version contained a provision waiving the automatic adjustment of 37 U.S.C. 1009 and setting the pay increase at 1.0% for servicemembers below the O-7 paygrade. On August 29, President Obama sent a letter to Congress invoking 37 U.S.C. 1009(e) to set the pay raise for 2015 at 1.0%. The proposed final version contains no general pay raise provision, thereby leaving in place the 1.0% increase specified by President Obama under 37 U.S.C. 1009(e), but section 601 freezes the basic pay of generals and admirals at 2014 levels. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , and similar reports from earlier years. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The armed services provide funds to assist members of the military to pay for housing when government quarters adequate for themselves and their dependents are not available. Originally known as Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ), such compensation was based on rank and whether or not dependents were involved. During the 1970s housing costs began to vary more by location. In 1980, Congress added a Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) as a means to defray high housing costs in certain areas. BAQ/VHA was not intended to defray the entire cost of housing. It was expected that service members would pay approximately 15% of these costs out-of-pocket. By 1997, the increase in housing costs increased this out-of-pocket amount to about 20%. In 1998, Congress combined BAQ and VHA and renamed it BAH. In 2001, Congress enacted language that would increase BAH over successive years to remove the out-of-pocket costs to the service member. Out-of-pocket costs were eliminated by 2005. The President's 2015 budget submission called for a slowing of BAH growth such that service members would pay 5% out-of-pocket by 2019. Discussion : The language in the proposed final version allows the Secretary of Defense to reduce monthly BAH payments by up to 1% of the "national average monthly cost of adequate housing in the United States." The Joint Explanatory Statement which accompanied the bill also stated the following: We note that while the Department of Defense (DOD) legislative proposal included proposed changes to BAH that would have been implemented over the next 3 years, this agreement includes those changes to BAH that the committees understand would have been implemented by DOD in 2015. By adopting changes to BAH beginning in the first year of the proposal, the agreement preserves the option for Congress to achieve the full savings requested by DOD. This approach does not constitute a rejection of the administration proposal, which was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rather, consideration of further changes to BAH in fiscal years 2016, 2017, and beyond is deferred until after the committees receive the report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, which is due in February 2015. The two committees commit to consider proposed changes to BAH that are included in the fiscal year 2016 budget request as part of the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. References : None. CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Over the past few years, the issue of sexual assault in the military has received a good deal of congressional and media attention. Congress has enacted numerous changes, still problems persist. Discussion : Congress continues to maintain its oversight responsibilities concerning the matter of sexual assault and the military, as well as its desire to see positive changes in this matter. References : Sexual Assaults Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Selected Legislative Proposals, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Military hair and grooming standards as well as the issue of religious accommodations are designed to achieve uniformity. However, changes in styles, religious accommodations, etc., can be at variance with these standards. In at least one case, the issue had reached the Supreme Court. As the military has become more diverse, regulations have been revised and/or updated. In March 2014, the Army released its updated regulation (A.R. 670-1). The update was criticized as "racially biased." On April 29, 2014, on Secretary Hagel's directive, the services had 30 days to "revise any offensive language" in the new regulations and another 90 days to make whatever appropriate adjustments to their policy as necessary, according Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon's chief spokesman. As a result, A.R. 670-1 was revised on September 15, 2014, to update guidance for authorized and unauthorized hairstyles for females. Discussion : Congress and the Army have addressed similar issues. Any policy change regarding attire or grooming standards that appear to affect one group, particularly minorities, or people of religious faith, is viewed as suspect and there has been pressure on the service concerned, in this case the Army, to be more accommodating. References: Army Regulation (A.R. 670-1), Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia , revised September 15, 2014, at http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf (See para. 3-2 for authorized and unauthorized hairstyles for females) CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights is meant to protect individual religious exercise and requires a heightened standard of review for government actions that may interfere with a person's free exercise of religion. The Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights is meant to stop the government from endorsing a national religion, or favoring one religion over another. Actions taken must be carefully balanced to avoid being in violation of one of these clauses. Sections in Title 10 under the Army, Navy, and Air Force already address chaplains' duties with regard to holding religious services. A provision in the House-passed bill would amend these sections (§§3547, 6031, and 8547). Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) required the Armed Forces to accommodate the moral principles and religious beliefs of service members concerning appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and that such beliefs may not be used as a basis for any adverse personnel actions. Discussion: DOD Instruction 1300.17 acts to accommodate religious practices in the military services. This instruction indicates that DOD places a high value on the rights of military personnel to practice their respective religions. There have been instances where military personnel have become upset because the chaplain closed the prayer at a mandatory ceremony, such as a deployment ceremony, with a specific religious remark, such as "praise be Jesus." In February 2014, an atheist soldier at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX, threatened the U.S. Army with a lawsuit because a chaplain allegedly prayed to the Heavenly Father during a secular event. However, no personnel are required to recognize the prayer, or participate in it (for example, they do not have to respond). Religious proselytizing is considered by some to be a prominent issue in the Armed Forces. Some believe it could destroy the bonds that keep soldiers together, which could be viewed as a national security threat. The ability for a chaplain to be able to close a prayer outside of a religious service may heighten the tension between soldiers and may worsen the problem. Others disagree and argue that it is inappropriate to curtail a chaplain's activities. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also CRS Report R41171, Military Personnel and Freedom of Religion: Selected Legal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 (enacted Jan. 7, 2011) required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress to determine if changes in laws, policies, and regulations are needed to ensure that women have an "equitable opportunity" to serve in the Armed Forces. The report, "Review of Laws, policies, and regulations restricting service of female members of the Armed Forces," was submitted on June 1, 2011. In early 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units. Since Secretary Panetta's decision to rescind the restriction rule, the Army and Marine Corps have taken various steps to further integrate women. Discussion : In many ways, the report mandated by Section 535 of P.L. 111-383 has been overtaken by events. Nevertheless, some in Congress are concerned that DOD is not taking seriously the review of policies affecting female service members. Some are concerned that the use of the term "equitable," used above, does not mean the same as "equal." The service leadership has already begun assessing the occupational requirements. Section 584 of H.R. 4355 mandates a study of gender integration. There is no study mandate in Sec. 523 of S. 2410 and the focus is on gender-neutral occupational standards. Reference(s): CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Military members who are single parents are subjected to the same assignment and deployment requirements as other service members. Deployments to areas that do not allow dependents (such as aboard ships or in hostile fire zones) require the service member to have contingency plans to provide for their dependents, usually a temporary custody arrangement. Difficulties with child custody could in some cases potentially affect the welfare of military children as well as service members' ability to effectively serve their country. Concerns have been raised that the possibility or actuality of military deployments may encourage courts to deny custodial rights of a service member in favor of a former spouse or others. Also, concerns have been raised that custody changes may occur while the military member is deployed and unable to attend court proceedings. Discussion: The proposed final version seeks to protect the custodial arrangements of parents who are members of the armed forces by limiting the duration of a temporary custody order, based solely on the deployment of a servicemember parent, to the period justified by the deployment of the servicemember. It also restricts courts from using the absence of a service member due to deployment, or potential deployment, as the sole factor in determining a child's best interests, and directs deference to state law in these matters when the state law is more beneficial to the service member. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also CRS Report R43091, Military Parents and Child Custody: State and Federal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In recent years, the military services, particularly the Army, have reviewed and broadened what should be considered in evaluating the performance of commanders, including assessing the "command climate" of their unit. This appraisal includes evaluating how the unit is functioning and its "health." Such an appraisal could look at complaints in the unit, as well as issues concerning turnover, morale, leadership, discipline, etc. Discussion : The language in the proposed final bill would require that performance appraisals of unit commanders indicate the extent to which he or she has established a "command climate" in which sexual assault allegations are properly managed and the person making the allegations is protected from retaliation. References : CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Sexual assault continues to be an issue in the military. The number of cases reported in FY2014 was 5,983, exceeding the 5,518 cases reported in FY2013. DOD attributes this increase to a greater willingness of alleged victims to come forward and report incidents. Discussion : Many believe that more can and should be done to address the issue of sexual assault in the military. These provisions require additional efforts by the military related to preventing and reporting sexual assault, providing assistance to victims, and modifying judicial proceedings. References : CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. See also, U.S., Department of Defense, Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, FY2013: http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY13_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault.pdf CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces who has been (1) wounded or killed in action against an enemy while serving with friendly forces against a belligerent party as the result of a hostile foreign force while serving as a member of a peacekeeping force while outside the United States; or (2) killed or wounded by friendly fire under certain circumstances. On June 9, 2009, a civilian who was angry over the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire on two U.S. Army soldiers near a recruiting station in Little Rock, AK. On November 5, 2009, an Army major, Nidal Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood, TX, killing 13 and wounding 29. Both the civilian and Army major were charged with murder and other crimes. In 2013, Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death. The shooter in the Little Rock case confessed and was sentence to life in prison. Discussion: Authorities had considered, and treated, the shootings at Little Rock and Ft. Hood to be crimes and not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force. Because these acts involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, some believe they should be viewed as acts of war. Still others are concerned that awarding the Purple Heart in these situations could have anti-Muslim overtones. The decision to award medals and other military decorations traditionally rests with the executive branch, so enacting this language would represent a rare legislative initiative in this area. References: CRS Report R42704, The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. C RS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Combat Action Badge (CAB) is awarded to any soldier who has actively engaged or been engaged by the enemy in a combat zone or imminent danger area. The CAB was established through Department of the Army Letter 600-05-1, dated June 3, 2005, and was authorized for soldiers who met the requirements after September 18, 2001. As with the coveted Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and Combat Medical Badge (CMB), the CAB recognizes soldiers who were actively engaged in combat with the enemy, but its award is not restricted by military occupational specialty. Discussion: Section 572 of the House bill would give the Secretary of the Army permission to retroactively award the CAB to certain individuals. If enacted and utilized by the Secretary of the Army, Section 572 would align the dates of eligibility with those for the CIB and CMB, and effectively allow eligible Army veterans retroactively to be awarded the CAB. Locating records that would justify awarding the CAB might, in some cases, be difficult. Additionally, the language of Section 572 says that the CAB would be awarded to "a person who, while a member of the Army, participated in combat during which the person personally engaged, or was personally engaged by, the enemy." Therefore, survivors of deceased service members seemingly could not acquire the CAB on behalf of the service member. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the proposed final bill included the following statement: On March 20, 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed a comprehensive review of the Department of Defense's military decorations and awards program to ensure that it provides avenues to appropriately recognize the service, sacrifices, and actions of military personnel. We request that this comprehensive review include a review of the proposal for the retroactive award of the Army Combat Action Badge. References: None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In recent years, critics of the MoH review process have noted it as being lengthy and bureaucratic which may have led to some records being lost and conclusions drawn based on competing eyewitness and forensic evidence. One controversial nomination is that of Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was nominated by the Marine commandant for allegedly smothering a grenade in Fallujah, Iraq, and saving the lives of several comrades in 2004. Marines who witnessed his actions insisted that although Peralta was gravely wounded, he was able to smother the grenade. However, some forensic experts disagreed, contending that he was already brain-dead and thus unable to voluntarily move on his own. The situation became more confused when Marines serving with Peralta recanted their stories. Also the medals process was tarnished when the Pentagon was alleged to have created false narratives to justify medals awarded in the high-profile cases of Army Ranger Pat Tillman and Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch. Discussion: Peralta's case bears similarities to that of Marine Cpl. William "Kyle" Carpenter, who jumped on an enemy grenade to save a fellow Marine in Afghanistan. Carpenter, who is medically retired, was awarded the Medal of Honor on June 19, 2014, at the White House for his actions. Advocates for Peralta's nomination may seek to draw parallels between the two cases which may further open the review process for scrutiny. References: CRS Report 95-519, Medal of Honor: History and Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Point of Contact : [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: TRICARE is a health care program serving uniformed service members, retirees, their dependents, and survivors. In its FY2015 budget request, the Administration proposed to replace TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Extra with a consolidated TRICARE plan, increase co-pays for pharmaceuticals, and establishing a new enrollment fee for future enrollees in the TRICARE-for-Life program (that acts like a Medigap supplement plan for Medicare-eligible retirees). Discussion: The House Armed Services Committee report states: The committee remains focused on making certain that the Department cost-saving measures are centered on achieving the most efficient Military Health System possible before significant cost sharing burdens is placed on TRICARE beneficiaries. The current Department proposal to fundamentally alter the structure of TRICARE and increase associated fees is concerning in light of concurrently proposed reductions in compensation. The joint explanatory statement for H.R. 3979 states that the Administration cost-sharing proposals have not been rejected, but that additional action is deferred pending the report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission expected in February 2015: We note that while the Department of Defense (DOD) legislative proposal included proposed changes to the TRICARE pharmaceutical co-pays for fiscal years 2015 through 2024; this agreement includes changes beginning in fiscal year 2015. By adopting co-payment changes beginning the first year of the proposal, the agreement preserves the option for Congress to achieve most of the savings requested by DOD. This approach does not constitute a rejection of the DOD proposal, which was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rather, consideration of further changes to co-pays is deferred until after the committees receive the report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, which is due in February 2015. The two committees commit to consider proposed changes to co-pays that are included in the FY 2016 budget request as part of the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.We note that if sequestration-level budgets remain in effect for Fiscal Year 2016 and beyond, DOD will need to make painful cuts and achieve substantial savings across its entire budget in order to avoid an unacceptable reduction in readiness of the Armed Forces of the United States. The web site of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission is http://mldc.whs.mil/ and an interim report providing detailed information on the military health care program and its costs is available there. Reference(s) : Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report R40711, FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: TRICARE beneficiaries have access to a pharmacy program that allows outpatient prescriptions to be filled through military pharmacies, TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery, and TRICARE retail network and non-network pharmacies. Active duty service members have no pharmacy copayments when using military pharmacies, TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery, or TRICARE retail network pharmacies. Military pharmacies will provide free-of-charge a 90-day supply of formulary medications for prescriptions written by both civilian and military providers. Non-formulary medicines generally are not available at military pharmacies. For up to a 90-day supply, there are copayments for brand name and non-formulary medications (currently $13 and $43, respectively), but not for generic medications dispensed through TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery. For TRICARE retail network pharmacies the copayments for a 30-day supply currently are $5 for generic, $17 for brand name, and $44 for non-formulary drugs. It is DOD policy to use generic medications instead of brand-name medications whenever possible. The Administration's FY2015 budget request proposed a series of annual increases in the amount of copayments for fiscal years 2015 through 2024. Discussion: Section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 established a pilot program requiring that maintenance medications for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries be filled through military treatment facilities or TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery. Section 702 of H.R. 3979 would terminate the pilot program and expand the requirement to all TRICARE beneficiaries. Maintenance medications are those used on a regular basis for chronic health conditions such as high cholesterol or blood pressure. They do not include medications needed for a sudden illness or infection. Section 702 would also increase existing copayment requirements across-the-board by $3. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that removing retail pharmacies as an option for refilling prescriptions for maintenance medications would save roughly $375 million per year. Reference(s) : Previously discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and CRS Report R42651, FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 2410 dated October 21, 2014, page 12. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Person-to-person mental health assessments are required under current law (10 U.S.C. 1074m) to be provided to each member of the armed forces who is deployed in support of a contingency operation once during the period beginning 120 days before the date of the deployment, once during the period beginning 90 days after the date of redeployment from the contingency operation and ending 180 days after such redeployment date, and not later than once during each of (1) the period beginning 180 days after the date of redeployment from the contingency operation and ending 18 months after such redeployment date; and (2) the period beginning 18 months after such redeployment date and ending 30 months after such redeployment date. The purpose of these mental health assessments is to identify post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal tendencies, and other behavioral health conditions. Discussion: Requiring DOD to administer a mental health assessment to deployed personnel every six months would require the deployment of an additional 20 mental health professionals and cost $35 million over the 2015-2019 periods according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate for H.R. 4435. The CBO's cost estimate for the annual person-to-person mental health assessment required by section states: Section 701 would require DoD to administer an annual mental health assessment to all members on active duty and in the selected reserve. Based on information from DoD, most of the services perform annual assessments that would meet the requirements of section 701. However, the Air Force and Air National Guard currently require such assessments at intervals of three and five years, respectively. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that implementing section 701 would require the Air Force and Air National Guard to perform an additional 240,000 mental health assessments each year, at a cost of about $35 each (the assessments may be performed over the phone). In total, after accounting for inflation, CBO estimates section 701 would require an increase in spending subject to appropriation of $43 million over the 2015-2019 periods. Costs would be lower in the first year because of the time needed to establish regulations and procedures. Presumably the estimated cost for the H.R. 3979 provision would not be significantly more than that for S. 2410 because mental health assessments administered to deployed troops would satisfy the annual requirement. Reference(s) : Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 4435 dated May 16, 2014. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 2410 dated October 21, 2014. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA, P.L. 110-343 ) generally prevents group health plans and health insurance issuers that provide mental health or substance use disorder benefits from imposing less favorable limitations on those benefits than on medical/surgical benefits. The MHPAEA originally applied to group health plans and group health insurance coverage and was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148 ), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-152 ), to also apply to individual health insurance coverage. None of these provisions are applicable to the TRICARE program. TRICARE currently limits inpatient psychiatric care for patients age 19 and older to 30 days per fiscal year or in any single admission and to 45 days per fiscal year or in any single admission for patients age 18 and younger. Limitations may be waived if determined to be medically or psychologically necessary. Discussion: The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for S. 2410 states: Section 703 would remove certain limitations on inpatient mental health coverage under TRICARE. Specifically, beneficiaries would no longer be subject to the annual limit on stays at inpatient mental health facilities, which is currently 30 days for adults and 45 days for children. In addition, children would no longer be subject to the 150-day annual limit for stays at Residential Treatment Centers. DoD is currently allowed to issue waivers that allow beneficiaries to exceed the annual limits. However, based on an examination of data from DoD, CBO believes that at least some beneficiaries will have their inpatient stays curtailed because of the current restrictions, and that removal of those restrictions would result in longer stays and an increase in costs to DoD. Based on data from DoD, CBO estimates that about 650 TRICARE beneficiaries who are not Medicare-eligible would extend their stays at inpatient mental health facilities each year if the current restrictions are eliminated, and that they would extend their stays by about 26 days, on average. With an average cost of about $700 per day, CBO estimates section 703 would increase spending subject to appropriation by about $12 million per year, or $67 million over the 2015-2019 periods after adjustments for annual inflation. Reference(s) : Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 4435 dated May 16, 2014. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 2410 dated October 21, 2014, page 13. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: DOD implemented a reorganization of the military health system on October 1, 2013. This included the creation of a new Defense Health Agency and Enhanced Multi-Service Markets. In reports to Congress, DOD has communicated its intent to consolidate or eliminate some underutilized services offered through certain military treatment facilities. Discussion: Section 714 of the House bill would delay DOD's planned changes. The section requires DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on an internal DOD military medical treatment facility modernization study and the Government Accountability Office to subsequently report upon that report. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the delays in planned changes would increase costs to DOD by about $135 million over the 2015-2019 period. Assuming the study required by Section 713 of H.R. 3979 would have a similar effect as Section 714 of H.R. 4435 one might assume a similar resulting cost estimate. Reference(s) : Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 4435 dated May 16, 2014. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : In general, by federal law, TRICARE payments are prohibited for "any service or supply which is not medically or psychologically necessary to prevent, diagnose, or treat a mental or physical illness, injury, or bodily malfunction." The purpose of this provision, common in health care payment programs, is to prevent TRICARE beneficiaries from being exposed to less than fully developed and tested drugs, devices and/or medical procedures and to avoid the associated risk of unnecessary or unproven treatment. Discussion : The TRICARE Policy Manual explains how the prohibition on non-medically necessary services and supplies are implemented. It states that regulations and program policies restrict benefits to those drugs, devices, treatments, or procedures for which the safety and efficacy have been proven to be comparable or superior to conventional therapies. Any drug, device, medical treatment, or procedure whose safety and efficacy has not been established is unproven and is excluded from coverage. A drug, device, medical treatment, or procedure is unproven if the drug or device cannot be lawfully marketed without the approval or clearance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approval or clearance for marketing has not been given at the time the drug or device is furnished to the patient; or if a medical device with an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) approved by the FDA is categorized by the FDA as experimental/investigational (FDA Category A), unless reliable evidence shows that any medical treatment or procedure has been the subject of well-controlled studies of clinically meaningful endpoints, which have determined its maximum tolerated dose, its toxicity, its safety, and its efficacy as compared with standard means of treatment or diagnosis. Cost-sharing may be allowed for services or supplies when there is no logical or causal relationship between the unproven drug, device, treatment, or procedure and the treatment at issue or where such a logical or causal relationship cannot be established with a sufficient degree of certainty. This cost-sharing is authorized when treatment that is not related to the unproven drug, device, treatment, or procedure (e.g., medically necessary treatment the beneficiary would have received in the absence of the unproven drug, device, treatment, or procedure); treatment which is a necessary follow-up to the unproven drug, device, treatment, or procedure but which might have been necessary in the absence of the unproven treatment. In making a determination that a drug, device, medical treatment, or procedure has moved from the status of unproven to the position of nationally accepted medical practice; TRICARE uses the following hierarchy of reliable evidence: Well controlled studies of clinically meaningful endpoints, published in refereed medical literature. These include published formal technology assessments, the published reports of national professional medical associations, published national medical policy organization positions, and the published reports of national expert opinion organizations. TRICARE policy and benefit structure is never based solely that of other government medical programs, including Medicare, because each operates under its own statutes and regulations. TRICARE coverage may only be based on its governing statutes and regulations. Section 704 presumably would, among other things, allow TRICARE to address situations such as Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs). These are considered "medical devices" by the FDA. By regulation, TRICARE coverage is limited to FDA approved LDTs. A recent change in medical coding allowed TRICARE to identify when LDTs were being reimbursed when it had previously unknowingly paid for them. The Defense Health Agency (DHA) has stated that it recognizes that some FDA non-approved LDTs may help providers and patients with certain treatment decisions. In order to determine which FDA non-approved LDTs may be appropriate for coverage under TRICARE, the DHA is in the process of designing a new demonstration project. This new effort would expand upon an existing demonstration project, which provides coverage for certain LDTs that inform clinical decision making in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Potential spending increases associated with this provision might be offset by potential reductions in spending under DOD's Supplemental Care program which is not subject to the TRICARE limitations. Reference(s) : Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 4435 dated May 16, 2014. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: S. 2410 dated October 21, 2014, page 13. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Current TRICARE coverage for breastfeeding support supplies is limited to hospital-grade electric breast pumps (including services and supplies related to the use of the pump) for the mother of a premature infant. Electric breast pumps are specifically excluded for reasons of personal convenience, such as to facilitate a mother's return to work, even if prescribed by a physician. Basic electric and manual breast pumps likewise are excluded. This policy contrasts with the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148 ) requiring group health insurance to cover comprehensive prenatal and postnatal lactation support, counseling, and equipment without cost-sharing. Discussion: The provision would authorize TRICARE coverage of "breastfeeding support, supplies (including breast pumps and associated equipment), and counseling as appropriate during pregnancy and the postpartum period." Normal TRICARE cost-sharing requirements would still apply. CBO did not score this provision. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. | Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing operations in Afghanistan, along with the regular use of the reserve component personnel for operational missions, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on H.R. 4435, the initial House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015; S. 2410, the version of the NDAA reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services (S.Rept. 113-176) but not considered by the full Senate; and H.R. 3979, the proposed final version. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections in each bill that pertain to selected personnel policy. These include end strengths, compensation, health care, and sexual assault, as well as less prominent issues that nonetheless generate significant public interest. This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include language concerning appropriations, veterans' affairs, tax implications of policy choices, or any discussion of separately introduced legislation, topics which are addressed in other CRS products. Some issues were addressed in the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with a "*" in the relevant section titles of this report. |
Long-term care includes many types of services needed when a person has a physical or mental disability. Individuals needing long-term care have varying degrees of difficulty in performing some activities of daily living without assistance, such as bathing, dressing, toileting, eating, and moving from one location to another. They may also have trouble with instrumental activities of daily living, which include such tasks as preparing food, housekeeping, and handling finances. They may have a mental impairment, such as Alzheimer’s disease, that necessitates supervision to avoid harming themselves or others or assistance with tasks such as taking medications. Although a chronic physical or mental disability may occur at any age, the older an individual becomes, the more likely a disability will develop or worsen. According to the 1999 National Long-Term Care Survey, approximately 7 million elderly had some sort of disability in 1999, including about 1 million needing assistance with at least five activities of daily living. Assistance takes place in many forms and settings, including institutional care in nursing homes or assisted living facilities, home care services, and unpaid care from family members or other informal caregivers. In 1994, approximately 64 percent of all elderly with a disability relied exclusively on unpaid care from family or other informal caregivers; even among elderly with difficulty with five activities of daily living, about 41 percent relied entirely on unpaid care. Nationally, spending from all public and private sources for long-term care for all ages totaled about $137 billion in 2000, accounting for nearly 12 percent of all health care expenditures. Over 60 percent of expenditures for long-term care services are paid for by public programs, primarily Medicaid and Medicare. Individuals finance almost one-fourth of these expenditures out-of-pocket and, less often, private insurers pay for long- term care. Moreover, these expenditures do not include the extensive reliance on unpaid long-term care provided by family members and other informal caregivers. Figure 1 shows the major sources financing these expenditures. Medicaid, the joint federal-state health-financing program for low-income individuals, continues to be the largest funding source for long-term care. Medicaid provides coverage for poor persons and to many individuals who have become nearly impoverished by “spending down” their assets to cover the high costs of their long-term care. For example, many elderly persons become eligible for Medicaid as a result of depleting their assets to pay for nursing home care that Medicare does not cover. In 2000, Medicaid paid 45 percent (about $62 billion) of total long-term care expenditures. States share responsibility with the federal government for Medicaid, paying on average approximately 43 percent of total Medicaid costs. Eligibility for Medicaid-covered long-term care services varies widely among states. Spending also varies across states—for example, in fiscal year 2000, Medicaid per capita long-term care expenditures ranged from $73 per year in Nevada to $680 per year in New York. For the national average in recent years, about 53 to 60 percent of Medicaid long- term care spending has gone toward the elderly. In 2000, nursing home expenditures dominated Medicaid long-term care expenditures, accounting for 57 percent of its long-term care spending. Home care expenditures make up a growing share of Medicaid long-term care spending as many states use the flexibility available within the Medicaid program to provide long-term care services in home- and community- based settings. Expenditures for Medicaid home- and community-based services grew ten-fold from 1990 to 2000—from $1.2 billion to $12.0 billion. Other significant long-term care financing sources include: Individuals’ out-of-pocket payments, the second largest payer of long-term care services, accounted for 23 percent (about $31 billion) of total expenditures in 2000. The vast majority (80 percent) of these payments were used for nursing home care. Medicare spending accounted for 14 percent (about $19 billion) of total long-term care expenditures in 2000. While Medicare primarily covers acute care, it also pays for limited stays in post-acute skilled nursing care facilities and home health care. Private insurance, which includes both traditional health insurance and long-term care insurance, accounted for 11 percent (about $15 billion) of long-term care expenditures in 2000. Less than 10 percent of the elderly and an even lower percentage of the near elderly (those aged 55 to 64) have purchased long-term care insurance, although the number of individuals purchasing long-term care insurance increased during the 1990s. Before focusing on the increased burden that long-term care will place on federal and state budgets, it is important to look at the broader budgetary context. As we look ahead we face an unprecedented demographic challenge with the aging of the baby boom generation. As the share of the population 65 and over climbs, federal spending on the elderly will absorb a larger and ultimately unsustainable share of the federal budget and economic resources. Federal spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are expected to surge—nearly doubling by 2035—as people live longer and spend more time in retirement. In addition, advances in medical technology are likely to keep pushing up the cost of health care. Moreover, the baby boomers will be followed by relatively fewer workers to support them in retirement, prompting a relatively smaller employment base from which to finance these higher costs. Under the 2001 Medicare trustees’ intermediate estimates, Medicare will double as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) between 2000 and 2035 (from 2.2 percent to 5.0 percent) and reach 8.5 percent of GDP in 2075. The federal share of Medicaid as a percent of GDP will grow from today’s 1.3 percent to 3.2 percent in 2035 and reach 6.0 percent in 2075. Under the Social Security trustees’ intermediate estimates, Social Security spending will grow as a share of GDP from 4.2 percent to 6.6 percent between 2000 and 2035, reaching 6.7 percent in 2075. (See fig. 2.) Combined, in 2075 a full one-fifth of GDP will be devoted to federal spending for these three programs alone. To move into the future with no changes in federal health and retirement programs is to envision a very different role for the federal government. Our long-term budget simulations serve to illustrate the increasing constraints on federal budgetary flexibility that will be driven by entitlement spending growth. Assume, for example, that last year’s tax reductions are made permanent, revenue remains constant thereafter as a share of GDP, and discretionary spending keeps pace with the economy. Under these conditions, spending for net interest, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would consume nearly three-quarters of federal revenue by 2030. This will leave little room for other federal priorities, including defense and education. By 2050, total federal revenue would be insufficient to fund entitlement spending and interest payments. (See fig. 3.) Beginning about 2010, the share of the population that is age 65 or older will begin to climb, with profound implications for our society, our economy, and the financial condition of these entitlement programs. In particular, both Social Security and the Hospital Insurance portion of Medicare are largely financed as pay-as-you-go systems in which current workers’ payroll taxes pay current retirees’ benefits. Therefore, these programs are directly affected by the relative size of populations of covered workers and beneficiaries. Historically, this relationship has been favorable. In the near future, however, the overall worker-to-retiree ratio will change in ways that threaten the financial solvency and sustainability of these entitlement programs. In 2000, there were 4.9 working-age persons (18 to 64 years) per elderly person, but by 2030, this ratio is projected to decline to 2.8. This decline in the overall worker-to-retiree ratio will be due to both the surge in retirees brought about by the aging baby boom generation as well as falling fertility rates, which translate into relatively fewer workers in the near future. Social Security’s projected cost increases are due predominantly to the burgeoning retiree population. Even with the increase in the Social Security eligibility age to 67, these entitlement costs are anticipated to increase dramatically in the coming decades as a larger share of the population becomes eligible for Social Security, and if, as expected, average longevity increases. As the baby boom generation retires and the Medicare-eligible population swells, the imbalance between outlays and revenues will increase dramatically. Medicare growth rates reflect not only a rapidly increasing beneficiary population, but also the escalation of health care costs at rates well exceeding general rates of inflation. While advances in science and technology have greatly expanded the capabilities of medical science, disproportionate increases in the use of health services have been fueled by the lack of effective means to channel patients into consuming, and providers into offering, only appropriate services. Although Medicare cost growth had slowed in recent years, in fiscal year 2001 Medicare spending grew by 10.3 percent and is up 7.8 percent for the first 5 months of fiscal year 2002. To obtain a more complete picture of the future health care entitlement burden, especially as it relates to long-term care, we must also acknowledge and discuss the important role of Medicaid. Approximately 71 percent of all Medicaid dollars are dedicated to services for the aged, blind, and disabled individuals, and Medicaid spending is one of the largest components of most states’ budgets. At the February 2002 National Governors Association meeting, governors reported that during a time of fiscal crisis for states, the growth in Medicaid is creating a situation in which states are faced with either making major cuts in programs or being forced to raise taxes significantly. Further, in a 2001 survey, 24 states cited increased costs for nursing homes and home- and community-based services as among the top factors in Medicaid cost growth. Over the longer term, the increase in the number of elderly will add considerably to the strain on federal and state budgets as governments struggle to finance increased Medicaid spending. In addition, this strain on state Medicaid budgets may be exacerbated by fluctuations in the business cycle, such as the recent economic slowdown. State revenues decline during economic downturns, while the needs of the disabled for assistance remain constant. In coming decades, the sheer number of aging baby boomers will swell the number of elderly with disabilities and the need for services. These overwhelming numbers offset the slight reductions in the prevalence of disability among the elderly reported in recent years. In 2000, individuals aged 65 or older numbered 34.8 million people—12.7 percent of our nation’s total population. By 2020, that percentage will increase by nearly one-third to 16.5 percent—one in six Americans—and will represent nearly 20 million more elderly than there are today. By 2040, the number of elderly aged 85 years and older—the age group most likely to need long- term care services—is projected to more than triple from about 4 million to about 14 million (see fig. 4). It is difficult to precisely predict the future increase in the number of the elderly with disabilities, given the counterbalancing trends of an increase in the total number of elderly and a possible continued decrease in the prevalence of disability. For the past two decades, the number of elderly with disabilities has remained fairly constant while the percentage of those with disabilities has fallen between 1 and 2 percent a year. Possible factors contributing to this decreased prevalence of disability include improved health care, improved socioeconomic status, and better health behaviors. The positive benefits of the decreased prevalence of disability, however, will be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of aged baby boomers. The total number of disabled elderly is projected to increase to between one- third and twice current levels, or as high as 12.1 million by 2040. The increased number of disabled elderly will exacerbate current problems in the provision and financing of long-term care services. Approximately one in five adults with long-term care needs and living in the community reports an inability to receive needed care, such as assistance in toileting or eating, often with adverse consequences. In addition, disabled elderly may lack family support or the financial means to purchase medical services. Long-term care costs can be financially catastrophic for families. Services, such as nursing home care, are very expensive; while costs can vary widely, a year in a nursing home typically costs $50,000 or more, and in some locations can be considerably more. Because of financial constraints, many elderly rely heavily on unpaid caregivers, usually family members and friends; overall, the majority of care received in the community is unpaid. However, in coming decades, fewer elderly may have the option of unpaid care because a smaller proportion may have a spouse, adult child, or sibling to provide it. By 2020, the number of elderly who will be living alone with no living children or siblings is estimated to reach 1.2 million, almost twice the number without family support in 1990. In addition, geographic dispersion of families may further reduce the number of unpaid caregivers available to elderly baby boomers. Currently, public and private spending on long-term care is about $137 billion for persons of all ages, and for the elderly alone is projected to increase two-and-a-half to four times in the next 40 to 50 years—reaching as much as $379 billion in constant dollars for the elderly alone, according to one source. (See fig. 5.) Estimates of future spending are imprecise, however, due to the uncertain effect of several important factors, including how many elderly will need assistance, the types of care they will use, and the availability of public and private sources of payment for care. Absent significant changes in the availability of public and private payment sources, however, future spending is expected to continue to rely heavily on public payers, particularly Medicaid, which estimates indicate pays about 36 to 37 percent of long-term care expenditures for the elderly. One factor that will affect spending is how many elderly will need assistance. As I have previously discussed, even with continued decreases in the prevalence of disability, aging baby boomers are expected to have a disproportionate effect on the demand for long-term care. Another factor influencing projected long-term care spending is the type of care that the baby boom generation will use. Currently, expenditures for nursing home care greatly exceed those for care provided in other settings. Average expenditures per elderly person in a nursing home can be about four times greater than average expenditures for those receiving paid care at home. The past decade has seen increases in paid home care as well as in assisted living facilities, a relatively newer and developing type of housing in which an estimated 400,000 elderly with disabilities resided in 1999. It is unclear what effect continued growth in paid home care, assisted living facilities, or other care alternatives may have on future expenditures. Any increase in the availability of home care may reduce the average cost per disabled person, but the effect could be offset if there is an increase in the use of paid home care by persons currently not receiving these services. Changes in the availability of public and private sources to pay for care will also affect expenditures. Private long-term care insurance has been viewed as a possible means of reducing catastrophic financial risk for the elderly needing long-term care and relieving some of the financial burden currently falling on public long-term care programs. Increases in private insurance may lower public expenditures but raise spending overall because insurance increases individuals’ financial resources when they become disabled and allows the purchase of additional services. The number of policies in force remains relatively small despite improvements in policy offerings and the tax deductibility of premiums. However, as we have previously testified, questions about the affordability of long-term care policies and the value of the coverage relative to the premiums charged have posed barriers to more widespread purchase of these policies. Further, many baby boomers continue to assume they will never need such coverage or mistakenly believe that Medicare or their own private health insurance will provide comprehensive coverage for the services they need. If private long-term care insurance is expected to play a larger role in financing future generations’ long-term care needs, consumers need to be better informed about the costs of long-term care, the likelihood that they may need these services, and the limits of coverage through public programs and private health insurance. With or without increases in the availability of private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare are expected to continue to pay for the majority of long-term care services for the elderly in the future. Without fundamental financing changes, Medicaid can be expected to remain one of the largest funding sources for long-term care services for aging baby boomers, with Medicaid expenditures for long-term care for the elderly reaching as high as $132 billion by 2050. As I noted previously, this increasing burden will strain both federal and state governments. Given the anticipated increase in demand for long-term care services resulting from the aging of the baby boom generation, the concerns about the availability of services, and the expected further stress on federal and state budgets and individuals’ financial resources, some policymakers and advocates have called for long-term care financing reforms. As further deliberation is given to any long-term care financing reforms, I would like to close by suggesting several considerations for policymakers to keep in mind. At the outset, it is important to recognize that long-term care services are not just another set of traditional health care services. Meeting acute and chronic health care needs is an important element of caring for aging and disabled individuals. Long-term care, however, encompasses services related to maintaining quality of life, preserving individual dignity, and satisfying preferences in lifestyle for someone with a disability severe enough to require the assistance of others in everyday activities. Some long-term care services are akin to other health care services, such as personal assistance with activities of daily living or monitoring or supervision to cope with the effect of dementia. Other aspects of long-term care, such as housing, nutrition, and transportation, are services that all of us consume daily but become an integral part of long-term care for a person with a disability. Disabilities can affect housing needs, nutritional needs, or transportation needs. But, what is more important is that where one wants to live or what activities one wants to pursue also affects how needed services can be provided. Providing personal assistance in a congregate setting such as a nursing home or assisted living facility may satisfy more of an individual’s needs, be more efficient, and involve more direct supervision to ensure better quality than when caregivers travel to individuals’ homes to serve them one on one. Yet, those options may conflict with a person’s preference to live at home and maintain autonomy in determining his or her daily activities. Keeping in mind that policies need to take account of the differences involved in long-term care, let me offer several considerations as you seek to shape effective long-term care financing reforms. These include: Determining societal responsibilities. A fundamental question is how much the choices of how long-term care needs are met should depend upon an individual’s own resources or whether society should supplement those resources to broaden the range of choices. For a person without a disability requiring long-term care, where to live and what activities to pursue are lifestyle choices based on individual preferences and resources. However, for someone with a disability, those lifestyle choices affect the costs of long-term care services. The individual’s own resources—including financial resources and the availability of family or other informal supports—may not be sufficient to preserve some of their choices and also obtain needed long-term care services. Societal responsibilities may include maintaining a safety net to satisfy individual needs for assistance. However, the safety net may not provide a full range of choices in how those needs are met. Persons who require assistance multiple times a day and lack family members to provide some share of this assistance may not be able to have their needs satisfied in their own homes. The costs of meeting such extensive needs may mean that sufficient public support is available only in settings such as assisted living facilities or nursing homes. More extensive public support may be extended, but decisions to do so should carefully consider affordability in the context of competing demands for our nation’s resources. Considering the potential role of social insurance in financing. Government’s role in many situations has extended beyond providing a safety net. Sometimes this extended government role has been a result of efficiencies in having government undertake a function, and in other cases this role has been a policy choice. Some proposals have recommended either voluntary or mandatory social insurance to provide long-term care assistance to broad groups of beneficiaries. In evaluating such proposals, careful attention needs to be paid to the limits and conditions under which services will be provided. In addition, who will be eligible and how such a program will be financed are critical choices. As in defining a safety net, it is imperative that any option under consideration be thoroughly assessed for its affordability over the longer term. Encouraging personal preparedness. Becoming disabled is a risk. Not everyone will experience disability during his or her lifetime and even fewer persons will experience a severe disability requiring extensive assistance. This is the classic situation in which having insurance to provide additional resources to deal with a possible disability may be better than relying on personally saving for an event that may never occur. Insurance allows both persons who eventually will become disabled and those who will not to use more of their economic resources during their lifetime and to avoid having to put those resources aside for the possibility that they may become disabled. The public sector has two important potential roles in encouraging personal preparedness. The first is to adequately educate people about the boundaries between personal and societal responsibilities. Only if the limits of public support are clear will individuals be likely to take steps to prepare for a possible disability. Currently, one of the factors contributing to the lack of preparation for long-term care among the elderly is a widespread misunderstanding about what services Medicare will cover. The second public sector role may be to assure the availability of sound private long-term care insurance policies and possibly to create incentives for their purchase. Progress has been made in improving the value of insurance policies through state insurance regulation and strengthening the requirements for policies qualifying for favorable tax treatment through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. However, long-term care insurance is still an evolving product, and given the flux in how long-term care services are delivered, it is important to monitor whether long-term care insurance regulations need adjustments to ensure that consumers receive fair value for their premium dollars. Recognizing the benefits, burdens, and costs of informal caregiving. | As more and more of the baby boomers enter retirement age, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is expected to absorb correspondingly larger shares of federal revenue and crowd out other spending. The aging of the baby boomers will also increase the demand for long-term care and contribute to federal and state budget burdens. The number of disabled elderly who cannot perform daily living activities without assistance is expected to double in the future. Long-term care spending from public and private sources--about $137 billion for persons of all ages in 2000--will rise dramatically as the baby boomers age. Without fundamental financing changes, Medicaid--which pays more than one-third of long-term care expenditures for the elderly--can be expected to remain one of the largest funding sources, straining both federal and state governments. |
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. No. 104-193) (PRWORA) made sweeping changes to national welfare policy. Principally, these reforms gave states the flexibility to design their own programs and the strategies necessary for achieving program goals, including how to move welfare recipients into the workforce. But because the act also changed the way in which federal funds for welfare programs flow to the states, most of the program’s fiscal risks also shifted to the states. PRWORA created the TANF block grant, a fixed federal funding stream that replaced the AFDC and related programs in which federal funding matched state spending and increased automatically with caseload. Under AFDC, which entitled eligible families to aid, the federal funding was largely open-ended so that if a state experienced caseload and related cost increases, federal funds would increase with state funds to cover expenditures for the entire caseload. This open-ended federal commitment provided that financing for every dollar spent on these programs was shared by the federal government and the states, thereby limiting the states’ exposure to escalating costs. In contrast, the TANF block grant eliminated the federal entitlement to aid. The federal government provides a fixed amount of funds regardless of any changes in state spending or the number of people the programs serve. While the states must also provide a fixed level of funds from their own resources—their maintenance of effort (MOE) —they are now responsible for meeting most of the costs associated with any increase in caseload on their own. How they plan to manage this fiscal risk is what I refer to in this testimony as contingency planning. In this new welfare partnership, it is tempting to suggest that since welfare reform devolved decisions regarding eligibility and program services to the states, the potential volatility of the caseload is no longer a federal concern. However, in light of both federal requirements and their own fiscal limitations, states will be challenged during a downturn to maintain or increase state funds for benefits when they are most needed. States’ decisions regarding who to serve, for how long, and with what services will surely depend on how much flexibility they have with the resources— state and federal—that are available to finance their welfare programs. Although considerable uncertainties exist about the impacts of downturns, the potential cyclical nature of program costs as well as the fiscal constraints states face in responding to hard times heightens the importance of fiscal planning. Helping states maintain their programs was indeed recognized as a federal interest by Congress when it included the Contingency Fund and Loan Fund—mechanisms for states to gain access to additional federal funds—in TANF. It is unclear what impact a major economic downturn or recession will have on welfare participation given the significant reforms in national welfare policy. Recent studies have tried to establish a link between caseload trends and certain macroeconomic indicators in part to determine how sensitive welfare programs might be to changes in the economy. While the research literature generally suggests that caseloads may very well increase in an economic downturn, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the extent of the impact. These studies point to the variety of other factors affecting caseload levels, particularly with the advent of welfare reform. For example, a 1999 Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) report suggests that a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate could produce a 5 to 7 percent increase in welfare caseloads. However, this same study noted that changes in family structure and welfare policies can significantly mitigate the impact of an economic downturn on caseloads. In fact, the recent caseload drop was at least partly due to reforms ushered in by TANF—the study suggests that about one-third of the caseload reduction from 1996 through 1998—independent of the strong economy. Just as the reforms may have prompted reduced caseloads during times of economic expansion, greater emphases on work implies a tighter link to work and hence the economy, making TANF more sensitive to an economic downturn than AFDC. On the other hand, the reforms may pose significant disincentives for people to return to the welfare rolls or to apply even if they are eligible during downturns. For example, PRWORA imposes a 5-year lifetime limit on federal assistance on individuals receiving on going assistance; many may try other options first before returning to the welfare rolls. In addition, many states now offer a variety of work supports such as child care, transportation subsidies, and an earned income tax credit (EITC) to families not receiving cash assistance. These supports may be enough to allow earnings from even a part-time job to support a family without returning to the cash assistance rolls. Budgetary stress caused by caseload volatility may be compounded by the limitations placed on most states by constitutional or statutory requirements to balance their general fund budgets. During a fiscal crisis, state policymakers face difficult choices regarding whom to serve, for how long, and with what services. But more important to the discussion today is that each of these “hard choices” must be financed in the context of fiscal limitations—including legislative restrictions, constitutional balanced budget mandates, or conditions imposed by the bond market— on state’s ability to increase spending, especially in times of fiscal stress. For example, revenues may come in lower than expected during an economic downturn and a state’s enacted budget can fall into deficit. State balanced budget requirements often motivate states to both reallocate resources within their budgets and cut program spending or increase taxes during recessions. Such difficulties, I am sure, come as no surprise to many of the members of this Subcommittee who have had to make many of these difficult choices while serving in state legislative bodies. For these reasons prudent fiscal planning, especially contingency budgeting for a fiscal “rainy day,” becomes particularly important. In a fiscal crisis, a state’s need to cut spending or increase revenues can be alleviated if it has accumulated surplus balances in rainy day funds—these surpluses may be used to cover a given year’s deficit. However, unless there are reserves specifically earmarked for low-income families, welfare programs will have to compete with other state priorities for any of the rainy day funds. Finding the right balance between saving and investing resources in programs that help people make the transition from welfare to work continues to be one of the main challenges for states as they develop strategies to address the needs of low-income families. To set aside reserves for future welfare costs, states have two options: they can save federal TANF funds and/or they can save their own funds. However, states noted significant disincentives to save associated with both of these options. State officials told us that there is concern that accumulating unspent TANF balances might signal that the funds are not needed and that they have been under considerable pressure to spend their TANF balances more quickly to avoid the accumulation of large unspent balances in the U.S. Treasury. States have accumulated a portion of their own funds in general purpose rainy day funds, but welfare would have to compete with other claims for these dollars when these dollars are released from state treasuries. Under TANF, the amount of each state’s block grant was based on the amount of federal AFDC funds spent by the state when caseloads and spending were at historic highs. Because caseloads have fallen so dramatically, generally states have been able to reap the fiscal benefits of welfare reform by parlaying abundant federal resources into new programs and savings. Any federal funds they choose to reserve must remain at the U.S. Treasury until the states need them for low-income families. As of September 30, 2000 states reported leaving $9 billion in unspent TANF funds at the U.S. Treasury; this amounts to 14.5 percent of the total TANF funds awarded since 1996. Although many might view these balances as a de facto rainy day fund for future welfare costs, in fact there is probably less here than meets the eye. First, as we will discuss in more detail, the data reported by the states is misleading. Second, the reported balances themselves vary greatly among the states, suggesting that some states may not be as prepared to address the fiscal effects an economic downturn may have on their welfare programs without additional federal assistance while others may have saved substantially more than they might need. For example, some states report spending all their federal funds—essentially holding nothing in reserve—while others report accumulated reserves totaling more than their annual block grants. For example, Wyoming reports that nearly 70 percent of the TANF funds it has been awarded since 1997 remain unspent whereas Connecticut reports spending all of its TANF funds. States do not report unspent balances in a consistent manner making it difficult to ascertain how much of these balances is truly uncommitted and available for future contingencies. Therefore, federal policymakers lack reliable information to help assess states’ plans for economic contingencies, whether the levels of available funds are adequate, and whether all states have access to these funds. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations require that if a state has allocated a portion of its TANF grant to a rainy day fund, the state should report these balances as unobligated. But, state rainy day funds for welfare programs represent only a portion of the total reported unobligated balances. These balances can represent funds the state has saved for a rainy day, funds for which the state has made no spending plans, or funds the state has committed for activities in future years. For example, in developing a budget for a new child care program, officials in Wisconsin assumed that once the program was fully subscribed it would require all available resources—including any unobligated TANF funds from previous fiscal years. State officials said that even though at the end of federal fiscal year 2000 the state reported $40 million TANF funds as unobligated, the state has programmed these funds to pay child care subsidies to low-income families in future reporting periods. This is a case where a reported unobligated balance provides very little information about whether these funds are committed or simply unbudgeted. States also report unspent TANF funds as unliquidated obligations, which means that, to varying degrees, an underlying commitment exists for the funds either through a contract for services for eligible clients or to a county for expenses it will incur in operating a county-administered welfare program. But it is unclear how much of what is currently obligated is committed for future needs. For example, both California and Colorado have county-administered welfare systems. These states pass most of their annual block grant directly to the counties. As caseloads have continued to decline in both states, the budgets over-estimated expenditures leaving considerable balances unspent. Although these funds remain in the U.S. Treasury until a county needs to spend them, they remain as unliquidated obligations committed to the counties. California reports that it has over $1.6 billion in unliquidated TANF obligations. But the state reports no unobligated balances, implying that all these funds are earmarked. Recently, California amended its state statute to allow the state to deobligate some of these funds, if necessary, and make them available to other counties. Likewise, as of September 30, 2000 Colorado reports about $95 million in unliquidated obligations, but passes virtually all TANF resources to the counties. As of June 30, 2000 the state estimated that counties hold about $67 million in reserves—or about 70 percent of the total unliquidated obligations—for future contingencies. As highlighted in the above examples, the difference between unobligated balances and unliquidated obligations is often unclear and varies by state. Significant portions of California’s and Colorado’s unspent funds are not yet actually committed for specific expenditures but these facts cannot be determined based on the aggregate data, in part because of the way HHS requires states to report funds. Reporting a significant share of their unspent balances as unliquidated obligations implies that there is an underlying commitment on these funds when, in fact, these funds are no more committed than the funds Wisconsin must report in its unobligated balances but which are budgeted for expected outlays in Wisconsin’s child care subsidy program. Even though some states might consider their unobligated balances for TANF to be rainy day funds, it does not appear that the amounts reserved were based on any kind of contingency planning or analysis. For example, 5 of the 10 states we studied told us that they consider a portion of the funds left at the U.S. Treasury to be rainy day funds for unanticipated program needs. But the levels of the reserves established in those five states were not determined through a fiscal planning process that reflects budgetary assumptions about projected future needs. Instead, these states’ statutes merely designate all TANF funds not already appropriated by the state legislature for other purposes as constituting the state’s welfare rainy day fund, a method that clearly is not based on anticipated needs or contingencies. The lack of transparency regarding states’ plans for their unspent TANF funds prompted us, in 1998, to recommend that HHS and the states work together to explore options for enhancing the information available regarding these balances. Although HHS, the National Governor’s Association (NGA), and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) all agreed with us that more information regarding unspent TANF balances would be useful, little progress has been made implementing this recommendation and HHS’ final regulations, issued on April 12, 1999 did not address this issue. States were already concerned that the TANF reporting requirements would pose a substantial burden on state program administration and argued that adding another reporting requirement to allow states to signal their intentions for their unspent balances would only add to those burdens. However, the lack of useful information on these balances continues to weaken the effectiveness of congressional oversight over TANF funding issues, including how well prepared states may be to address a fiscal downturn. Our 1998 recommendation proposed a strategy that state and federal officials had tried before and found to be successful. In 1981, a number of categorical grants were block granted to states to provide maximum flexibility in developing and managing programs, along the same lines that TANF was designed in 1996. However, due to variations in the way states reported information to the federal government on activities funded by some of these block grants, Congress had no national picture of the grants’ impact. States and some national organizations recognized that these aggregate data were important and developed their own strategies to collect the data. We found that a cooperative data collection approach was easier to implement when (1) there was federal funding to support data collection activities, (2) national-level staff worked with state officials, and (3) state officials helped in systems design. We continue to believe that better information on the status of these unspent balances is crucial to effective oversight and could even enhance states’ incentives to save some of their TANF funds. Absent credible information on balances, there may be a greater risk that Congress could take action to recoup TANF funds—a prospect that has prompted some states to draw down and spend their TANF funds rather than leave them in the Treasury. Although many states have healthy general rainy day funds from which all programs would compete for funds during times of fiscal stress, only one of the states in our review, Maryland, has earmarked state funds in a reserve specifically for contingencies in its welfare program. Setting aside state funds in reserve for welfare requires tradeoffs for state decisionmakers among competing needs for the funds during a downturn. In addition, any funds a state sets aside for future welfare contingencies cannot count toward a states’ maintenance of effort in the year they are reserved—in order to qualify as MOE, the funds must be spent. Therefore, it is a very expensive proposition indeed for a state to budget both for a welfare reserve and to meet its MOE because it then would have far fewer resources available to finance other state priorities. Maryland found a way to transfer the costs of saving state funds to the federal government. In state fiscal year 2001, the state identified nine program accounts with annual expenditures of state funds totaling about $30 million that, under the broad and flexible rules governing TANF expenditures, could be funded with federal funds. In developing the budget, the state replaced these state funds with federal funds. Instead of using the “freed-up” state funds for nonwelfare activities the state used them to establish a dedicated reserve for its welfare program. While the ability to carry forward TANF balances is likely viewed as the principle mechanism by which states can prepare for a rainy day, PRWORA also created two safety-net mechanisms for states to access additional federal resources in the event of a recession or other emergency—the $2 billion Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs (Contingency Fund) and the $1.7 billion Federal Loan Fund for State Welfare Programs (Loan Fund). The Contingency Fund is authorized through 2001, at which time it expires. The President’s fiscal year 2002 budget proposal did not include a request to reauthorize the Contingency Fund. Because of a provision in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that reduced the TANF Contingency Fund by $40 million, the current balance in the Contingency Fund is $1.96 billion. States are deemed “needy” and eligible to receive funds from the Contingency Fund if they trigger one of two criteria: (1) the state’s unemployment rate exceeds 6.5 percent for 3 months and is equal to at least 110 percent of its rate in the same period of the previous year or (2) its average monthly food stamp caseload for the most recent 3-month period is equal to at least 110 percent of the average monthly caseload from the same 3-month period in fiscal year 1994 or 1995. Once eligible, a state must certify that it has increased its own current spending to prewelfare reform levels before it can gain access to the fund. Requiring states to increase their own financial stake in their welfare programs before giving them additional federal funds is, in principle, a reasonable approach that seeks to balance both the federal government’s interest in ensuring that states in trouble have access to additional funds and its interest in ensuring that states have done everything possible to address the shortfalls before turning to the federal treasury. Not only does the statute require states to bring their spending up to the prewelfare reform levels at a time when states are experiencing fiscal stress, but PRWORA establishes a different and more challenging base for the Contingency Fund’s MOE. While a state’s MOE requirement under the basic TANF program can include state funds expended under certain state programs and child care expenditures, the MOE requirement for the Contingency Fund does not include these items. Because states spend a significant share of their MOE funds on activities that do not qualify as Contingency Fund MOE expenditures, state budget officials told us that, rather than shifting their spending priorities to meet the Contingency Fund MOE, they would find other ways to manage deficits in their TANF budgets before they could consider turning to the Contingency Fund. In 1997 eight states qualified for contingency funds.However, only two states requested and were awarded contingency funds—North Carolina and New Mexico. In the end, only New Mexico complied with the Fund’s requirements and accepted $2 million. No state has used the Fund since 1997. Equally important as the requirement that states raise their own financial commitment in order to gain access to additional federal funds is a requirement that states share in all additional program costs—even beyond the MOE requirements. Requiring a match encourages states to be more cost-conscious than if the costs of an expanding caseload were covered only with federal dollars. While the Contingency Fund requires states to match all federal dollars at the states’ federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) rate the statute goes a step further. The statute limits the monthly draws to one-twelfth of 20 percent of a state’s annual block grant. This limitation requires a complex annual reconciliation process to certify that the state meets its matching requirement but also that it did not receive more than its monthly proportional share of contingency funds (see figure 1). Prorating a state’s draws from the Contingency Fund— especially if the state qualifies for a period that spans two federal fiscal years—reduces the share of federal funds to which it is entitled. This effectively increases the matching requirement (even higher than required under AFDC), thus raising the state’s costs for gaining access to the funds. Unlike the Contingency Fund, the Loan Fund does not have triggers. Instead, states that have not incurred penalties for improper use of TANF funds are eligible for loans from the Loan Fund. Such loans are to have a maturity of no more than 3 years at an interest rate comparable to the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the U.S. Treasury with comparable maturities. Some state officials told us that they are eligible for better financing terms in the tax-exempt municipal bond market. More important, officials in some states indicated that borrowing specifically for social welfare programs in times of fiscal stress would not receive popular support. In summary, neither the Contingency Fund—as currently designed—nor the Loan Fund is likely to be used by states in a fiscal crisis to obtain more resources for their welfare programs. The Loan Fund is most likely the wrong mechanism to provide assistance to states in a fiscal crisis. However, if the Contingency Fund is reauthorized, Congress could also contemplate improvements to enhance its usefulness in addressing budgetary shortfalls in states’ welfare programs that, at the same time, could provide stronger incentives for states to save for a rainy day. Although PRWORA struck a new fiscal balance between the federal government and the states in terms of welfare spending, both the states and the federal government have a significant interest in preparing the program to meet challenges in times of fiscal distress. Contingency planning is about being prepared for the unknown—as the economy shows possible signs of weakening, we need to begin to think about how prepared we are to maintain this important aspect of the nation’s safety net. Although many view the states’ large unspent TANF balances as the de facto contingency fund, these balances vary across states; this implies that some states may be better prepared for a recession than others. More important, current reporting requirements do not give us reliable, consistent information regarding states’ actual plans for these monies. According to NGA, few states have engaged in a systematic fiscal planning process to project their needs under a variety of economic scenarios. While we don’t know how states’ welfare programs will respond to a weakened economy, we know both the federal government and the states have a responsibility to ensure the viability of TANF in good times and bad. Before addressing how contingency planning can be improved for the future, the federal government needs better information on states’ current plans. At the same time, Congress could consider ways to both strengthen federal contingency mechanisms and give states greater incentives to save for the future. In 1998, we recommended that the Secretary of Health and Human Services explore with the states various options to enhance information regarding states’ plans for their unused TANF balances. We said that such information could include explicit state plans for setting aside TANF-funded reserves for the future, provide more transparency regarding these funds and enhance provide states with an opportunity to more explicitly consider their long- term fiscal plans for TANF. Although HHS concurred with our recommendation, to date, we have seen no progress in this area. We continue to believe that Congress would benefit from more complete information on states’ plans for future contingencies, including unspent TANF balances. While states often face burdens with respect to federal financial reporting requirements, states have historically recognized the benefits of cooperative data collection and reporting efforts and worked successfully with federal agencies to collect data that can give oversight officials a broad, national perspective of how they are using federal block grant funds. Allowing for more transparency regarding states’ fiscal plans for TANF funds could enhance congressional oversight over the multi-year timeframe of the grant and provide states with an opportunity to more explicitly consider their long- term fiscal plans for the program. While the opportunity to more clearly signal their intentions for these funds could prompt states to save, Congress must have some assurance that states’ estimates of their contingency needs were developed using credible, realistic estimating procedures. In order for a state to report to the federal government a balance in a rainy day fund, and in order for the federal government to have some level of confidence in such a figure, the federal government could give states guidance on how it could designate its TANF balances as a valid rainy day fund. Such guidance could include requirements that a state rainy day fund (1) include criteria both for estimating the appropriate reserve balances and for releasing funds and (2) be auditable. This guidance could help states signal that much of these balances are, in fact, committed. Furthermore, requiring that reserves be determined by credible, transparent estimating procedures would help provide better estimates of the potential need for federal contingency funds. The Contingency Fund, as currently designed, has not proven to be an inviting option to the states that have actually experienced fiscal stress to date. Should Congress decide to reauthorize the Contingency Fund, consideration could be given to approaches that could both improve the usefulness of the fund for hard-pressed states as well as ensure that states contribute their fair share to future welfare costs. Such approaches could include (1) eliminating the more restrictive the Contingency Fund-MOE and substituting the more flexible basic TANF-MOE and (2) eliminating the Monthly Payment Limitation (MPL) on the amount of contingency funds to which each state has access. These actions could help strengthen the role of the Contingency Fund in state contingency budgeting. Realigning the MOE and eliminating the MPL would make the Contingency Fund more accessible and, therefore, more responsive. If states had better access to federal contingency funds, they might be more likely to use the money when needed. However, greater accessibility must be balanced by fiscal responsibility. It is important to be mindful of this balance so as not to make it too easy for states to access federal contingency funds because they might be less likely to save for a rainy day on their own, which could pose risks to the federal Treasury. The changes discussed above would still require states to increase their own spending to pre-TANF levels (i.e., meet a 100 percent MOE) to gain access to the Contingency Fund—a higher level than they must maintain for the regular TANF program—as well as provide a matching share for the additional federal funds. By broadening the fiscal base that states can draw upon to meet this higher MOE, these changes might not only make the fund more accessible in times of need but prompt states to save their own funds in anticipation of accessing the federal funds. There are other options that could strengthen states’ incentives to save. For example, Congress could (1) allow states to count rainy day funds towards their MOE and (2) allow states to draw down their entire TANF grant and save these funds in their own treasuries. Allowing states to count rainy day funds towards their MOE would give them a greater incentive to save. However, “maintenance of effort” implies an actual expenditure, and is a critical aspect of PRWORA. If states save their own funds instead of spending them, they might be more likely to draw down all of their TANF dollars now to replace the state dollars they save for the future. However, this outcome can be mitigated by limiting the amount of rainy day funds that states could count towards their MOE. In addition, as we suggested earlier when discussing the TANF balances saved by states, states could also be required to certify that state rainy day funds are in fact auditable and include criteria for estimating and releasing the funds. Some state officials have argued that their incentive to save TANF funds for the future could be bolstered by allowing states to keep unspent TANF funds in their own accounts rather than at the U.S. Treasury. They believe that this might reduce incentives for Congress to rescind unspent balances since the outlays would be recognized earlier at the time of the grant award, not when the money is actually spent for a program need. State officials also told us that this would alleviate the perceived pressure to spend TANF funds rather than save them. However, it is important to note that, regardless of where these federal funds are “stored,” states are accountable for these funds. As such, Congress still needs consistent, reliable, and auditable information on these funds. There are significant issues associated with this proposal. First, if states draw down all unspent balances in the current year, the rate of outlays recorded for the TANF program would shift forward. Accordingly, the federal budget surplus would be proportionately lower in the near term. Second, the federal government would incur interest costs while states could realize interest earnings. The Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990 (CMIA) helps ensure that neither the states nor the federal government incur unnecessary interest costs or forgo interest income in the course of federal grant disbursement by prohibiting states from drawing down funds until they are needed. If Congress permitted, notwithstanding CMIA, states to draw down their TANF balances to establish reserves, it could also require states to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for any interest they earn on the drawdowns. This would maintain the spirit of the CMIA by preserving fiscal neutrality for the federal government and the states, since the states could use interest earnings they gain on investing the drawdowns to reimburse the Treasury. Essentially, states would have to justify why TANF deserves an exemption from a governmentwide grant policy that settled years of intergovernmental conflicts between federal and state administrators. The permanent nature of the appropriation to each state as well as the significant devolution of responsibilities to states for addressing the program’s fiscal risks may argue for such a change, but other federal interests would have to be weighed as well. For example, some may argue that CMIA promotes transparency by ensuring that states’ unspent balances remain in the federal Treasury rather than in state treasuries. This concern could be addressed through federal reporting on states’ expenditures and reserves. In conclusion, the TANF program has established a new fiscal partnership that has supported the transition to work-based welfare reforms. Because the partnership has yet to be tested in times of fiscal stress, now is the time for both federal and state governments to consider actions to prepare for more uncertain times and the possibility of higher program costs. Although TANF currently contains certain mechanisms to provide a fiscal cushion, the options we have presented provide an opportunity to promote greater assurance that all states will be poised to respond to future fiscal contingencies affecting their TANF programs. Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time. | This testimony discusses states' plans for operating their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs in the event of an economic downturn. GAO found that the data available on the levels and adequacy of states' reserves is insufficient and misleading. Furthermore, most states have done little planning for economic contingencies. Many states cite obstacles to saving money for possible economic downturns. Although TANF funds can be set aside in a budgetary reserve, state officials said that they are concerned that the accumulation of unspent TANF funds might signal that the funds are not needed. Another option for states would be to save their own funds in a general purpose rainy day account, but state officials said that welfare would have to compete with other state priorities when these funds are released from state treasuries. There are now federal contingency mechanisms for states to access additional federal resources in the event of a recession or other emergency--the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs and the Federal Loan for State Welfare Programs. However, states generally found these programs too complex and restrictive, and would most likely find other ways to sustain their welfare programs. |
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US President Obama: "The flickers of progress that we have seen must not be extinguished"
Burma is on a "remarkable journey" of reform that has much further to go, Barack Obama said as he made the first visit to the South East Asian nation by a serving US president.
A desire for change had been met by an agenda of reform, he said, and he was there to extend a "hand of friendship".
But, in a speech at Rangoon University, he urged Burmese people to accept Muslim Rohingyas after recent violence.
Crowds of people, some waving US flags, lined the streets as he arrived.
The visit was intended to show support for the reforms put in place by Thein Sein's government since the end of military rule in November 2010.
Activists have warned that the visit may be too hasty - political prisoners remain behind bars and ethnic conflicts in border areas are unresolved.
On Monday another prisoner amnesty was announced, with about 50 of the 66 inmates freed reportedly political detainees. About 200 political prisoners remain behind bars, activists say.
'Flickers of progress'
Mr Obama spent about six hours in Burma and did not visit the capital, Nay Pyi Taw.
Campaigners are asking why such an important visit had to happen so soon, apparently before Mr Obama's people had secured any concessions from the Burmese government Perils of embracing Burma
The highlight of his visit was a speech at Rangoon University, which was at the heart of pro-democracy protests in 1988 that were violently suppressed by the military regime.
Addressing students, he said America would help to rebuild Burma's economy and could be a partner on its journey forward.
Referring to his 20 January 2009 inauguration speech in which he pledged the US would extend a hand to any country that was willing to unclench its fist, he said: "Today I've come to keep my promise and extend the hand of friendship.
"But this remarkable journey has just begun, and has much further to go.
Image caption Mr Obama toured Shwedagon Pagoda, in the heart of Rangoon
"Reforms launched from the top of society must meet the aspirations of citizens who form its foundation. The flickers of progress that we have seen must not be extinguished."
He called for an end to communal violence between Muslims and Buddhists in the western state of Rakhine that has left more than 100,000 people displaced. They are mostly Muslim Rohingyas who are stateless and face severe discrimination in Burma.
Reform in Burma 7 Nov 2010 : First polls in 20 years
: First polls in 20 years 13 Nov: Aung San Suu Kyi freed from house arrest
Aung San Suu Kyi freed from house arrest 30 Mar 2011: Transfer of power to new government complete
Transfer of power to new government complete 19 Aug: Aung San Suu Kyi meets President Thein Sein
Aung San Suu Kyi meets President Thein Sein 13 Oct: New labour laws allowing unions passed
New labour laws allowing unions passed 23 Dec: Aung San Suu Kyi-led NLD registers as political party
Aung San Suu Kyi-led NLD registers as political party 13 Jan: Highest-profile political prisoners freed
Highest-profile political prisoners freed 1 April: NLD wins 43 out of 45 seats in polls, generally seen as fair
NLD wins 43 out of 45 seats in polls, generally seen as fair 23 April: EU suspends most sanctions for a year
EU suspends most sanctions for a year 29 May: Aung San Suu Kyi leaves Burma for the first time in 24 years, for a visit to Thailand
Aung San Suu Kyi leaves Burma for the first time in 24 years, for a visit to Thailand 9 July: NLD lawmakers take their seats in parliament Timeline: Reforms in Burma In pictures: Obama in Burma Displaced in Rakhine
"National reconciliation will take time, but for the sake of our common humanity, and for the sake of this country's future, it is necessary to stop the incitement and to stop violence," he said.
Earlier Mr Obama met Thein Sein, saying the reform process "here in Myanmar... is one that can lead to incredible development opportunities".
He used the country name preferred by the government - US officials described the move as a "diplomatic courtesy" but not a policy shift.
Obama then met pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi at the lakeside home where she spent years under house arrest. She thanked the US for its support but warned that difficult times could lie ahead.
"The most difficult time in any transition is when we think that success is in sight," she said, saying people should not be "lured by a mirage of success".
The US president and his team also made a brief stop at Shwedagon Pagoda, the Rangoon landmark that has been at the heart of many key moments in the country's history.
Mr Obama was accompanied by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - who was returning to Burma almost a year after her first visit.
Sanctions relaxed
Thein Sein's government came to power after widely criticised polls in November 2010 that saw military rule replaced with a military-backed civilian government.
Since then - to the surprise of many - his administration has embarked on a reform process. Many - but not all - political prisoners have been freed, censorship has been relaxed and some economic reforms enacted.
Ms Suu Kyi was freed from house arrest shortly after the polls. Her NLD party, which boycotted the elections, has since rejoined the political process. It now has a small presence in parliament after a landslide win in by-elections deemed generally free and fair in April.
In response to the reforms, many Western nations have relaxed sanctions against Burma and begun a process of engagement.
But rights groups have cautioned against a rush to embrace the South East Asian nation, warning that political prisoners remain behind bars and ethnic conflicts are unresolved.
After visiting Burma, Mr Obama headed to Cambodia to join a meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations, in a trip that underlines the shift in US foreign policy focus to the Asia-Pacific region. ||||| In a historic trip to a long shunned land, President Barack Obama on Monday showered praise and promises of more U.S. help to Myanmar if the Asian nation keeps building its new democracy. "Our goal is to sustain the momentum," he declared with pride as the first U.S. president to visit here.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi speak to press at her residence in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. Obama who touched down Monday morning, becoming the... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama waves to the media as he stands with Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi at her residence in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. Obama touched down Monday morning,... (Associated Press)
Myanmar students hold Myanmar and U.S. flags as they wait to welcome the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama at Yangon International Airport Monday, Nov. 19, 2012, in Yangon, Myanmar. (AP Photo/Khin... (Associated Press)
Myanmar students wave Myanmar and U.S. flags as they wait to welcome the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama at Yangon International Airport Monday, Nov. 19, 2012, in Yangon, Myanmar. (AP Photo/Khin... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama is presented with flowers as he arrives at Yangon International Airport in Yangon, Myanmar, on Air Force One, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. This is the first visit to Myanmar by a... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wave as they arrive at Yangon International Airport in Yangon, Myanmar, on Air Force One, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. This is the first... (Associated Press)
Young boys and girls line the streets waving flags along the motorcade route in anticipation of the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama, in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez... (Associated Press)
Police officers stand guard in a park opposite the Yangon Parliament house where President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet Myanmar's President Thein Sein in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. ... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama, left, and Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra toast during an official dinner at Government House in Bangkok, Thailand, Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) (Associated Press)
In this picture taken on Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012, student leaders of a successive uprising, from left, Zaw Zaw Min, Hla Shwe, and Ragu Ne Myint walk outside the main gate of the University of Yangon,... (Associated Press)
Myanmar Buddhist monks wait to welcome the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama at Yangon International airport Monday, Nov. 19, 2012, in Yangon, Myanmar. (AP Photo/Khin Maung Win) (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama is presented with flowers as he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, arrive at Yangon International Airport in Yangon, Myanmar, on Air Force One, Monday, Nov.... (Associated Press)
Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi arrives at Yangon International Airport on her return from India tour Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012, in Yangon, Myanmar. (AP Photo / Khin Maung Win) (Associated Press)
People holding a poster with portraits of U.S. President Barack Obama, left, Myanmar President Thein Sein, center, and Myanmar opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi as they wait to welcome... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama, right, accompanied by Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, addresses members of the media at Suu Kyi's residence in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. Obama who... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama kisses Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi on the cheek after they spoke to press at her residence in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012. Obama touched down Monday... (Associated Press)
in this photo provided by Thailand's Royal Household Bureau, U.S. President Barack Obama, left, talks with Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej at Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok, Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Royal... (Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama, right, waves as he embraces Myanmar democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi after addressing members of the media at Suu Kyi's residence in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Nov. 19, 2012.... (Associated Press)
Tens of thousands of people lined the streets as Obama packed in diplomacy and soaked in his steamy surroundings. He shared words and an affectionate hug with the Aung San Suu Kyi, the democracy activist who endured years of house arrest to gain freedom and become a lawmaker.
"We are confident that this support will continue through the difficult years that lie ahead," she said of the help from America, Obama at her side. "The most difficult time in any transition is when you think that success is in sight. We have to be very careful that we're not lured by a mirage of success."
Obama told her that if the nation's leaders keep making true reforms, "we will do everything we can to ensure success."
The president was then on his way to give a televised speech at the University of Yangon, in which he would deliver the same message. Obama planned to tell his audience that the United States is ready to "extend the hand of friendship" now that Myanmar has unclenched its fist of iron rule.
"Instead of being repressed, the right of people to assemble together must now be fully respected," the president said in speech excerpts released by the White House. "Instead of being stifled, the veil of media censorship must continue to be lifted. As you take these steps, you can draw on your progress."
Long isolated because of a repressive military rule, Myanmar began a transition to democracy began last year.
After meeting with President Thein Sein, who has orchestrated much of his country's transition to democracy, Obama said the reforms "in Myanmar" could unleash "the incredible potential of this beautiful country."
Obama's language alone was significant. The United States still officially refers to the country as Burma, after the former ruling junta summarily changed the name years ago to Myanmar. But U.S. officials _ and now Obama _ have been less rigid about using the old name as relations change.
Obama met with Suu Kyi in the very home where she spent years under house arrest, a gated compound with a lawn ringed by roses.
On an overcast and steamy day, Obama touched down Monday morning. The city basically stopped for his visit, with many people waving American flags and taking photos with their smartphones.
Obama's visit to Myanmar was to last just six hours, but it carries significant symbolism, reflecting a remarkable turnaround in the countries' relationship.
Obama has rewarded Myanmar's rapid adoption of democratic reforms by lifting some economic penalties. The president has appointed a permanent ambassador to the country, and pledged greater investment if Myanmar continues to progress following a half-century of military rule.
Some human rights groups say Myanmar's government, which continues to hold hundreds of political prisoners and is struggling to contain ethnic violence, hasn't done enough to earn a personal visit from Obama. The president says his visit is not an endorsement of the government in Myanmar, but an acknowledgment that dramatic progress is underway.
Obama came down the steps of Air Force One next to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in recognition of their final foreign trip together. Clinton is leaving the job soon.
The president's stop came between visits to Thailand and Cambodia. His Asia tour also marks his formal return to the world stage after months mired in a bruising re-election campaign. For his first postelection trip, he tellingly settled on Asia, a region he has deemed the region as crucial to U.S. prosperity and security.
Aides say Asia will factor heavily in Obama's second term as the U.S. seeks to expand its influence in an attempt to counter China.
China's rise is also at play in Myanmar, which long has aligned itself with Beijing. But some in Myanmar fear that China is taking advantage of its wealth of natural resources, so the country is looking for other partners to help build its nascent economy.
Even as Obama turned his sights on Asia, widening violence in the Middle East competed for his attention.
Obama told reporters Sunday that Israel had the right to defend itself against missile attacks from Gaza. But he urged Israel not to launch a ground assault in Gaza, saying it would put Israeli soldiers, as well as Palestinian citizens, at greater risk and hamper an already vexing peace process.
As for Myanmar, as he seeks to assuage critics, Obama has trumpeted Suu Kyi's support of his outreach efforts, saying Sunday that she was "very encouraging" of his trip.
The White House says Obama will express his concern for the ongoing ethnic tensions in Myanmar's western Rakhine state, where more than 110,000 people _ the vast majority of them Muslims known as Rohingya _ have been displaced.
The U.N. has called the Rohingya _ who are widely reviled by the Buddhist majority in Myanmar _ among the world's most persecuted people.
The president will deliver his speech at a university that was the center of the country's struggle for independence against Britain and the launching point for many pro-democracy protests. The former military junta shut the dormitories in the 1990s fearing further unrest and forced most students to attend classes on satellite campuses on the outskirts of town.
___
Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report. | President Obama praised progress in Burma and promised American help if reforms continue on his visit to the country today, the first by an American president. He met with pro-democracy leader and President Thein Sein before giving a televised speech at the University of Yangon, the AP reports. "Instead of being repressed, the right of people to assemble together must now be fully respected," Obama said in speech excerpts released by the White House. "Instead of being stifled, the veil of media censorship must continue to be lifted. As you take these steps, you can draw on your progress." Tens of thousands of people, many of them waving American flags, lined the streets of Rangoon as Obama arrived in the city, the BBC reports. He met Suu Kyi in the compound where she spent many years under house arrest. "We are confident that this support will continue through the difficult years that lie ahead," she said of the help from America with Obama at her side. "The most difficult time in any transition is when you think that success is in sight. We have to be very careful that we're not lured by a mirage of success." |
In this photo made Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013 Bolshoi ballet dancer Nikolai Tsiskaridze wipes the sweat as he holds a rehearsal in the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow, Russia. General director Anatoly Iksanov... (Associated Press)
The Bolshoi Theater general director Anatoly Iksanov speaks to the media in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, March 19, 2013. Iksanov has rejected criticism from an increasingly assertive principal dancer, Nikolai... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013 file photo Bolshoi ballet dancer Anzhelina Vorontsova talks with Nikolai Tsiskaridze, left, during a rehearsal in the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow, Russia. (AP... (Associated Press)
And the stakes could hardly be higher: control over the storied Bolshoi Theater in a battle that has gone into overdrive since the January acid attack on the artistic director that exposed rivalries reminiscent of the Hollywood movie "Black Swan."
In a surprising twist, principal dancer Nikolai Tsiskaridze may be gaining the upper hand against General Director Anatoly Iksanov, who has been in the top job for 13 years.
Both are believed to have backing from senior government officials and Kremlin-connected business tycoons eager to extend their influence over a state theater that has been a symbol of national pride for centuries, and even features on the 100-ruble bill. The Bolshoi's annual budget also is not too shabby: $120 million, up from $12 million only 10 years ago.
Iksanov accuses Tsiskaridze of creating an atmosphere of intrigue that set the scene for the Jan. 17 acid attack on the Bolshoi's artistic director. Tsiskaridze rejects the claims and in turn points to the attack as evidence that the theater has descended into crime and violence under Iksanov's watch.
After weeks of increasingly venomous attacks from both sides, Tsiskaridze's star was seen as rising when he grabbed a high-profile platform for his case on state-run television. The exposure came even as Tsiskaridze has endorsed the grievances of the Bolshoi dancer accused of staging the attack on artistic director Sergei Filin, and defended the dancer in public. Tsiskaridze himself has not been accused of any involvement in the attack.
On Sunday, the 39-year-old dancer appeared on a live talk show on state-controlled NTV television, a channel that the Kremlin has used to attack its opponents or those who have fallen out of favor. Dressed all in black and with an air of sad rebuke, Tsiskaridze poured scorn on Iksanov, accusing him of botching the Bolshoi's reconstruction, ruining its repertoire and treating dancers like slaves.
Asked bluntly whether he was ready to take the general director's job, Tsiskaridze answered with a proud: "I am absolutely ready."
More than anything else, the NTV show signaled that Iksanov's job could be in jeopardy. The station has often been used to broadcast documentary-style films about Kremlin foes, which often served as precursors for criminal investigations. A biting attack on the general director would not have been possible without a blessing from the top ranks of the government.
Tsiskaridze was joined on the program by an equally sharp-tongued former Bolshoi prima ballerina, who alleged that Iksanov oversaw a practice of ballerinas being used essentially as high-class prostitutes for members of the Bolshoi board and other influential people.
Some Russian media have reported that Tsiskaridze's patrons include Sergei Chemezov, a former KGB officer close to President Vladimir Putin who now serves as the CEO of Russian Technologies, a state-controlled industrial conglomerate.
Iksanov looked tired and tense on Tuesday at a news conference called to promote a big ballet festival this spring. He said he would not comment on "the nonsense and dirt" aired on the television show and shrugged off Tsiskaridze's ambitions.
"It's up to him to think that he's capable of taking charge of the Bolshoi," said Iksanov, who has led the theater since 2000. "I don't think so, because beyond scandalousness and fame other qualities are needed."
Infighting has raged at the theater for years, but the two sides dropped all decorum after the Jan. 17 acid attack on Filin.
The barbs began to fly even faster after police arrested Bolshoi soloist Pavel Dmitrichenko on March 5. Facing a Moscow court, Dmitrichenko admitted that he had agreed to an offer from a thuggish acquaintance to rough up Filin, but he insisted that the man had used acid on his own initiative.
Despite Dmitrichenko's confession, many in the ballet company have stood by him, saying they do not believe him capable of staging such a crime. About 300 dancers and staff, led by Tsiskaridze, signed an open letter claiming that Dmitrichenko had slandered himself under police pressure. Encouraged by the outpouring of sympathy, Dmitrichenko then passed a note from prison to his ballerina girlfriend saying that he had not ordered the acid attack and had been "forced to accept many things."
Dmitrichenko has been popular with dancers for his eagerness to defy management in support of other dancers. Last week the Bolshoi's 250 dancers elected him the head of their union, even though he remains in jail.
At the time of his arrest, Russian state television suggested that Dmitrichenko had been driven by a desire to avenge his girlfriend, 21-year-old soloist Anzhelina Vorontsova, who felt that Filin had unfairly denied her the lead in "Swan Lake." Tsiskaridze, who coaches the ballerina, said that Filin had advised her to change teachers.
Iksanov has sought to ease tensions in the ranks, promising last week that Dmitrichenko would keep his job pending the outcome of the criminal case. The reclusive, moon-faced director has been on the defensive ever since.
In an interview with the online Snob magazine last month, Iksanov said that his foes include people in the top echelons of government and business, along with their jet-setting wives who want to turn the Bolshoi into their playground.
Iksanov's patron, former culture minister Mikhail Shvydkoi, who is now serving as the Kremlin envoy for international cultural relations, acknowledged in an interview published last month that some of the country's most influential people are behind Tsiskaridze, but insisted that Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev were staying above the fray.
Ever since the Bolshoi reopened in 2011 after a six-year reconstruction that cost more than $1 billion, Tsiskaridze has aired accusations of mismanagement and corruption, alleging that the renovation destroyed historical interiors and replaced them with low-quality replicas. The NTV show featured photos of cheap and already crumbling interior decor to illustrate his claims.
Iksanov and his backers have dismissed the criticism, saying that the Bolshoi has been restored to all of its past glory.
Raising the heat on Iksanov, former Bolshoi prima ballerina Anastasia Volochkova alleged on the NTV show that Iksanov oversaw a practice of ballerinas being used as escorts.
"An administrator would call them to say they are going to a party and a dinner ending in bed," she said. "When the girls asked the administrator what would happen if they refuse, the answer was: You will have problems in the Bolshoi then."
Volochkova acknowledged that she herself enjoyed the protection of a billionaire businessman and was fired in 2003 after they separated. She described the Bolshoi as a "tangle of snakes" and a "big brothel."
Tsiskaridze and Dmitrichenko have also criticized what they describe as Filin's unfair distribution of pay to the Bolshoi dancers.
Valeria Uralskaya, editor of Ballet magazine, said that the huge amount of money involved has made smoldering conflicts worse.
"When money gets involved in the arts, conflicts become more likely," she said. "A lot of commercial issues have come to be part of our lives _ and in the arts, too. Twenty years ago less money went around, there were fewer foreign tours then and people would spend more time training for their parts."
Permission for dancers to go on foreign tours has been a point of conflict and has served as an instrument of control over the troupe.
"I hear a lot about grudges about this," said Anna Gordeyeva, a ballet critic at the Moskovskie Novosti daily. "Many dancers tell me that they cannot understand why somebody gets a leave of absence and somebody else doesn't."
Rivalries over top parts also have continued to fuel conflicts. "There are a lot of questions about how Filin picked the dancers he wanted to promote," Gordeyeva said.
Filin's assistant, Dilyara Timergazina, joined Iksanov in pointing to Tsiskaridze as "a key source of the tensions." She said that Tsiskaridze's students "extort parts" and "are always unhappy with everything."
On the television show, Tsiskaridze expressed indignation over the criticism.
"For 21 years. I have honestly served not only the Bolshoi but the country's image," he said. "I have represented the country on the stages of all the world's leading theaters. I don't know why I should bear these insults."
___
AP writers Nataliya Vasilyeva and Lynn Berry contributed to this story. ||||| Image caption Volochkova was controversially fired from the Bolshoi in 2003
The Bolshoi Ballet has been mired in further controversy after a former soloist claimed female dancers were forced to sleep with wealthy patrons.
Anastasia Volochkova accused the theatre's general director of turning the company "into a giant brothel".
Outspoken Volochkova, who has dabbled in TV talent and talk shows, was fired from the Bolshoi in 2003 for being too heavy.
General director Anatoly Iksanov dismissed the claims as "ravings".
Volochkova made the allegations during an interview on a television talk show in Russia on Sunday, later repeating them in a radio interview with Russian News Service.
"It mainly happened with the corps du ballet but also with the soloists," she said.
'Dirt and ravings'
"Ten years ago, when I was dancing at the theatre, I repeatedly received such propositions to share the beds of oligarchs.
"The girls were forced to go along to grand dinners and given advance warning that afterwards they would be expected to go to bed and have sex," she alleged.
"When the girls asked: 'What happens if we refuse?', they were told that they would not go on tour or even perform at the Bolshoi theatre. Can you imagine?"
The allegations were put to Iksanov during a news conference at the theatre on Tuesday, to which he responded: "I don't comment on dirt and ravings."
Image caption Dmitrichenko has admitted to discussing an attack on Sergei Filin, but denies ordering the use of acid
It is the latest in a series of controversial events surrounding the world famous Russian theatre, which has become notorious for infighting and rivalry.
One of its top dancers, Pavel Dmitrichenko, is facing trial for allegedly ordering an acid attack on the ballet's artistic director Sergei Filin in January.
Filin's eyesight was damaged and he received severe burns to his face when sulphuric acid was thrown in his face outside his home in central Moscow.
More than 300 staff at the theatre last week signed an open letter to President Vladimir Putin saying that they believed Dmitrichenko was not capable of ordering such a crime and suggesting he had been pressured into making a confession.
Volochkova was fired from the Bolshoi in 2003 with Iksanov saying she was too tall and heavy for male partners to lift.
She eventually won a legal claim against the ballet theatre, although her career never really recovered.
She has since dabbled in opposition politics and appeared on TV talent shows, while her private life has frequently appeared in the pages of Russian gossip magazines. ||||| The Bolshoi ballet’s general director, Anatoly Iksanov, dismissed as “nonsense and dirt” claims by ex-ballerina Anastasia Volochkova that dancers were pimped out to wealthy patrons as infighting escalated.
Volochkova appeared on a show on state TV aired at the weekend alongside Iksanov’s rival, the ballet’s principal dancer, Nikolai Tsiskaridze. She said the practice was now “a lot worse” than when she was fired from the theater 10 years ago. The two were questioned by presenters Tina Kandelaki and Margarita Simonian.
Iksanov also hit out at Tsiskaridze, who on the same show said he was ready to take the general director’s job. Speaking during a press conference held yesterday at the Bolshoi building in Moscow, Iksanov called on Tsiskaridze to resign from the ballet, because he can’t fire him
A battle for control of Russia’s most famous theater, which was founded in 1776 by Catherine the Great, has become public since an acid attack in January on the theater’s artistic director, with Georgian-born Tsiskaridze and Iksanov trading accusations.
Volochkova, who has previously said that dancers were pimped out as escorts at oligarch parties and was fired in 2003 for being overweight, repeated those claims.
“Girls are invited each in turn by the administrator, who explains that they are going to a party, with dinner and a follow-up, in bed and going all the way,” the ex-ballerina said on NTV’s March 17 program. Asked whom the dancers had to sleep with, she replied: “With certain oligarchs, some of them are members of the board of trustees (of the Bolshoi) or just the person organizing the party.”
Assault Intention
Leading dancer Pavel Dmitrichenko was detained earlier this month after confessing to organizing the Jan. 17 attack that damaged the face and eyes of the theater’s artistic director Sergei Filin. He denied any intention to use acid in the assault. Two other men admitted to being the driver and the assailant and all three remain in custody.
Investigators last month cited rivalries at the Bolshoi as probable motives for the crime, particularly between supporters of Filin and of Tsiskaridze, the principal dancer.
More than 300 members of the Bolshoi ballet have come out in defense of Dmitrichenko. In an open letter to President Vladimir Putin and the media last week, they said the idea that the soloist was behind the crime was “absurd.”
Iksanov last week said he didn’t believe that Dmitrichenko was the mastermind of the acid attack and that another person ordered the assault.
Tsiskaridze has repeatedly denied involvement in the attack, most recently on the NTV show on March 17. He has accused Filin of seeking to turn one of his pupils against him in December by offering her a part in Swan Lake if she stopped taking lessons with him, a proposal he says that she refused.
Filin, who is in Germany for further treatment, said last week he suspects a “very narrow circle of people” of being behind the attack, including Dmitrichenko.
Muse highlights include Richard Vines on U.K. food, Ryan Sutton on U.S. food, Lance Esplund on U.S. art exhibitions, Mark Beech on music and Amanda Gordon’s Scene Last Night.
To contact the reporter on this story: Henry Meyer in Moscow at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Manuela Hoelterhoff at [email protected]. | If you thought the Bolshoi Ballet scandals would be confined to a single acid attack, well, you'd be wrong. A soloist who last danced with the company a decade ago alleged this weekend that the Bolshoi was "a giant brothel" during her time there, the BBC reports. Anastasia Volochkova, who was fired in 2003 over her weight, told a Russian talk show on Sunday that female dancers were expected, per the general director, to wine, dine, and then bed the theater's wealthy patrons and members of its board. And Bloomberg reports that Volochkova says it's since gotten "a lot worse." "The girls were forced to go along to grand dinners and given advance warning that afterwards they would be expected to go to bed and have sex," Volochkova claimed. "When the girls asked: 'What happens if we refuse?', they were told that they would not go on tour or even perform at the Bolshoi theater," she said. The theater's general director has dismissed her claims as "dirt and ravings," but they come at a troubled time for the 237-year-old company. Some 300 Bolshoi performers have sent a letter to President Putin stating they don't believe dancer Pavel Dmitrichenko was the mastermind behind January's acid attack and may have been pressured into confessing, reports the AP. |
On April 6, 1789, James Mathers was elected as Senate Doorkeeper and became the chamber's first elected officer. On February 5, 1798, Mathers's duties were expanded when he was "invested with the authority of Sergeant-at-Arms, to hold said office during the pleasure of the Senate, whose duty it shall be to execute the commands of the Senate, from time to time, and all such process as shall be directed to him by the President of the Senate." Initially, the Senate met in closed-door sessions and it was the responsibility of the Doorkeeper to ensure that a quorum of Senators was present and that other interested parties were kept out of the chamber. This officer is hereafter referred to as Sergeant at Arms. Today, the Sergeant at Arms performs the original duties of the doorkeeper and is responsible for the protection of the Senate wing of the Capitol, the Senate office buildings, and the Senate chamber. In addition, the Sergeant at Arms serves as the Senate's chief protocol officer and has administrative responsibility for Senate offices and other Senate services, including the Senate beauty and barber shops, the Senate garage, the Senate post office, the Senate recording studio, and the Senate photographic studio. The Sergeant at Arms is elected by the Senate and serves "from Congress to Congress until a successor is chosen." The duties and responsibilities of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper have developed over time through several sources. These sources include statutes, Senate rules and orders, and customs and precedents. Statues, rules and orders, and other materials may be found in the United States Code , which is the codification, by subject matter, of the general and permanent laws of the United States; the United States Statutes at Large , which is the collection of all laws and concurrent resolutions enacted during each session of Congress, published in the order they were enacted into law; the Senate Manual , which contains the texts of the (1) Standing Rules of the Senate, (2) Standing Orders of the Senate, (3) rules for the Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol, and (4) excerpts from law applicable to the Senate; and custom and precedent. Additionally, many of the duties of the Sergeant at Arms are defined by the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. As a consequence of its jurisdiction over Senate administrative matters, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration oversees operations of the Sergeant at Arms. The duties and responsibilities of Sergeant at Arms can be divided into three broad categories: law enforcement and security, protocol, and administration. Each category reflects the basic responsibility to ensure safe and effective operation of the Senate. As the Senate's chief law enforcement officer, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for security in the Senate wing of the Capitol, the Senate office buildings, adjacent grounds, and for the security of Senators. At the request of a majority of Senators present on the floor, the Sergeant at Arms also has the authority to compel the attendance of absent Senators. The Sergeant at Arms enforces rules made by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and serves as a member of the Capitol Police Board, which is authorized by law to design, install, and maintain security systems for the Capitol and its grounds. Together with the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms develops and maintains a continuity-of-operations plan that enables the Senate to conduct business and access data at offsite locations, and oversees the office of security and emergency preparedness, which serves as the Senate's emergency planning and response team. As the chief of protocol of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms performs ceremonial functions that exist through custom and precedent. In carrying out these duties, the Sergeant at Arms greets and escorts the U.S. President, heads of states, and other official Senate guests while attending functions in the Capitol; leads Senators from the Senate side of the Capitol to the House chamber for joint sessions of Congress, to their places on the inaugural platform, and to any other place the Senate travels as a body; and assists in arrangements for inaugurations and the planning of funerals of Senators who die while in office. By custom, the Sergeant at Arms is custodian of the Senate gavel. The Sergeant at Arms is responsible for protocol surrounding the death of a Senator. These responsibilities include the enforcement of a provision in the Standing Orders of the Senate which prohibits flowers in the Senate chamber unless an order is given waiving the prohibition for a display of flowers on the desk of a deceased Senator on the day of eulogies. The Sergeant at Arms also ascertains that the construction of a monument to a deceased Senator, who is to be buried in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C., conforms to specific construction materials and procedures. As an administrative officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for specified services to Senators' offices, including the following: acquiring home state office space, including mobile office space; purchasing office equipment and maintaining records of equipment use; operating computer support services; managing telecommunications services; establishing prices of items available for use in Senate offices; and administering orientation seminars for Senators, Senate officials, or members of the staffs of Senators or Senate officials and other similar meetings. The administrative duties of the Sergeant at Arms also include services to the Senate as a whole, including the following: Senate service department, which is responsible for production of newsletters and other Senate mailings, purchase and maintenance of equipment, storage of Senate publications, and micrographics services; Senate computer center, which oversees Senate computer operations; Senate post office, and recording and photographic studios; Senate barber and beauty shops; custodial services, office furnishings and equipment, and automobiles; Senate garage and other parking facilities; appointment desk to greet visitors on official business; Senate health promotion office; Senate placement office; Senate telecommunications, the Capitol telephone exchange, and the Senate telephone directory; Capitol Guide Service and other visitor services including assistance in Braille, sign language interpretation, and telecommunications devices for the deaf; Senate page program and assignment of duties to messengers; oversight of the doorkeepers; issuance of identification cards to Senate employees; disposal of surplus equipment; and education and training programs for Senate staff as needed. Since 1789, 38 men and women have been elected Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. Table A-1 lists those individuals, the Congress, when their term began, and when their term concluded. | The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is an officer of the Senate with protection, security, decorum, protocol, and administrative responsibilities. The Sergeant at Arms is elected by the membership of the Senate. As the Senate's chief law enforcement officer, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for security in the Senate wing of the Capitol, the Senate office buildings, and on adjacent grounds. As the chief of protocol of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms performs ceremonial functions that fall within his jurisdiction through custom and precedent. In carrying out these duties, the Sergeant at Arms greets and escorts the U.S. President, heads of state, and other official Senate guests while attending functions in the Capitol; leads Senators from the Senate side of the Capitol to the House chamber for joint sessions of Congress, to their places on the inaugural platform, and to any other place the Senate goes as a body; and assists in arrangements for inaugurations and the planning of funerals of Senators who die while in office. By custom, the Sergeant at Arms is custodian of the Senate gavel. As an administrative official of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for specified services to Senators' offices. In the administration of Senators' offices the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for securing home state office space, including mobile home state office space; purchasing office equipment; managing telecommunications services; establishing prices of items available for use in Senate offices; reimbursing Senators for items purchased through their offices; maintaining records of equipment used in offices; and administering orientation seminars, among others. |
Cellular telephones, first marketed in 1983, have become one of the fastest selling consumer electronic products. By the end of 1993, over 16 million Americans were using cellular telephones, and the industry estimates that in less than a decade, over 60 million Americans will be using a cellular communications device. About one-third of all cellular telephones currently in use are hand-held portable models, which are growing in popularity. Industry forecasters predict a high demand for a new generation of personal communications devices that will offer a greater range of uses. Technology enthusiasts envision a future in which nearly all Americans will have a wireless portable communications device. Cellular telephones come in a variety of styles, but all fall into the following three general categories: car telephones, in which the telephone is installed in the vehicle and the antenna is mounted on the roof, trunk, or rear window; transportable telephones, in which the telephone body, antenna, and handset are carried in a briefcase or bag, but the handset is separated from the body and antenna for use; and portable telephones, in which a self-contained handset houses a battery and an antenna in a unit generally small enough to fit in a purse or pocket. Portable cellular telephones are the subject of this report because—unlike with car telephones and transportable telephones—their antenna is very close to the user’s head when the telephone is in use. Figure 1.1 shows some typical models of portable cellular telephones and the proximity of the antenna to the user’s head. (From left to right) Telephone A is an example of the first style of hand-held portable cellular telephone; it is characterized by a bulky body and a nonretractable antenna. It is heavier than most of the newer portable cellular telephones. Telephone B is an example of the “flip-style” cellular telephone; it features a mouthpiece that can be folded over the keypad and a retractable antenna for storage while not in use. Telephone C is an example of a nonflip-style telephone; it has a shorter nonretractable antenna. Telephone D is the newest style of portable cellular telephone; it is designed to transmit and receive digital signals. All devices that transmit radio signals—such as radio broadcast towers and cellular telephones—emit radio-frequency radiation. Radio-frequency radiation is electromagnetic energy emitted in the form of waves. Cellular telephones transmit voice messages by sending electronic signals from an antenna over radio waves at frequencies between 824 and 894 megahertz (MHz). These signals are a form of radio-frequency radiation. At sufficient power levels, radio-frequency radiation can heat body tissue and cause biological damage such as burns. These effects of exposure to radio-frequency radiation, called thermal effects, are immediately observable. According to the 1982 American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) standard for radiation exposure, a nongovernment standard that some federal agencies use, devices operating on 7 or less watts of power at frequencies below 1,000 MHz will not produce immediate thermal effects.Portable cellular telephones operate on well below 7 watts of power. They use up to a maximum of 0.6 watts of power—less than the amount of power required to light a flashlight bulb. However, questions have been raised about whether long-term or frequent exposures to low levels of radio-frequency radiation have other biological effects that are delayed or not immediately observed in human cells and animals. Portable cellular telephones transmit messages to a cellular transmitter tower. More power is required to transmit a signal when the telephone is farther away from a tower. For example, if a caller is located at a great distance from the tower, the telephone may use the full 0.6 watts of power to transmit the signal. However, if the caller is near the tower, the telephone may only need to use about 0.2 watts of power to transmit the signal. Cellular telephones transmit either analog or digitized voice messages, depending on the type of cellular telephone used and the service available. In analog radio communication systems, messages are transmitted by modulating, or varying, either the amplitude (height) or the frequency (number of wave crests) of the radio wave. In digital communication systems, messages are transmitted as a series of digits in rapid bursts, or pulses. These are sometimes referred to as pulse-modulated signals. An advantage of digital transmission is that it increases channel capacity by allowing several users to transmit messages over the same radio wave simultaneously. As figure 1.2 shows, analog signals are continuous radio waves, while digital signals are binary—usually represented by ones and zeroes. (See app. I for additional information on these two technologies.) The next generation of cellular communications is called personal communications services. In this system, inexpensive, pocket-sized communications devices that use digital technology will deliver voice, data, and images. They will operate at higher radio frequencies (between 1,850 and 2,200 MHz) and will likely use less power to operate than the current generation of portable cellular telephones. A personal communications device carried from place to place will enable the person to be reached at any location by dialing a single telephone number. Because personal communications services devices are still under development, it is not clear whether the antenna will be in close proximity to the user’s head when the device is in use. Three federal agencies play a role in ensuring the safety of cellular telephones by sharing responsibility for regulating devices that emit radio-frequency radiation and protecting the public from exposure to radiation: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Under the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, as amended, FDA is responsible for establishing and carrying out a program, designed to protect public health and safety, to control radiation from electronic products. These responsibilities include (1) developing and administering performance standards for electronic products; (2) planning, conducting, coordinating, and supporting research, development, training, and operational activities to minimize the emissions of, and exposure of people to, unnecessary radiation from electronic products; and (3) developing, testing, and evaluating the effectiveness of procedures and techniques for minimizing exposure to electronic product radiation. FDA has the authority to set performance standards for electronic products if it determines that such standards are necessary for the public health and safety. In carrying out its responsibilities, FDA reviews and comments on industry research and also works with electronic product manufacturers when it receives complaints or has some concerns about a product but lacks sufficient scientific evidence to determine if a performance standard is necessary. Consistent with the principle of keeping exposure “as low as reasonably achievable,” FDA has worked with a variety of manufacturers to reduce radiation emissions. For example, FDA has worked with manufacturers of video display terminals and police radar devices to address concerns about excessive exposure to radiation and with manufacturers of electric blankets to redesign the blankets to reduce electric and magnetic fields. Under the Federal Radiation Council Authority, transferred to EPA by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, EPA is responsible for, among other things, advising the President on radiation matters, including providing guidance for all federal agencies on formulating protective standards on radiation exposure. Upon presidential approval of EPA’s recommendation on formulating standards, the pertinent federal agencies would be responsible for implementing the guidance. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), FCC is required to consider whether its actions—including actions that may lead to human exposure to radio-frequency radiation—in authorizing communications equipment significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requested that we review (1) the status of scientific knowledge on the potential health risks of radio-frequency radiation emitted by portable cellular telephones and federal involvement in any related research and (2) the actions of the responsible federal agencies to ensure the safety of portable cellular telephones and similar communications devices. To assess the status of scientific knowledge on the health risks of portable cellular telephone use, we met with scientists who have conducted research on cellular telephones and visited industry, university, and government laboratories where research is taking place. We met with scientists and researchers in the field of electromagnetic radiation at the Department of Defense, EPA, FCC, FDA, and the National Academy of Sciences. (See app. II for a list of the researchers and scientists we consulted for this report.) We also obtained the opinions of many federal agencies with representation on the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination within the Executive Office of the President. We discussed the safety of portable cellular telephones with the president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society; the co-chairs of a subcommittee established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., which set the latest exposure standard for radio-frequency radiation exposure; and a vice-president of Motorola, Inc., a leader in cellular telephone research. In addition, we met with officials from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. We collected information on regulatory actions regarding the safety of portable cellular telephones from the responsible federal agencies. We discussed with FCC officials the actions they have taken to ensure the safe use of cellular telephones. We examined FCC’s records and rulemakings on the agency’s process for authorizing portable cellular telephones and FCC’s implementation of requirements under NEPA. We discussed with FDA officials their procedures for setting performance standards for electronic products and their plans for cellular telephones. Finally, we discussed with EPA officials, and reviewed documents on, EPA’s efforts to develop federal guidance for setting standards for human exposure to radio-frequency radiation. We conducted our review between March 1993 and October 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. To date, neither the federal government nor the telecommunications industry has completed any studies to determine specifically if the use of portable cellular telephones poses health risks. While a few recent studies suggest that long-term exposure to low levels of radio-frequency radiation (similar to that emitted by portable cellular telephones) may prompt interactions within and among cells and organs that could possibly lead to adverse effects, other studies do not. FDA and EPA agree that the research completed to date is insufficient to determine whether using portable cellular telephones presents risks to human health. The two basic sources of evidence of the relationship between a potential risk factor, such as exposure to radio-frequency radiation, and a disease are epidemiological studies (statistical studies that relate the occurrence of a disease to the characteristics of people and their environment) and laboratory studies on animals and biological tissue samples. According to FDA and the National Science Foundation, both types of research are needed to determine whether cellular telephone use poses any health risks. To date, no epidemiological studies have been conducted of human exposure to radio-frequency radiation as a result of using cellular telephones. Some recent biological and behavioral laboratory studies on animals and cell samples have provided information on the potential health effects posed by low-level exposure to radio-frequency radiation, although none has examined radiation exposure specifically from cellular telephones. FDA has questioned the interpretation, significance, or applicability of the studies’ findings to cellular telephones. According to EPA, the significance of recent research suggesting a potential for adverse health effects cannot be determined until these studies have been independently confirmed. Because of the limitations of the research, FDA and EPA agree that more research would be necessary to determine whether portable cellular telephones pose a human health risk. The following are examples of some research results that scientists say have raised questions about exposure to low-level radiation similar to that emitted by portable cellular telephones, especially pulse-modulated radiation, which is comparable to digital signals. (See app. III for more information about some of these studies and app. IV for a list of other relevant studies.) A University of Washington study found that rats had difficulty learning a maze exercise after 45 minutes of exposure to low-level, pulsed radio-frequency radiation near the frequencies that personal communications devices will use. The researchers concluded that exposure to low-power radio-frequency radiation appears to decrease certain chemical agents in the rodents’ central nervous system essential for spatial learning. In a 1983 study of cells from the immune system, the researchers found that the effectiveness of certain immune system cells in fighting off tumor cells was temporarily diminished after only 4 hours of exposure to low-power, pulsed radio-frequency radio signals. The researchers found that the effectiveness of the immune system cells was diminished most when the radio-frequency radiation was pulse-modulated 60 times per second, slightly more than the 50 times per second that digital cellular telephone signals “pulse.” (See app. I for information on digital signals.) In a 1991 study, the researchers found that low-power radio-frequency radiation may facilitate the development of cancer in the presence of other substances known to cause cancer. They found that when cells were exposed for 24 hours to low-level, pulsed radio-frequency radiation alone, there was no effect on the cells’ survival or transformation into tumor cells. However, when the cells were treated with a tumor-promoting chemical, exposure to radio-frequency radiation significantly enhanced the transformation of the cells into tumor cells. Although these and a few other studies suggest that exposure to low levels of radio-frequency radiation may cause effects in animals and certain cell systems, other studies do not. For example, in a 1993 study, researchers injected brain tumor cells into rats and exposed them to low levels of radio-frequency radiation—near the frequency that cellular telephones use—that was either continuous (as in analog technology) or pulsed 50 times per second (as in digital technology). The rats were exposed for 5 days a week until clinical signs of tumor development occurred. Researchers found no evidence that radio-frequency radiation treatment altered the course of tumor development in the rats. Several federal agencies sponsor radiation research, but none has sponsored or performed any studies on portable cellular telephones. Of 15 federal departments and agencies we contacted, only 4 had conducted, funded, or planned research on radio-frequency radiation that these agencies said may be relevant to questions about the safety of cellular telephones. These four were FDA, the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Defense. Only NCI has planned research that specifically focuses on portable cellular telephone use. FDA is not performing or contracting for research specifically addressing the power levels or frequencies of cellular telephones. However, FDA officials said that some research the agency supports may be relevant to safety questions about these telephones. According to officials, FDA-supported research at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory found that permanent damage occurred to the eyes of test animals when the animals were exposed to low-level microwave radiation. According to one of the researchers, this effect was enhanced when the test animals were treated with drugs commonly used in glaucoma treatment and exposed to radio-frequency radiation at power levels several times lower than those typically emitted by portable cellular telephones. In 1993, NCI launched an epidemiological study to assess the relationship between the use of cellular telephones, among other variables, and the brain cancer newly diagnosed in 800 patients. An NCI official expects this study to be completed between 1998 and 1999. In addition, NCI has planned other epidemiological studies to determine whether (1) exposure to radio-frequency radiation, among other possible risk factors, is associated with an increased risk of brain tumors, and (2) the incidence of cancer can possibly be linked with the use of portable cellular telephones. These studies involve comparing the names on lists of cellular telephone users in New York State with the names on New York’s statewide cancer registry. According to NCI, these studies should be initiated during 1995. However, it is important to note that epidemiological studies do not prove causality between two factors; they merely show that two factors, such as exposure to radio-frequency radiation and a disease such as cancer, tend to occur together. In 1990, NIST measured the amount of radiation emitted by portable police radios operated at frequencies near those used by portable cellular telephones. NIST researchers found that the strength of the electric fields emanating from the police radios exceeded the exposure levels recommended as safe under the 1982 ANSI standard. However, this study did not attempt to assess whether exposure to these electric field emissions could present risks to human health. DOD is sponsoring research into the biological effects of radio-frequency radiation but not radiation from portable cellular telephones. However, with the anticipated proliferation of new telecommunications devices, DOD supports continued work to characterize and measure the absorption and distribution of radio-frequency energy in the human body. The Department’s official position is that harmful effects will not occur as a result of exposure to portable cellular telephones as long as the amount of radio-frequency energy absorbed by the human body is maintained at or below permissible levels. DOD relies on the “permissible levels” recommended by the 1982 ANSI standard, which states that devices operating on 7 watts of power or less, like portable cellular telephones, are not likely to exceed permissible levels. We identified two major efforts by the cellular telephone industry to specifically address the safety of portable cellular telephones: one sponsored by Motorola, Inc., and one proposed by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), a cellular telephone industry association. In 1991, Motorola, Inc., entered into a multiyear contract with a researcher—considered by many in the scientific community to be the most eminent U.S. researcher in this area—to conduct a series of laboratory studies on radio-frequency radiation from portable cellular telephones. These studies are examining the effects of analog and digital signals from these telephones on animals and cells but do not include studies of effects on humans. Results from the animal studies are anticipated within the year. In January 1993, in response to public concern that portable cellular telephones may cause health risks, including brain cancer, CTIA announced an initiative to spend from $15 million to $25 million over the next 3 to 5 years to fund studies addressing the safety of portable cellular telephones. In May 1993, CTIA, along with other members of the cellular telephone industry, established a Science Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Safety. The science advisory group’s planned research agenda includes multidisciplinary studies involving epidemiology, cell cultures, test animals, and genetic research. The research will examine the effects of exposure to analog and digital radio-frequency radiation at the power levels and frequencies that cellular telephones use and that personal communications devices will use. The research agenda also includes scientific peer review of proposed research projects by a separate board coordinated through the Harvard University Center for Risk Analysis. The chairman of the science advisory group also informed us that CTIA funds the group’s activities on a monthly basis; each month the chairman submits an estimate of costs for the coming month, and CTIA provides money for that month’s research activities. The chairman explained that the peer review board will evaluate and recommend research proposals for funding. According to the chairman, payment for peer review activities will be provided through a blind trust established by the advisory group. The chairman stated that the purpose of creating the blind trust for peer review was to provide independence. However, the science advisory group does not enjoy similar financial independence. The direct funding of the research by CTIA raises questions about the objectivity and credibility of the research effort. In September 1994, the chairman of the science advisory group told us that CTIA would consider giving up direct financial control by putting the research funds into a blind trust fund. In September 1993, FDA told the chairman of the science advisory group that the agency would like to provide appropriate support within its means to assist in ensuring that the industry-sponsored research program was successful and credible. As a regulatory agency, FDA considers that reviewing research data and commenting on it is part of its job. However, the agency is reluctant to endorse research that is not yet completed resulting from programs it has not helped direct. Although the science advisory group has sought input from federal agencies and has had informal discussions with officials at FDA and EPA, no mechanism has been established for federal participation in or comments on the research program. However, in September 1994 the advisory group’s chairman told us that he was open to any role for federal agencies to increase the acceptance and usefulness of the research program. FDA and EPA believe that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether exposure to low-level radio-frequency radiation presents a human health risk. Some recent studies have found that this radiation can produce biological effects. However, because none of these studies examined radio-frequency radiation specifically from portable cellular telephones, FDA and EPA agree that the value of the studies’ findings is limited in determining whether using portable cellular telephones poses risks to human health. FDA and National Science Foundation officials said that both epidemiological and laboratory research are needed to determine whether portable cellular telephones present risks to users. The federal government and private industry are beginning to undertake some of this needed research. NCI (the only federal agency performing research on the safety of cellular telephones) has started an epidemiological study to determine if there is a relationship between cellular telephone use and cancer. But epidemiological studies alone cannot conclusively establish whether using portable cellular telephones poses health risks. Motorola is funding a series of laboratory studies on the effects of radiation from portable cellular telephones on animals and cells but no epidemiological studies observing the effects on humans. The cellular telephone industry is sponsoring a research initiative through a science advisory board that includes both types of research that federal officials say is needed. However, direct funding of this research by CTIA—an industry association—raises questions about the independence and objectivity of the science advisory group’s planned research program. The chairman of the science advisory group has had informal discussions with federal agencies and has expressed a willingness to accept a greater federal role to increase the independence and objectivity of the research. Such a role could also increase the usefulness of the research results to federal regulators. To date, neither the science advisory group nor any of the federal agencies have attempted to define what this role might entail. Given the current state of scientific knowledge, FDA and EPA have not had a basis for taking regulatory actions on portable cellular telephones. However, FDA, EPA, and FCC are undertaking or considering limited activities that could affect the use of such telephones. FDA is working with cellular telephone manufacturers on possible design changes for these telephones and improved instructions for use. EPA is sponsoring a study on the status of research on the effects of exposure to low levels of radio-frequency radiation to determine if protective guidance is needed on exposure to radiation from devices such as cellular telephones. FCC has proposed adopting the revised ANSI standard in its environmental rules and, as a result, may no longer exempt portable cellular telephones from routine radiation evaluation. An FDA official told us that FDA has primary responsibility for responding if communications devices, such as portable cellular telephones, pose a health risk. Although FDA says there is no evidence that cellular telephones are harmful, an FDA official stated that recent research on exposure to low-level radio-frequency radiation from other sources has the agency concerned about the possible adverse health effects of this type of radiation. In carrying out its responsibility for controlling public exposure to radiation from electronic products, FDA follows the principle that exposure to radiation should be kept to a level as low as can reasonably be achieved. In early 1993, following allegations about the safety of portable cellular telephones, FDA met with the cellular telephone industry, including industry associations and cellular telephone manufacturers. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss potential problems and their solutions. As a result of these meetings, cellular telephone manufacturers agreed to examine all practical routes to reduce exposure, including possibly redesigning the telephones and providing users with adequate instructions for proper use. The goal of redesigning these telephones would be to change the placement of the antenna so that this source of radiation is farther from the user’s head. According to an FDA official, instructions for use should include practical information on how users can limit their exposure. Although the industry representatives who met with FDA agreed to set up committees to work on these topics, as of October 1994, they had not reported back to FDA on the status of their efforts. Meanwhile, FDA says that if individuals are concerned about avoiding even potential risks, they could consider holding lengthy conversations on conventional telephones and reserving the hand-held cellular telephones for shorter conversations or for situations in which conventional telephones are not available. FDA does not believe it is justified in setting performance standards for cellular telephones at this time. The formal process for setting performance standards for electronic products is time-consuming and expensive, and FDA will not set them without clear scientific evidence that an electronic product poses a hazard to human health. FDA does not have such evidence for portable cellular telephones. In addition, an FDA official stated that the agency has received no reports through its complaint process of radiation injuries resulting from the use of cellular telephones. FDA officials said that the agency has invested its limited research resources into higher-priority work, such as medical devices that expose individuals to much higher levels of radio-frequency radiation than cellular telephones. EPA is responsible for advising the President on radiation matters, including developing federal guidance on radiation protection that can be used by other federal regulatory agencies. For example, FCC could use such guidance in approving communications equipment and FDA in determining if performance standards are needed for devices like portable cellular telephones. EPA officials told us that the agency expects to issue, by the end of 1994, recommended maximum permissible levels of exposure to radio-frequency radiation to protect people from immediate thermal effects. However, EPA officials also told us that because research on exposure to lower levels of radio-frequency radiation is inconclusive, the agency cannot issue any guidance for these exposures. To gain a better understanding of the status of research on the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of radiation and future research needs, EPA has funded a 2-year study by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, a nonprofit corporation chartered by the Congress. EPA officials expect this work to provide information that will be helpful for understanding whether the agency needs to provide protective guidance on exposure to low levels of radiation. EPA’s recent activities on radiation guidance followed a 1992 report by the agency’s Science Advisory Board. The board recommended that EPA complete a process to provide guidance that it began in the late 1970s. As part of this process, EPA requested comments on four alternative approaches for controlling public exposure to radio-frequency radiation.However, EPA discontinued its efforts to issue guidance in 1988 when it did not obtain agreement from federal agencies on which approach it should take. FCC is responsible for regulating cellular telephone service and authorizing the equipment used in providing that service. NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider whether their actions significantly affect the human environment. In carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA, FCC formulated environmental rules that require the Commission to consider whether its actions—including actions that may lead to human exposure to radio-frequency radiation—significantly affect the quality of the human environment. FCC does not consider itself a health agency with the expertise to determine what levels of radiation exposure are unsafe. Instead, it relies on health and radiation expertise found in other federal agencies, such as FDA and EPA. According to an FCC official, FCC considers FDA the principle agency responsible for determining the health implications of using specific devices such as cellular telephones and for issuing performance standards. Similarly, FCC would prefer to rely on EPA for information on exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Because there are no federal guidelines on radiation exposure, in 1985 FCC incorporated the 1982 ANSI exposure standard into its environmental rules. This standard applies to higher-powered transmitting equipment, such as radio and television broadcast towers, but excludes devices that operate on or below 7 watts of power at frequencies below 1,000 MHz. FCC does not require routine environmental evaluation of portable cellular telephones in authorizing their use because they operate on less than 1 watt of power. However, as a safeguard, FCC’s rules permit any interested party, including FCC, to move that the exempted equipment be required to undergo environmental evaluation. Thus far, no such motion has been made about portable cellular telephones. In addition, the Commission considers portable cellular telephones safe under this standard. (See app. V for more information on the evolution of FCC’s environmental rules and rules on cellular telephone service.) In 1993, FCC proposed adopting the revised version of the ANSI standard to update its environmental rules. According to an FCC official, the revised version is more stringent than the older version, and, for the first time since FCC began regulating cellular telephone service, portable cellular telephones could be subject to environmental evaluation. Until this new standard is adopted, cellular telephones will continue to be excluded from routine environmental evaluation for public exposure to radiation. In contrast, FCC has already decided that it will require certain emerging hand-held personal communications services devices to comply with the revised ANSI standard, pending its adoption of this standard in its environmental rules. FDA, EPA, and FCC are undertaking limited activities that may affect the use of portable cellular telephones. Without additional scientific information, FDA and EPA have no basis for taking regulatory actions. The federal and industry research discussed in chapter 2 could provide information that would help these agencies determine whether any regulatory actions are needed. We recommend that the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, work with the industry’s Science Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Safety to maximize the usefulness, independence, and objectivity of its planned research initiative. This effort could include participating in the selection of research proposals to determine whether they meet federal research standards and reviewing research results. This effort would be in addition to ongoing and planned federal research. As requested, we did not obtain written agency comments on a draft of this report. However, we discussed the information in the report with officials from FDA’s Office of Science and Technology, including the Chief of the Radiation Biology Branch; EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, including the Electromagnetic Fields Team Leader in the Radiation Studies Division; and FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, including the Chief Engineer. These officials generally agreed that the information was accurate. The FDA and EPA officials agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine whether cellular telephones pose health risks. The agencies assisted us in characterizing the scientific studies and brought us up to date on their most recent activities related to radio-frequency radiation exposure and cellular telephones. The FDA and EPA officials said they plan to review the industry’s completed research. We also asked officials from the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Etiology, the National Institute on Standards and Technology’s Management and Organization Division, and the Department of Defense’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions and Technology to review the information in the sections of this report pertaining to their agency. These officials generally agreed that the information provided in this report was accurate, and we incorporated their comments where appropriate. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the biological effects of radio-frequency radiation emitted by portable cellular telephones and the federal government's regulatory actions to ensure the safety of these telephones. GAO found that: (1) no research has been completed on long-term human exposure to low levels of radiation from portable cellular telephones, and research findings on exposure to other sources of low-level radio-frequency radiation are inconclusive; (2) existing research does not provide enough evidence to determine whether portable cellular telephones pose a risk to human health; (3) although the cellular telecommunications industry is planning to carry out both epidemiological and laboratory studies on the effects of portable cellular telephone use on human health, federal regulators need to ensure that these studies are carried out objectively; (4) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working with cellular telephone manufacturers to minimize cellular telephone users' exposure to radiation; (5) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is assessing the status of scientific knowledge on prolonged exposure to radio-frequency radiation; and (6) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has relied on a 1982 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standard to regulate cellular telephones, but is considering adopting the revised version of the ANSI standard for equipment it approves for use. |
The ICR gas turbine engine program was established in the mid-1980s to develop an improved surface ship propulsion system that would be fuel efficient. In December 1991, the Navy awarded a contract to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation for the advanced design and an option for full-scale development of the engine. Their engine development team includes Rolls-Royce Public Limited Company (United Kingdom), AlliedSignal Aerospace Incorporated, and CAE Electronics. The engine is essentially an advanced gas turbine engine, similar to the one used on a large commercial aircraft. It is being adapted for marine use by adding a recuperator, an intercooler, and other major components. Housed in a special enclosure, the engine also has a lube oil module, an off-engine intercooling module, and a digital control system specifically built for shipboard application. A critical component of the engine is the recuperator. The recuperator uses engine exhaust to preheat compressed air before fuel combustion, allowing the engine to use less fuel. For example, the Navy expects the ICR engine to achieve a weighted average improvement of 30 percent in fuel efficiency for a mechanical drive destroyer. Figure 1.1 shows a cut-away drawing of the ICR gas turbine engine in its planned enclosure. Portions of the ICR program are a collaborative effort among the United States, British, and French navies. Memorandums of understanding, signed between the United States and the two other countries, relate to the development of an advanced, fuel efficient ship propulsion system to satisfy common operational requirements and meet emerging environmental emission standards. The memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom calls for the joint development and qualification testing of the ICR engine. Specifically, the United Kingdom is responsible for providing an ICR test facility along with fuel, utilities, and manpower to support up to 2 years, or 1,500 hours, of developmental testing. The memorandum was signed on June 21, 1994, for a 5-year period. The 10-year memorandum signed by France, in August 1995, calls for the joint adaptation and testing of an ICR engine upgrade for reducing exhaust emissions. The U.S. Navy estimates the ICR program’s developmental total cost to be $415 million, with $223.6 million having been spent through fiscal year 1995. These amounts include foreign financial contributions of $15.8 million from the United Kingdom and $15 million from France. Although the Navy has classified the engine as a preplanned product improvement program for the DDG-51 destroyer, it will not decide on whether it will install the ICR engine on the destroyer until January 1997. The British and French navies are completing the design of a multinational frigate, known as the Horizon, and are considering the engine as its propulsion system. The only operational ICR test facility established, to date, is at Pyestock, United Kingdom. In a September 1995 letter to the Navy’s Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments), the Navy’s Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet, recommended that the ICR engine not be funded in the future, noting that “in this year’s . . . budget process, the ICR Gas Turbine Engine Program stands out as a major cost without a realistic prognosis for long-term benefit.” He stated that the engine’s long-term cost-benefit projections are speculative at best and that its technology will most likely become obsolete before a return on its investment is realized. He also stated that the engine is not a viable candidate for existing ships due to its large size, weight, and cost. In an October 1995 reply, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations stated that the Navy may decide the fate of the engine program as it finalizes its budget submission for fiscal year 1998. In November 1995, a high level Navy official informed us that the Navy’s need for the engine was marginal compared to other current priorities and that he believed the Center for Naval Analyses’ ICR report does not make a compelling economic case for the continued development of the engine. However, he also noted that the Department of Defense (DOD) supported the international aspects of the program and that the results of the upcoming developmental testing will be critical to determining the program’s future. In a September 1994 cost-benefit analysis for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), the Center for Naval Analyses looked at the ICR engine and an improved version of the current DDG-51 engine. The report, which was prepared prior to the initial test of the engine and recuperator, states that “(t)he economic payoff for a fuel-efficient engine is so long-term that it might not be an attractive investment in the private sector, but the eventual benefits of either improved engine are not in doubt, only the near-term affordability.” The analysis stated that the Navy’s 1993 ship building plans for gas turbine surface ships are less then half what they were expected to be in 1987 and that such a large reduction could call into question the idea of a costly ICR engine development paid for by fuel savings. Further, the remaining development costs for the engine were significant. It would take until at least 2026 for the cost savings from the engine to equal the Navy’s investment, and the Navy needed to determine what priority it should give to the engine’s development. The analysis concluded that while existing contractual and political obligations would make cancellation of the engine an unpleasant choice, the high cost to develop the engine—estimated to be an average of $40 million per year through fiscal year 1999—means that program cancellation must be considered an option. In a December 1994 letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, the Secretary of the Navy stated that the report’s analysis supported the continued development of the ICR engine because of potential future fuel savings. According to the Navy, the ICR engine is expected to provide military advantages, such as increased range and time on station for the DDG-51, which the Navy considers desirable and which formed the basis for DOD’s approving the engine as a preplanned product improvement for the DDG-51. However, Navy officials have raised concerns about the viability of placing the engine on the DDG-51. Officials from the DDG-51 program office stated that the destroyer is currently equipped with a reliable gas turbine engine and that equipping it with the unproven ICR engine is a questionable decision. They noted that the Navy’s next generation surface combatant, planned for 2003, appeared to be a better candidate for the engine because it could be designed from the start to accept the engine. An ICR program official also called the ICR engine’s use on the DDG-51 questionable but noted that this decision gives the Navy an immediate need for the engine. He agreed that the Navy’s next generation surface combatant would be a better candidate since it could be designed to accept a new propulsion system. In 1992, we reported that the ICR program lacked adequate management controls, such as milestone reviews and comprehensive, independent cost estimates. In February 1994, the Under Secretary of Defense designated the ICR engine program as a preplanned product improvement for the DDG-51 destroyer in an effort to improve its management and ensure that it was subject to the approval of the Defense Acquisition Board and an independent cost estimate. The decision, however, on whether to actually use the ICR engine on the DDG-51 will not take place until January 1997. In addition, the first production engines would not be installed in a DDG-51 until over 7 years later, in 2004. The initial engine is expected to be ordered in 2001. If the engine is used on the DDG-51, the Navy now plans to put it on only the last nine destroyers to be built. The Center for Naval Analyses cost-benefit analysis of the ICR engine concluded that the engine should not be used on the DDG-51 due to the high cost to fit the engines on ships that were not designed for them and the small number of destroyers (14 at that time) remaining to be built. The analysis also noted that the projected break-even point between the cost savings generated by the engine and the Navy’s investment, based on 79 possible candidate ships (including the DDG-51 destroyers), would not occur until about 2026. If the engine is not put on the DDG-51, as the analysis recommends, then the number of identified candidate ships would be reduced to 65. In either case, the analysis noted that the cost of replacing the DDG-51 engine is significant. The analysis estimates that the cost to equip a new DDG-51 with two ICR engines is $12.4 million (in fiscal year 1994 dollars) more than the current engines. This increase in cost includes design, shipbuilding, and engine costs. This cost compares with the $4.9 million cost increase estimate for the other gas turbine engine in this study (a more fuel-efficient version of the current engine). The analysis suggests that the Navy confirm this estimate before acting on its recommendation. The Westinghouse contract requires the development of an ICR engine that will occupy the same space as the existing engine in the DDG-51. Current plans call for each new destroyer to be equipped with two ICR engines and two existing gas turbine engines. These plans present design and integration problems for the DDG-51 because the ship’s engine compartment will need to be redesigned to accommodate the larger ICR engine. Since the ICR engine module is expected to weigh two and one-half times more than the existing engine system, the engine compartment will require substantial modification to achieve the structural strength needed to support the added weight of the engine. In addition, with two different propulsion systems on each ship, the Navy will have to maintain individual logistics for each system. In March 1995, two shipyards building the DDG-51, Ingalls Shipbuilding Incorporated and Bath Iron Works Corporation, submitted reports to the Navy concerning the feasibility of installing an ICR engine in the DDG-51. Ingalls reported that while the installation was technically feasible, maintaining the ICR engine would be difficult because it has about 30 percent more preventive maintenance requirements than the current engine. Also, Ingalls reported “unlike the (current engine), most in-place maintenance activities will not be convenient or expeditious due to the very limited access to the ICR engine components.” Bath Iron Works concluded that replacing two of the present propulsion gas turbines with ICR gas turbines would have a significant negative impact on the ship and a clear potential for cost growth. The ICR engine’s recuperator, a critical component necessary for obtaining improved fuel economy, is experiencing serious developmental and testing problems. It failed after only 17 hours of testing with the engine in January 1995. The failure occurred almost 1-1/2 years after the Navy took the unusual step of initiating full-scale development of the engine concurrently with its advanced development. Since the failure, the ICR program has experienced technical and other problems that have severely affected program cost, schedule, and performance. The engine, without a recuperator, started developmental testing in July 1994. In December 1994, when the Navy first tested the engine with a recuperator, the engine demonstrated its potential effectiveness by increasing engine power from 7,000 horse power to 11,500 horse power with no increase in fuel consumption. In January 1995, however, the original recuperator failed after only 17 of 500 hours of planned testing. Test operations were terminated when a significant rise in the turbine inlet temperature occurred. This rise in temperature was attributed to the failure of the heat exchanger, within the recuperator, due to numerous air leaks. Westinghouse, the primary contractor, identified 26 different recuperator failures, many of which were due to basic flaws in the unit’s internal design and construction. In response, the Navy approved a contractor recovery plan to redesign the recuperator and requested an additional $11 million from Congress to fund this effort. As a result, the Navy extended the advanced development phase of the contract by 21 months, until September 1997. The plan allowed, however, key recuperator tests to be conducted concurrently with the redesign of the recuperator. One program official described the plan as aggressive while another told us that this was necessary to accomplish enough testing (such as a key 500-hour engine test) to support a planned late 1996 decision to order production engines for the Horizon frigate. Between March and November 1995, the Navy reduced projected program funding by $27.3 million between fiscal years 1996 and 2000. In November 1995, the Navy also ordered Westinghouse to stop work on designing and manufacturing later generation recuperators. The stop order was issued due to the decline in program funding and the inability of the contractor to meet the delivery date for the modified recuperator. This latter problem was due, in part, to continuing contractor quality control problems. According to the Navy, the stop work order reduced the amount of concurrency in the recuperator recovery program by allowing time to review and incorporate various test results into thermal computer models and evaluate test results from the modified recuperator. The Navy also requested that the contractor propose possible changes to current contract requirements, including revising the schedule, estimating cost by quarter, and eliminating test efforts related to integration of the ICR engine into the DDG-51. In response to the funding reduction and the stop work order, Westinghouse notified the Navy that while the technical problems associated with the recuperator were understood and solutions were in place, the engine’s development would be delayed an additional 20 months, until May 1999. In addition, Westinghouse recommended, among other things, that the number of preproduction engines used for developmental testing be reduced from five to two. Westinghouse also stated that cost growth has occurred and identified potential future development and production cost risks. Westinghouse agreed to provide the Navy an overall recuperator recovery strategy by May 1996. In March 1996, an ICR program official told us that the impact of the initial recuperator failure on the ICR program has been catastrophic and that the Navy has yet to recover from it. The Navy expects that the developmental program’s scope will be reduced, resulting in testing delays and cost growth. Navy and DOD officials told us, in commenting on our draft report, that while they believe significant progress has been achieved in solving the problems associated with the recuperator failure, the ICR development program will not recover its schedule slippage and that a technical recovery is only possible. In our September 1992 report, we stated that “without reliable estimates of both (1) the cost of acquiring the ICR engine and related technology and (2) the corresponding savings in operational cost that it might produce, it is our view that any return on the sizeable investment this program represents is speculative at best.” Our view remains unchanged because of concerns about the realism of the ICR engine’s development schedule and concurrency in the recovery plan test schedule; recognized difficulties in integrating the engine into DDG-51 fleet; the overall high cost of the program; and total program costs that are not fully covered in existing budget plans. Specifically, the Navy has not funded the cost to finalize and perform ICR developmental testing at an established U.S. facility ($17 million), to integrate an ICR engine into the DDG-51, or to retrofit a pilot ship for testing at sea. In addition, to keep total program costs at $415 million, the Navy plans to reduce the scope of its developmental test efforts and use funds intended for other test purposes to offset the expected $25 million recuperator recovery program cost. Also, in May 1994, the ICR engine contract was modified by deleting special tooling and special test equipment costs since the contractor agreed to fund these costs, if Navy funds were not available. The contractor is to maintain a separate account of these costs for future recovery. Future payment for such tools and equipment will obviously increase total program costs. A major factor that drove the ICR engine’s development schedule has been the need to decide, by late 1996, whether the engine will be used in the international Horizon frigate. The 1994 memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom states that its goal was to move a critical ICR engine preproduction decision milestone to mid-1996, in order to advance the initial operating capability date for both the DDG-51 and the Horizon frigate. A Navy program official acknowledged that meeting that date was part of the reason the Navy approved an aggressive recuperator recovery plan, which included redesign of the recuperator before receiving the results of key tests. During 1995, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended, in its report on the fiscal year 1996 DOD appropriations bill, that the program be terminated because of concerns about serious technical problems, high unit cost, and program cost-effectiveness. In a July 13, 1995, letter to the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the British Ambassador expressed his concern about funding for the ICR engine program. He stated that the United Kingdom plans to use the engine for its next generation of warships. He noted, however, that if U.S. funding for the ICR program was eliminated by Congress it would be incomprehensible to the British government and it could help encourage a movement toward a protectionist European defense market. In an August 28, 1995, letter to the same Chairman, the Secretary of Defense also expressed concern over the possibility that all ICR program funds would be deleted and that the program would be terminated in the House appropriations bill. Noting that the ICR engine is a candidate for all future nonnuclear Navy surface ships, he stated that the United Kingdom and France are committed to fielding the engine on their next generation of surface combatant ships and that termination of the program would be a potential embarrassment for the U.S. government. Full funding was restored to the program as a result of the conference committee meeting between the Senate and House. An additional $15.4 million, primarily for the recuperator recovery program, was also appropriated. Despite some progress made in improving the recuperator recovery plan, the test data necessary for decision making will still be limited. The original recuperator recovery plan recommended that a test unit and three additional generations of recuperators be manufactured during the developmental effort. Each would be designed with a longer service life than the previous one and would provide different solutions to address the failures. However, much of the testing of one generation would be conducted concurrently with the redesign of the next generation recuperator, thus severely limiting the contractor’s ability to improve the redesign based on test results. For example, a series of recuperator core component tests (there are eight of these heat exchanging cores in a recuperator) were scheduled simultaneously with the redesign of the next recuperator. To support the redesign efforts, a series of component tests are planned with a full-sized recuperator core. Such component testing had not been performed on the original recuperator due to the manufacturer’s attempt to meet delivery schedules for developmental testing. The manufacturer was behind due to (1) delays in awarding the subcontract to AlliedSignal, (2) refurbishing of the brazing furnace to satisfy safety requirements, and (3) manufacturing additional core units to replace poorly manufactured component units. The recovery plan concluded that these component tests “are crucial to support the design evolution of the core configuration and are more effective and provide earlier test data.” Due to delays in receiving these core component test results, which are necessary to validate model predictions, the Navy directed the contractor to stop testing the modified recuperator in January 1996. This action was necessary since the contractor had failed to provide substantiating data from the core tests to allow certain engine test maneuvers. Furthermore, in later correspondence, the Navy denied a particular test maneuver since the Navy believed the contractor’s proposed approach was inconsistent with the long-range requirement of extending the modified recuperator’s useful life for future testing. Within a week of being told to stop testing, the contractor resumed engine testing with the modified recuperator. A blue ribbon panel that reviewed the recovery plan determined that available test results were inadequate to predict future problem areas and the recuperator’s operational life and to validate performance models. Since the recuperator’s failure, the engine manufacturer has been testing the engine without a recuperator, further limiting the amount of available test data and the contractor’s ability to validate performance models and engine performance. According to Navy officials and documents, the need to have a propulsion system available for ships in development, especially the new multinational frigate, drove an aggressive recuperator recovery plan to redesign recuperators without the benefit of results from tests of individual cores and the environmental test data from a special test unit. Examination of the failed recuperator and additional materials test results, however, contributed to the design effort. The special test unit, which was created using six cores from the failed recuperator and two unused cores that had been set aside due to questionable manufacturing quality, replaced the failed recuperator. The test objectives of the special unit included the provision of data for refining, developing, and validating analytical computer models. Modeling new design concepts is a key factor in any developmental effort. The special unit operated for about 6 hours and demonstrated that the recuperator could be operated safely by gradually increasing engine power to obtain idle speed and having the recuperator partially active. The unit was extensively instrumented to gain detailed information about the operational environment. One of the recuperator recovery plan’s objectives was to deliver a redesigned recuperator to the Pyestock test facility by October 31, 1995, but an additional schedule slippage delayed delivery until December 1995. The slippage, however, enabled the Navy to obtain some additional preliminary core component test results that were used to establish boundaries as to what test operations will be performed. For example, the engine could not initially exceed 40 percent of full power nor could the contractor restart a hot engine without risking damage to the recuperator. As the Navy restructures the ICR engine’s development program, it faces two major decisions concerning the test program’s infrastructure. The first decision is how and if it will use an ICR test facility already built, but not operational, in Philadelphia. Prior to the recuperator failure, the Navy had hoped to advance significantly the development of the ICR engine by conducting joint testing in the United Kingdom and the United States. The second decision is whether it will test the ICR engine at sea in a pilot ship. Because of recuperator technical problems, funding reductions, and schedule delays, the Navy will not be able to accelerate engine development via planned joint land-based testing. Currently, the Navy plans to conduct almost all of its ICR engine developmental testing at the test site in the United Kingdom. In addition, it has yet to resolve questions related to the need to test the engine at sea. The Navy signed an advanced development phase contract with Westinghouse in 1991. In developing an ICR test facility, Westinghouse considered three potential test sites and selected Pyestock, United Kingdom, as its primary test site. The subsequent memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom provided for the United Kingdom to fund the operation of the test site for up to 2 years or 1,500 hours of testing. This in-country support was estimated to total $22 million in then-year U.S. dollars. The test facility in Pyestock began testing the ICR engine (without a recuperator) in July 1994. When the Navy advanced the ICR engine’s development schedule in 1993 by 21 months, it created a need for another ICR land test site. Both the Navy and Westinghouse believed that with two operational facilities they could conduct almost simultaneous engine tests in support of the faster development schedule. Based on the memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom, the United States would be responsible for funding the Philadelphia test site. This test site would also perform required technical and operational testing for the U.S. Navy. While the Philadelphia test facility was completed in fiscal year 1995, it is not yet operational. This is due, in part, to funding reductions and recuperator technical problems that have resulted in major delays in the developmental testing of the engine. As a result, there is currently no ICR engine and recuperator available for testing at Philadelphia. In addition, the Navy has not provided adequate funding for the operation of the Philadelphia facility in support of desired joint developmental and qualification engine testing. Complicating the situation is the fact that the recuperator failure and the subsequent 41-month delay in the development program have eliminated one of the primary justifications—to speed up the engine’s development—for two land-based test facilities. The Navy now plans for almost all developmental and qualification testing to be conducted in Pyestock and, at the present time, use the Philadelphia facility near the end of the program only for ICR engine shock testing. The Navy and Westinghouse had originally expected that the Philadelphia test facility would allow a second 500-hour developmental test after a similar test had been performed at Pyestock. By conducting these tests almost simultaneously, the Navy believed it could complete the engine’s development 21 months early. The Philadelphia facility cost $5.4 million to construct. The Navy estimates the cost to fully equip and staff the Philadelphia test facility for a 500-hour test to be $17 million: $9 million in fiscal year 1996 and $8 million in fiscal year 1997. In the fiscal year 1996 budget, however, the Navy only received $4.5 million for this test. Navy officials told us that they would not partially fund this test and that the $4.5 million is currently being withheld by the Navy and may, sometime in the future, be rescinded. The Navy also had planned to conduct ICR related testing at another test facility in Philadelphia. Using the DDG-51 test facility, which is built and operating, the Navy was going to accomplish tests required for integrating the ICR engine into that class of ship. Because of funding reductions and other problems, the Navy is considering eliminating this testing. Also, the ICR test facility was to have been used to test other future ship propulsion and power projects. If the facility is not made operational, this will not be possible. Thus, the Navy currently has an ICR test facility without operational capability and an ICR engine test strategy that is in a state of limbo. The Navy has not decided if it will test the ICR at sea because of the high cost involved. It estimates that it would cost between $5.8 million to $12.5 million to redesign a ship’s engine room and install an engine in a pilot ship. While no decision has been made, this is an important testing issue. A DDG-51 program official stated that it is Navy policy to test engines at sea. A Navy testing official stated that a land-based test facility, by itself, is not adequate to fully evaluate the engine’s operational effectiveness and suitability because the facility does not represent a realistic ship and maritime environment. This is, in part, because the engine compartments on surface combatants are very limited in space compared to other surface ships (e.g., cargo ships), thereby presenting more challenges for repairing or maintaining the engine. Also, the Navy has not decided what type of pilot ship the engine will be tested on. A Navy official stated that the type of pilot ship selected is important due to the various electronic support equipment associated with the engine. This report raises many questions about the viability of the ICR engine program, and we believe DOD needs to reassess the need for and future direction of the program. Because the United States has entered into joint agreements with the British and French navies to develop this engine, the decisions on the future of the program are complicated and sensitive. We also believe that the use of the engine on the DDG-51 destroyer is inappropriate. Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense reassess the Navy’s continuing need for the new engine. In doing so, the Secretary needs to carefully consider how current agreements with U.S. allies affect the program, identify what effect the Navy’s ongoing efforts to restructure and rebaseline the ICR program will have, and determine what the Navy’s surface combatant ship future requirements actually are. If it is determined that the program should continue, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to not use the engine in the DDG-51 destroyer; determine total program costs for developing and acquiring the engine relative to the Navy’s requirements for future surface combatant ships, including costs for U.S. test facilities and/or pilot ship engine testing; prepare a facility use plan for the U.S. test site; and prepare a test plan and schedule for the engine that provide sufficient assurance that it can transition from development to production and be realistically available for use in any U.S. ship. DOD said that it disagreed with our report, in large part, because the Secretary of Defense is satisfied with the Center for Naval Analyses’ assessment and does not need to reassess the program at this time, as we have recommended. However, DOD’s comments do not address the difficulties the program has encountered since the Center’s 1994 assessment. Specifically, with the January 1995 failure of the engine’s recuperator, the program has experienced serious design, manufacturing, and quality assurance problems. In response, the Navy instituted an aggressive recuperator recovery plan to maintain as much of the engine’s accelerated development schedule as possible. Only in November 1995, however, did the Navy realize that this approach would not work and ordered work stopped on redesigning the recuperator. An ICR program official has described the impact of the recuperator failure on the program as being catastrophic and, as of May 21, 1996, the stop work order was still in effect. DOD also disagreed with our recommendation to not use the engine in the DDG-51 destroyer. DOD commented that the ICR engine was expected to provide military advantages to the DDG-51, such as increased range and time on station. While acknowledging that weight and size relative to the size of the DDG-51 engine room are important, DOD commented that it is technically feasible to put the engine on the ship. DOD did not comment, however, on our concerns about the high cost of putting the engine on the DDG-51. We would like to reiterate that the Center’s assessment recommended that the ICR engine not be used in the DDG-51 because of the high cost to fit these engines in a ship that was not designed for them. Moreover, representatives from the DDG-51 program office, and even the ICR program office, have said that this is an inappropriate ship for the ICR engine. DOD commented that studies done by Ingalls Shipbuilding demonstrate that putting the ICR engine on the destroyer is technically feasible. However, DOD’s comments fail to note that Bath Iron Works concluded that the engine would have a significant negative impact on the ship and a clear potential for cost growth. Further, weight is clearly an issue when DOD tells us, in its technical comments, that the Navy will, if necessary, reduce the amount of fuel carried on the destroyer to counter the increased weight of the engine. Concerning our recommendation to determine total program costs for developing and acquiring the engine, DOD stated that total program costs have been estimated and the ICR engine should break even around about 2020. However, when we attempted to follow up on this statement, we learned that, as of April 1996, the Navy had yet to restructure and rebaseline the program. The Navy is in the process of restructuring the program to absorb the estimated $25 million cost to implement the recuperator recovery plan and expected reductions in out-year program funding. To accomplish this, the Navy is considering, among other things, reducing the number of preproduction engines, under the contract, from five to two. In addition, the Navy has not fully funded all of the test activities, including the U.S. land-based test facility and a pilot ship to test the engine at sea. It may even eliminate the planned DDG-51 integration testing. Thus, total program costs are not fully known and we are concerned about what test activities the Navy plans to reduce or eliminate to keep total program costs down. In addition, the Center for Naval Analyses actually predicts the break-even point, when savings would equal the development cost, as being in 2026, not 2020 (based on the first engines being installed in a fiscal year 1999 DDG-51). Under current Navy plans, however, ICR engines would not be installed until 2004, meaning that the break-even point is likely to occur even later then 2026. Concerning our recommendation to prepare a test plan and schedule that provides sufficient assurance that the engine can transition from development to production and be realistically available for future use, DOD stated that if the decision was made to use the ICR engine on a particular ship, test planning and scheduling would be incorporated into that ship’s test and evaluation master plan. However, with the decision to put the engine on the DDG-51 at least a half year away and a stop work order still in effect, we are more concerned about the current test plan and schedule for the engine’s development. Until the Navy restructures and rebaselines the program we will be unable to determine if test concurrency has been eliminated and if adequate time has been provided for developmental testing and the evaluation of test results. DOD also pointed out that the United States has no cognizance over the Horizon program and that the United Kingdom, France, and Italy would develop their own test plans. We have revised our recommendation to specify that it only applies to U.S. ship development. After carefully reviewing all of DOD’s comments, we continue to believe that the Secretary of Defense needs to reassess the ICR engine program and the Navy needs to resolve problems with the ICR engine’s recuperator and sufficiently test the engine prior to committing to its production, particularly since there appears to be no pressing U.S. requirement. We are also concerned about the growing cost of the program and, in particular, the cost to acquire and install the engine in the DDG-51. While the U.S. Navy has entered into cooperative agreements with the United Kingdom and France, it is still funding about 93 percent of the engine’s estimated $415 million development cost. Program restructuring, schedule slippage, and expected cost increases will add to that amount. The decision of the program office to advance the engine’s schedule by concurrently conducting advanced development along with full-scale development 1-1/2 years prior to testing the engine and recuperator together and then, after the recuperator failure, to initiate an aggressive recuperator recovery plan heightens our concern about program management. We also are concerned that the Navy may significantly reduce the testing of the ICR engine in an attempt to offset program cost growth and the additional cost caused by the recuperator failure. We also continue to question the Navy’s proposal to put the engine on the DDG-51 and its decision to manage the program as a DDG-51 preplanned product improvement. DOD’s comments are presented in appendix I. In addition, DOD provided, for our consideration, several factual and technical corrections related to the report. In response, we have made changes to the report where appropriate. To obtain information for this report, we reviewed various program research and development documents, including the recuperator recovery plan, early concept and feasibility design studies, test plans and schedules, various development contracts and other program documents. We interviewed officials in the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer), DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), Navy’s Operational Test and Evaluation Force, and the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Advanced Surface Machinery Program, Engineering Division, Land Based Engineering Site, and Naval Surface Warfare Center. We also reviewed various DDG-51 program documents and interviewed officials in the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) and the DDG-51 Program Office. We also discussed our report with the Naval Audit Service. To assess and analyze the risks associated with the recuperator recovery plan, we attended two ICR bimonthly technical conferences where program officials and contractors discussed technical and testing issues, including engine performance, testing problems, and the recuperator recovery program. We compared information obtained at these conferences with various program and technical documents. We conducted our review from May 1995 to May 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are also sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members, House Committees on National Security and on Government Reform and Oversight, Senate Committees on Armed Services and on Governmental Affairs, and Senate and House Committees on Appropriations; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy. We will also provide copies to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Thomas J. Schulz, Associate Director, Defense Acquisition Issues. Please contact him or me on (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Robert L. Coleman 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 provided information on the Navy's intercooled recuperated (ICR) engine program, focusing on the: (1) Navy's need for the engine; (2) cost, schedule, and performance of the program; and (3) impact of the Navy's test and development strategies. GAO found that: (1) some Navy officials are questioning the economic viability of the ICR engine program and have raised concerns over placing ICR engines on naval destroyers, since most destroyers are equipped with reliable propulsion systems; (2) engine development costs pose a significant economic investment; (3) some officials believe the engine should not be used on naval destroyers given the small number of new U.S. destroyers involved, adequacy of current destroyer engines, high cost of incorporating the engine, uncertainty of future integration plans, and current state of ICR development; (4) the Navy has not recovered from initial recuperator failure that resulted from design, manufacturing, and quality assurance problems; (5) a contractor is instituting a recovery plan to redesign future recuperators, but the plan is not allowing sufficient time to evaluate test data prior to ordering production ICR engines; (6) the Navy has interrupted work on redesigning future recuperators because of funding reductions, contractor quality control problems, manufacturing problems, and delivery delays; and (7) the Navy needs to decide how and when it will use the Philadelphia ICR test facility and if it will test the ICR engine at sea. |
In using baseline budget projections, we need to understand what assumptions they incorporate and how realistic these assumptions may be. Intended as a neutral reference point for comparing alternative policies, baseline projections make no assumptions about future policy change. The overarching assumption is that current laws concerning tax policy and spending continue unchanged. The conventions governing baseline projections are appropriate and understandable in the context of budget enforcement purposes. However, in using these projections as a basis for policymaking, it is important to remember what they are and what are they are not. The baseline is just that—a baseline from which to estimate the impact of policy actions; one would expect the ultimate outcomes to be different—particularly over a decade. Some analysts have suggested that baseline projections may understate likely future discretionary spending while overstating likely future revenues. Where current law does not provide a determinative rule—as is the case for discretionary spending after expiration of the caps—both CBO and OMB must make some assumptions. CBO’s most commonly used projection for discretionary spending—and the one we use for the first 10 years of our long-term simulations—is the baseline under which discretionary spending grows with inflation. A number of observers of the federal budget, including former CBO directors Robert Reischauer and Rudolph Penner, have suggested that this inflated discretionary assumption is unrealistic. One analysis has pointed out that a growth rate no higher than inflation would mean that future per-capita discretionary spending would decline in real terms during an era of budget surpluses. In addition, projections based on current-law assumptions may overstate likely future revenues. For example, the baseline projections assume expiration of a set of about 20 tax credits—including the research and experimentation tax credit—which have been routinely extended in the past. The baseline projections also assume no change to the alternative minimum tax, which is expected to affect an increasing number of middle- class taxpayers. All projections are surrounded by uncertainty. In using budget estimates, we need to keep in mind that budget estimates are not—and are not meant to be—a crystal ball. CBO itself has warned against attributing precision to its projections, stating that actual budgetary outcomes will almost certainly differ from the baseline projections—even absent any policy changes. CBO notes that its estimate of the 2006 surplus could vary by as much as $400 billion in either direction. As CBO has said, the value of the 10-year estimates is that they allow Congress to consider the longer-term implications of legislation rather than focus only on the short-term effects. No policy should assume the exactness of baseline projections; relatively small shifts can lead to large year-to-year differences. While considerable uncertainty surrounds both short- and long-term budget projections, we know two things for certain: the population is aging and the baby boom generation is approaching retirement age. In addition demographic trends are more certain than budget projections! Although the 10-year horizon looks better in CBO’s January 31 projections than it did in July 2000, the long-term fiscal outlook looks worse. In the longer term—beyond the 10-year budget window of CBO’s projections— the share of the population over 65 will begin to climb, and the federal budget will increasingly be driven by demographic trends. As more and more of the baby boom generation enters retirement, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will demand correspondingly larger shares of federal revenues. Federal health and retirement spending will also surge due to improvements in longevity. People are likely to live longer than they did in the past, and spend more time in retirement. Finally, advances in medical technology are likely to keep pushing up the cost of providing health care. In contrast to the improvement in the 10-year projections, our updated simulations—shown in figure 2—show a worsening in the long-term fiscal outlook since July. This worsening is largely due to a change in the assumptions about health care costs over the longer term. In recent months there has been an emerging consensus that the long-term cost growth assumption traditionally used in projecting Medicare and Medicaid costs in the out-years is too low. A technical panel advising the Medicare Trustees stated this conclusion in its final report. Charged with reviewing the methods and assumptions used in the Trustees’ Medicare projections, the panel found that the methods and assumptions were generally reasonable with the exception of the long-term cost growth assumption. Basing its finding on recent research and program experience, the panel recommended that in the last 50 years of the 75-year projection period, per-beneficiary program costs should be assumed to grow at a rate one percentage point above per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) growth. CBO made a similar change to its Medicare and Medicaid long- term cost growth assumptions its October 2000 report on the long term.Given this convergence of views, we have incorporated higher long-term health care cost growth consistent with the Medicare technical panel’s recommendation into our January update. The message from our long-term simulations, which incorporate CBO’s 10- year estimates, remains the same as it was a year ago. Indeed, it is the same as when we first published long-term simulations in 1992. Even if all projected unified surpluses are saved and used for debt reduction, deficits reappear in 2042. If only the Social Security surpluses are saved, unified deficits emerge in 2019. (See figure 3.) In both scenarios deficits would eventually grow to unsustainable levels absent policy changes. To move into the future with no changes in federal health and retirement programs is to envision a very different role for the federal government. Assuming, for example, that Congress and the President adhere to the often-stated goal of saving the Social Security surpluses our long-term model shows a world by 2030 in which Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid increasingly absorb available revenues within the federal budget. Under this scenario, these programs would require more than three- quarters of total federal revenue. (See figure 4.) Little room would be left for other federal spending priorities such as national defense, education, and law enforcement. Absent changes in the structure of Social Security and Medicare, some time during the 2040s government would do nothing but mail checks to the elderly and their healthcare providers. Accordingly, substantive reform of Social Security and health programs remains critical to recapturing our future fiscal flexibility. Since these simulations assume current-law entitlement benefits, they both overstate and understate the challenge. They overstate it because they assume Congress and the President would take no action to change the cost structure of these programs. However, they understate it because they also assume no benefit enhancements such as the addition of coverage for prescription drugs. In addition, these simulations—like the budget—do not recognize the long-term cost implications of insurance programs, environmental cleanup liabilities and other long-term commitments. In other words, in some ways this could be seen as an optimistic scenario! The government undertakes other activities and programs that directly obligate it to spend in the future. While some steps have been taken to improve financial statement reporting of a number of these commitments, more needs to be done. In addition, many future costs are not reflected in either budget projections or long-term simulations. Explicit liabilities not reflected in the budget can be sizable. For example, estimates indicate that environmental cleanup of government-caused waste is expected to cost the federal government at least $300 billion. Other future financial commitments and contingencies are also important considerations. The future costs of other activities are often difficult to estimate, but nonetheless can add to future fiscal stress. Some, such as credit subsidy costs, are in the budget and thus in the baseline; others, like the risk assumed by federal insurance programs, are not. All of these as well as demands for increased federal support in areas ranging from health insurance to national defense will compete for a share of the fiscal pie in the future—a pie that will already be increasingly encumbered by higher costs for the elderly. This highlights the government’s stewardship responsibility to provide future generations with sufficient budgetary flexibility to make their own choices and an economic base sufficient to finance current commitments as well as future needs. Today Congress and the President face a very different set of budget choices than did your recent predecessors. For over 15 years fiscal policy has been seen in the context of the need to reduce the deficit. The policies and procedures put in place to achieve a balanced budget do not provide guidance for fiscal policy in a time of surplus. At the same time, as Chairman Greenspan warned last month, we “need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake.” As you know, we have looked at a number of other countries that have already faced this challenge. Like the United States, these nations achieved budget surpluses largely as the result of improving economies and sustained deficit reduction efforts. After years of restraint, there are pent-up demands—for tax cuts and/or for spending. In several notable cases, these countries met current demands while retaining surpluses for longer-term economic goals. How do countries meet these demands without abandoning restraint? The countries we reviewed articulated a compelling case for sustaining surpluses and developed a fiscal policy framework that addressed current needs within the context of broader economic targets or goals. Some adopted fiscal targets such as debt-to- GDP ratios as a guide for decision-making while others such as Australia attempted to focus on the impact of fiscal policy on national saving and economic growth. Achieving consensus on a long-term fiscal policy goal this year may seem unlikely. Nevertheless, I believe it is important that Congress and the President look at budget choices today in the context not only of today’s needs and demands but also of the long-term pressures we know loom on the horizon. Today’s surpluses create, in effect, a unique window of opportunity to better position the government and the nation to address both current needs as well as the longer-term budget and economy we will hand to succeeding generations. Our long-term model illustrates how important it is for us to use our newfound fiscal good fortune to promote a more sustainable longer-term budget and economic outlook so that future generations can more readily afford the commitments of an aging society. Today’s budget decisions have important consequences for the living standards of future generations. The financial burdens facing the smaller cohort of future workers in an aging society would most certainly be ameliorated if the economic pie were enlarged. This is no easy challenge, but in a very real sense, our fiscal decisions affect the longer-term economy through their effects on national saving. Recent research estimated that increasing saving as a share of GDP by one percentage point each year would boost GDP enough to cover 95 percent of the increase in elderly costs between now and 2050. Simply put, we are not saving enough as a nation. Personal saving is at a 40-year low. As shown in figure 5, the reduction of federal deficits and the emergence of budget surpluses in recent years have slowed the long-term decline in national saving. While investment needed to promote growth has been supported by foreign capital in recent years, the profits due to foreign investment go abroad. What would happen if in the future foreign investors found more attractive opportunities elsewhere? The most viable strategy for expanded growth in the long run is to increase saving from our own economy. Since expanding the nation’s productive capacity through saving and investment is a long-term process, increasing saving now is vital since labor force growth is expected to slow significantly over the next 20 years. Traditionally, the most direct way for the federal government to increase saving has been to reduce the deficit or—more recently—to run a surplus. Although the government may try to increase personal saving, results of these efforts have been mixed. As a general rule the surest way for the federal government to affect national saving has been through its fiscal policy. In general, saving involves trading off consumption today for greater consumption tomorrow. When the government saves by reducing debt by the public, it helps lift future fiscal burdens by freeing up budgetary resources encumbered for interest payments—which currently represent more than 12 cents of every federal dollar spent—and by enhancing the pool of economic resources available for private investment and long-term economic growth. This is especially important since—as I noted a year and a half ago—we enter this period of surplus with a large overhang of debt held by the public. Indeed, we should be a little more subdued in congratulating ourselves on the decline in debt held by the public—we are still significantly above the debt/GDP ratio of the late 1970s. Given the demographic pressures looming, today’s level of publicly held debt is not a good benchmark. However, current projections show that—depending on the budget policies adopted—the United States could reach a point in this decade at which annual budget surpluses could not be fully used to reduce debt. Although estimates of exactly when this might occur vary, most put it between 2004 and 2011. If the entire unified surplus is saved, this point is likely to be reached in sometime in the next 5 years; if only the Social Security surplus is saved, this point will be delayed until the second half of the decade. This would raise a number of issues: whether and if so how the government should hold nonfederal assets; whether and if so how a market for debt held by the public should be maintained; how do we as a nation raise the level of national saving if reducing federal debt held by the public is not an option. The issues Chairman Greenspan raised concerning government ownership of nonfederal assets deserve careful consideration. I note that while Chairman Greenspan opposed such a step, he also said that if the government were to acquire nonfederal assets, he would prefer that they be allocated to the Social Security Trust Funds. At GAO we have looked both at the experiences of other countries during times of declining debt and at the question of trust fund investments in equities. We believe this work can assist you in your deliberations. For example, in our ongoing work looking at other nations’ experiences with declining debt, we found that some have decided to hold some nonfederal assets as part of their efforts to deal with long-term pressures. With the advent of surpluses, Norway established a goal of sustained surpluses in order to build up savings to address long-term fiscal and economic concerns resulting primarily from an aging population and declining petroleum reserves. As a vehicle for accumulating assets, the government created the Government Petroleum Fund in 1991 to help manage Norway’s petroleum wealth over the long term. The Fund serves several important fiscal and economic functions. By investing surpluses, the Fund is an instrument for saving part of Norway’s petroleum revenues for the next generation. During the 1990s, Canada modified its pension system to invest in nonfederal assets as one way to improve the system’s sustainability. Sweden also invests a portion of its pension funds in nonfederal assets. Management of Norway’s Petroleum Fund is the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, which has delegated the task of operational management of the Fund to Norway’s central bank. Both Canada and Sweden have established separate boards to oversee the investment of their fund assets. In the near future, we plan to conduct a study of other nations that invest in nonfederal assets in order to learn more about how they deal with governance issues. In 1998, we reported on the implications of allowing the Social Security Trust Funds to invest in nonfederal assets, specifically equities. One of the implementation issues we looked at was that of governance—at the concern that there would be tremendous political pressures to steer the trust funds’ investments to achieve economic, social, or political purposes. We concluded that passively investing in a broad-based index would reduce, but not eliminate, the possibility of political influence over the government’s stock selections. The question of how to handle stock voting rights, however, seemed likely to be more difficult to resolve. To blunt concerns about potential federal meddling, the government’s stock voting rights could be restricted by statute or delegated to investment managers. The issue of how to select stock investments also emerged when the federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) was created. To eliminate political influence in TSP’s stock investment decisions, the Congress restricted TSP investments to widely recognized broad-based market indexes; thus the portfolio composition is automatically determined by the market index chosen and consideration of nonfinancial objectives is precluded. TSP board members and employees are subject to strict fiduciary rules, and breaching their fiduciary duty would expose them to civil and criminal liabilities. The fiduciary rules require board members and employees to invest the money and manage the funds solely for the benefit of the owners of the individual accounts—the participating federal employees and their beneficiaries. TSP board members and employees are prohibited from exercising stock voting rights, and voting instead is delegated to investment managers according to their own guidelines. Obviously, the design and management of any federally owned assets will be critical to mitigate the risks of political interference. Since TSP assets are owned by federal employees, it cannot be seen as directly analogous to government investment. Nevertheless, it can be helpful in considering these issues. Government ownership of nonfederal assets is obviously complicated and would carry certain risks. Although the governance issues may not be insurmountable, another possible concern is the magnitude of federal involvement in the financial markets. Although the federal government would become the largest single investor, the amounts invested might not seem disproportionately large in terms of the size of the U.S. financial markets. Under our Save the Social Security Surpluses simulation, the federal government would buy nonfederal assets for about a decade and cumulative federal holdings would peak at about 2 percent of GDP assuming that a federal debt market is not maintained. This would represent about 1 percent of the stock market or 4 percent of the corporate bond market today. Any price effects associated with the federal government acquiring and then selling these assets are uncertain. However, the government would not necessarily be selling its nonfederal assets in this window. If nonfederal assets are to be held by the government, the question arises whether they could be used to prefund a portion of federal commitments and liabilities. Since a successful stock investment strategy should be grounded in a long-term outlook, the idea of investing in nonfederal assets could be considered appropriate for federal programs with a long time horizon. For example, federal civilian and military retirement programs could buy and hold assets that match the expected timing of their liabilities. As I have already noted, there is a growing body of experience in other nations that might help us understand this new landscape better. It is worth noting that investing in the financial markets is a standard practice for state and local governments, and the experiences of public pension funds may yield some insights into the implications of the federal government investing on behalf of Social Security or other federal retirement programs. Other nations have decided that the potential risks of political interference with markets can be managed and are outweighed by what they perceive as a risk of failing to save for the future or providing a cushion for contingencies. These trade-offs are inherently political decisions—and although we can look to others for insights, we will have to resolve these issues in our own way. If the governance, control and size issues loom so large that there is a consensus the federal government should not hold nonfederal assets, we face a new set of issues: should we avoid eliminating debt held by the public, and if so, how? How then would we accumulate sufficient national saving to promote the level of economic growth needed to finance the baby boom retirement? The surest way for the federal government to raise national saving has been by raising government saving. How to raise national saving in an environment of zero federal debt is a complex question. The government could aim for a balanced budget once the federal debt held by the public is eliminated. In such a case, all national saving would have to be achieved through increased private saving. Whether existing federal incentives for people to save have been effective in increasing private saving and ultimately national saving is open to question. Even with preferential tax treatment granted since the 1970s to encourage retirement saving, the personal saving rate has steadily declined, as shown in figure 6. Some have suggested that one option would be using the surpluses to finance individual saving accounts. Various proposals have been advanced that would create a new system of individual accounts as part of comprehensive Social Security reform, while other proposals would create new accounts outside of Social Security. Individual account proposals also differ as to whether individuals’ participation would be mandatory or voluntary. If the goal of individual account proposals is to increase national saving, careful consideration must be given to the specifics of design. Matching provisions may affect how much such accounts increase national saving. On another dimension, allowing early access to these accounts increases people’s willingness to put money in them-but reduces their usefulness as retirement accounts. One possible approach might be to use part of any realized surplus as a kind of surplus dividend that could be returned in the form of an individual saving account. Again, design features including targeting and limitations on access would be important. As I discussed earlier, reducing the relative future burdens of Social Security and health programs is critical to promoting a sustainable budget policy for the longer term. Moreover, absent reform, the impact of federal health and retirement programs on budget choices will be felt as the baby boom generation begins to retire. While much of the public debate concerning the Social Security and Medicare programs focuses on trust fund balances—that is, on the programs’ solvency—the larger issue concerns sustainability. Absent reform, the impact of federal health and retirement programs on budget choices will be felt long before projected trust fund insolvency dates when the cash needs of these programs begin to seriously constrain overall budgetary flexibility. The 2000 Trustees Reports estimate that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will remain solvent through 2037 and the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund through 2025. This date does not incorporate either the technical panel’s suggested higher cost growth assumption or any benefit expansions such as prescription drug coverage. Furthermore, because of the nature of federal trust funds, HI and OASDI Trust Fund balances do not provide meaningful information about program sustainability—that is, the government’s fiscal capacity to pay benefits when the program’s cash inflows fall below benefit expenses. From this perspective, the net cash impact of the trust funds on the government as a whole—not trust fund solvency—is the important measure. Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, the OASDI Trust Funds are projected to have a cash deficit beginning in 2015 and the HI Trust Fund a deficit beginning in 2009 (see figure 7). At that point, the programs become net claimants on the Treasury. In addition, as we have noted in other testimony, a focus on HI solvency presents an incomplete picture of the Medicare program’s expected future fiscal claims; the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) portion of Medicare, which is not reflected in the HI solvency measure, is projected to grow even faster than HI in the future. To finance these cash deficits, Social Security and the Hospital Insurance portion of Medicare will need to draw on their special issue Treasury securities acquired during the years when these programs generated cash surpluses. In essence, for OASDI or HI to “redeem” their securities, the government must raise taxes, cut spending for other programs, or reduce projected surpluses. Our long-term simulations illustrate the magnitude of the fiscal challenges associated with our aging society and the significance of the related challenges that government will be called upon to address. As we have stated elsewhere, early action to change these programs would yield the highest fiscal dividends for the federal budget and would provide a longer period for prospective beneficiaries to make adjustments in their own planning. This message is not changed by the new surplus numbers. It remains true that the longer we wait to take action on the programs driving long-term deficits, the more painful and difficult the choices will become. While these new surplus projections offer an opportunity to address today’s needs and the many pent-up demands held in abeyance during years of fighting deficits, they do not eliminate our obligation to prepare for the future. Today’s choices must be seen not only in terms of how they respond to today’s needs, but also how they affect the future capacity of the nation and our ability to meet our looming demographic challenge. When we looked at how other nations responded to budget surpluses, we discovered that most found a way to respond to pressing national needs while also promoting future fiscal flexibility and saving. Their actions could be seen as constituting a range of actions across a continuum by the degree of long-term fiscal risk they present. Figure 8 illustrates this array along one dimension. At one end debt reduction and entitlement reform actually increase future fiscal flexibility by freeing up resources. One-time actions—either on the tax or spending side of the budget—may neither increase nor decrease future flexibility—although here many would distinguish between types of actions; devoting funds to previously underfunded liabilities or to one-time capital investments may be seen as different than actions that increase consumption. Permanent or open- ended tax cuts and/or spending increases may reduce future fiscal flexibility—although that is likely to depend on their structure and implementation. For example, many would argue that certain permanent changes in the tax structure and/or funding for well-chosen investments can enhance economic growth and build for the future. The decision on how to allocate surpluses is by its very nature inherently a political one—and I am not here to advocate any particular tax or spending proposal. Rather, my point is that since surplus projections are more uncertain than demographic trends, prudence would argue for seeking to balance risk. You might think about the budget choices you face today as a portfolio of fiscal actions balancing today’s unmet needs with tomorrow’s fiscal challenges. If the experience of other nations and the states is any guide, we will most likely choose actions across an array of choices. In thinking about balanced risk, it is not the merits of any individual proposal that are key but the impact of these decisions in the aggregate or from a portfolio perspective. This suggests that whatever the fiscal choices made in allocating the surplus among debt reduction, tax cuts, and spending increases, approaches should be explored to mitigate risk to the long term. For example, provisions with plausible expiration dates—on the spending and the tax side—may prompt re-examination taking into account any changes in fiscal circumstances. A mix of temporary and permanent actions may also reduce risk. In our recent Performance and Accountability series, we also suggested that, given the inherent uncertainty of surplus projections, consideration be given to linking a portion of new fiscal commitments to the actual levels of surpluses achieved. As I mentioned earlier, one possible approach could be a kind of “surplus dividend” that had to be saved. Whatever the form, linking new commitments to actual results can be seen as a kind of contingency planning. Others have suggested considering a portion of the surplus as a kind of contingency fund. Some states have developed approaches to limiting fiscal risk by linking temporary tax cuts or spending to actual fiscal results. In Ohio, an Income Tax Reduction Fund was established as a mechanism to return surplus revenues to taxpayers based on the size of the actual surplus in excess of the amount required to maintain the budget stabilization fund. Minnesota has refunded surplus revenues beginning in 1997 and has since instituted a requirement that a revenue surplus exceeding 0.5 percent be designated for a tax rebate. Arizona developed triggers which designate the use of surplus revenues for specific tax reductions, or new appropriations based on the amount of actual surpluses achieved. Arizona also has increased the balances in the Budget Stabilization Fund. The excess surplus funds triggered reductions in vehicle license and corporate taxes as well as increased education funding. Surpluses challenge our nation to move beyond a focus on reducing annual deficits to a broader agenda. They offer us an opportunity to look more closely at what government does and how it does business. With the advent of surpluses in the near-term, the nation needs to develop a new fiscal paradigm–one that will prompt greater attention to the long-term implications of current programs and policy choices and help to better balance today’s wants against tomorrow’s needs. For more than a decade, budget processes have been designed with the goal of reaching a zero deficit. Now that goal has been reached—indeed passed. Clearly, the limits imposed to achieve a balanced budget are not working in the world of surplus. At the same time eliminating all controls would be a mistake. You face the need not only to make choices about tax and spending policy, but also to design a process for the future. Now that the goal of “Zero Deficit” is gone, what should replace it? Whatever measure you select, we believe that the budget and the budget process must pay more attention to the long-term cost implications of today’s budget and program decisions. We have recommended, for example, budgeting for the fully accrued costs for insurance and pensions in current budgets to reflect the future commitments made in current programs. Ultimately, the federal government needs a decision-making framework that permits it to evaluate fiscal good fortune and choices against both today’s needs and the longer-term fiscal future we wish to hand to future generations. I have suggested here today that budget choices can be seen as a fiscal portfolio—and as such the ideal set would balance different types of fiscal risks. Not only should policy choices be examined individually, but also their aggregate impact on the nation’s long-term economic health should be considered. The budget surpluses before us offer policymakers the opportunity to strike a balance between addressing today’s needs and the obligation to hand a strong economy and sustainable fiscal policies on to our children, our grandchildren, and future generations. (450041) | In this statement, the Comptroller General discusses the fiscal policy challenges facing Congress and the nation. The focus of tax administration and budgeting are shifting because of current and projected budget surpluses. The Comptroller General speaks of the need for fiscal responsibility when using surplus projections to design tax and spending policies. These projections are based on a set of assumptions that may or may not hold. They are not a precise prediction of a future and should be used as a reference point when making policy decisions. Although the projected surpluses can provide an opportunity to respond to pent-up demands for additional spending or tax cuts, Congress must balance those demands with the nation's long-term economic health. |
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits and services to veterans who meet certain eligibility criteria. These benefits and services include, among other things, hospital and medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, assistance to homeless veterans, home loan guarantees, administration of life insurance as well as traumatic injury protection insurance for servicemembers, and death benefits that cover burial expenses. The Department carries out its programs nationwide through three administrations and the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is responsible for health care services and medical and prosthetic research programs. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for, among other things, providing compensations, pensions, and education assistance. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is responsible for maintaining national veterans cemeteries; providing grants to states for establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans cemeteries; and providing headstones and markers for the graves of eligible persons, among other things. The BVA reviews all appeals made by veterans or their representatives for entitlement to veterans' benefits, including claims for service connection, increased disability ratings, pension, insurance benefits, and educational benefits, among other things. This report provides a preliminary analysis of the President's budget request for FY2012 for the programs administered by the VA. The information provided in this report is based on the President's budget proposal provided to Congress on February 14, 2011, and does not reflect amounts contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 ( P.L. 111-117 ) nor funding levels included in the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 ( H.R. 1 as passed by the House of Representatives on February 19, 2011). This step has been taken to provide consistency when comparing funding levels across the fiscal years. Since the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, 2010, VA benefits and services (except medical programs) have been funded under a series of five continuing resolutions (CRs)— P.L. 111-242 ; P.L. 111-290 ; P.L. 111-317 ; P.L. 111-322 ; and P.L. 112-4 . The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 ( P.L. 111-117 ) provided advance appropriations for medical programs for FY2011. The report begins with a brief introduction to the Department's budget. Next, it provides funding levels requested by the President for FY2012 for VA health related programs. This is followed by a discussion of funding levels requested for mandatory programs and administration including programs such as construction of VA facilities and information technology. It should be noted that this not an exhaustive discussion of VA's budget request for FY2012. To provide some context to the discussion that follows, this section provides a brief introduction to the various accounts that fund the Department. The VA's budget is comprised of both mandatory and discretionary spending accounts. Mandatory funding supports disability compensation, pension benefits, education, vocational rehabilitation, life insurance, and burial benefits, among other benefits and services. Discretionary funding supports a broad array of benefits and services with a majority of funding going towards providing medical care to veterans. According to the President's budget documents, in FY2010 the total VA budget authority was approximately $127.2 billion. The FY2012 budget request for the VA is for approximately $132.1 billion in budget authority. The VA's health care program is funded through multiple appropriations accounts that are supplemented by other sources of revenue. The appropriation accounts used to support VA health care programs include (1) medical services, (2) medical administration (currently known as medical support and compliance), (3) medical facilities, and (4) medical and prosthetic research. In addition to direct appropriations accounts mentioned above, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ( P.L. 99-272 ), enacted into law in 1986, gave the VA the authority to bill some veterans and most health care insurers for nonservice-connected care provided to veterans enrolled in the VA health care system, to help defray the cost of delivering medical services to veterans. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ( P.L. 105-33 ) gave the VA the authority to retain these funds in the Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF). The funds deposited into the MCCF would be available for medical services for veterans. These collected funds do not have to be spent in any particular fiscal year and are available until expended. In 2009, Congress enacted the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-81 ) that authorized advance appropriations for three of the four accounts that comprise the VHA: medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities. The medical and prosthetic research account is not funded as an advance appropriation, and is funded through the regular appropriations process. The medical services account funds health care services provided to eligible veterans and beneficiaries in VA's medical centers, outpatient clinic facilities, contract hospitals, state homes, and outpatient programs on a fee basis; the medical support and compliance account funds management and administration of the VA health care system, including financial management; and the medical facilities account includes funds for the operation and maintenance of the VA health care system's capital infrastructure (excluding construction), such as costs associated with utilities, facility repair, laundry services, and groundskeeping. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operates the nation's largest integrated direct health care delivery system. While Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are also publicly funded programs, most health care services under these programs are delivered by private providers in private facilities. In contrast, the VA health care system could be categorized as a veteran-specific national health care system, in the sense that the federal government owns the medical facilities and employs the health care providers. The VA's health care system is organized into 21 geographically defined Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). Although policies and guidelines are developed at VA headquarters to be applied throughout the VA health care system, management authority for basic decision making and budgetary responsibilities are delegated to the VISNs. As of FY2010, VHA operates 152 hospitals (medical centers), 133 nursing homes, 791 community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs), 6 independent outpatient clinics, and 300 Readjustment Counseling Centers (Vet Centers). In 2009, VA began a pilot Mobile Vet Center (MVC) program to improve access to services for veterans in rural areas, and the Department has deployed 50 MVCs. VHA also operates 9 mobile outpatient clinics. The VHA pays for care provided to veterans by private-sector providers on a fee basis under certain circumstances. This program pays non-VA health care providers to treat eligible veterans when medical services are not available at VA medical facilities or in emergencies when delays are hazardous to life or health. Fee basis care includes inpatient, outpatient, prescription medication, and long-term care services. Inpatient and outpatient care are also provided in the private sector to eligible dependents of veterans under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). The VHA also provides grants for construction of state-owned nursing homes and domiciliary facilities and collaborates with the Department of Defense (DOD) in sharing health care resources and services. Apart from providing direct patient care to veterans, VHA's other statutory missions are to conduct medical research, to serve as a contingency backup to the Department of Defense (DOD) medical system during a national security emergency, to provide support to the National Disaster Medical System and the Department of Health and Human Services as necessary, and to train health care professionals in order to provide an adequate supply of health personnel for the VA and the nation. In FY2011 approximately 8.4 million of the 22.1 million living veterans in the nation were enrolled in the VA health care system. It is estimated that in FY2012 there would be approximately 8.6 million veterans enrolled in the system. Of the total number of enrolled veterans in FY2011, VA anticipated treating approximately 5.5 million unique veteran patients. For FY2012, VHA estimates that it will treat about 5.6 million unique veteran patients or 1.4% over the FY2011 estimate. The VHA also estimates that outpatient visits would increase from 85.8 million in FY2011 to 90.8 million in FY2012, an increase of 5.1 million, or 5.9%. It also anticipates an increase in inpatients treated from 931,028 in FY2011 to 959,920 in FY2012, an increase of 28,892, or 3.1%. The Obama Administration released its FY2012 budget on February 14, 2011. The Administration's FY2012 budget request for VHA (medical services, medical support and compliance, medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research) is $51.4 billion. In total the FY2012 budget request for VHA is $54.4 billion including medical care collections (see Table 1 ). The President's budget proposal also revises the FY2012 advance appropriations request—included in the FY2011 President's budget request—by lowering the advance appropriations by $713 million to reflect the 2011 and 2012 estimated civilian pay freeze. Additionally, the Administration is proposing to set up a $953 million contingency fund that would provide additional funds up to $953 million to become available for obligation if the Administration determines that additional funds are required due to changes in economic conditions in 2012. Furthermore, as required by the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-81 ), the President's budget is requesting $52.4 billion in advance appropriations for the three medical care appropriations (medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities) for FY2013. In FY2013, the Administration's budget request would provide $41.4 billion for the medical services account, $5.7 billion for the medical support and compliance account, and $5.4 billion for the medical facilities account (see Table 1 ). Table 2 shows the VA budget for mandatory benefit programs and administration, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for FY2010 through FY2012. The amounts shown in the columns for the FY2010 Actual and FY2011 Continuing Resolution are those reported by OMB on February 14, 2011, and do not reflect appropriations legislation currently under consideration or passed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The changes in certain accounts between FY2010 and FY2012 may reflect changes due to law, regulations, or other factors as discussed below. The Disability Compensation category includes payments for a number of benefits including disability compensation; dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC); pension benefits for low-income disabled or elderly combat veterans and their survivors; burial benefits (allowances, flags, headstones, etc); and a clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans. Caseloads for the benefits in this category are expected to increase between FY2010 and FY2012, and increases in some benefits (as a result of changes in law) will take place in FY2012. Overall, the appropriations for this category are expected to decline by 5.1% primarily due to the annual impact of regulation changes made in FY2010. During FY2010, the VA Secretary exercised his legal authority and made (by regulation) additional conditions associated with Agent Orange exposure presumptive for disability compensation to veterans, and for DIC to survivors of veterans with those conditions. Because of the range of effective dates for compensation due to conditions related to Agent Orange, appropriations for the first year (FY2010) included payments for prior years of disability compensation in a number of cases. Therefore, the first year impact of the change in regulations was larger (in FY2010) than the annual impact of the change (in later years). The Readjustment Benefits category reflects a number of benefits related to the transition of servicemembers from active duty status to veteran status, as well as disabled veterans including education benefits; vocation rehabilitation; financial assistance for adaptive automobiles and equipment; and housing grants. Between FY2010 and FY2012, there is an increase of 24.8% due to changes in law for benefits in this category. Educational and vocational rehabilitation benefits reflect an increase in the workload and average cost of the benefits (due to inflation or educational cost adjustments). In addition, P.L. 111-275 increased the maximum financial assistance for automobiles and adaptive equipment from $11,000 to $18,900 effective October 1, 2011. The Insurance (Mandatory) category includes supplemental funding for National Service Life Insurance (NSLI); Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (S-DVI); and Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance. This category shows a large increase (78.1%) between FY2010 and FY2012, primarily due to a projected increase in S-DVI due to death claims. The Housing and Other Mandatory Benefits category includes guaranteed and direct loan programs for veterans, Native American housing loans; and various proprietary receipts (from the public). Part of the decrease between FY2010 and FY2012 is attributed to a projected decline in proprietary receipts, including those associated with the GI Bill, the National Service Life Insurance fund; and housing. The Major Construction category, which is for construction related projects for all VA components where the total project cost is $10 million or more, reflects a 50.6% decline in the requested appropriation between FY2010 and FY2012. However, the VBA has noted in supporting documents that it has identified $381.6 million in prior appropriations for major construction that is unobligated, of which $135.7 million will be used for FY2012 major construction projects. The Minor Construction category, which is for construction related projects for all VA components where the total project cost is less than $10 million, reflects a decline between FY2010 and FY2012 of 21.8%. The General Operating Expenses category includes funding for the Office of the Secretary; the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA); the Offices of General Counsel and Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction; and the Assistant Secretaries for Management, Human Resources and Administration, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Policy and Planning, Security and Preparedness, and Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. The increase between FY2010 and FY2012 of 18.2% reflects an increase of 562 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, and funds for initiatives including the Acquisition Improvement Initiative. The Information Technology category includes maintenance and improvements to the information technology of all VA functions. The small decrease between FY2010 and FY2012 reflects increases for new initiatives and completion or discontinuation of older initiatives. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) provided additional funds for grants to states for extended care facilities. These funds were required to be obligated by the end of FY2010 (September 30, 2010). The ARRA funds were used by the VA to advance projects planned for FY2010 and FY2011. The 15.0% decline between FY2010 and FY2012 reflects the impact of the additional ARRA funds in FY2010. | The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits and services to veterans who meet certain eligibility criteria. These benefits and services include hospital and medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, assistance to homeless veterans, home loan guarantees, administration of life insurance as well as traumatic injury protection insurance for servicemembers, and death benefits that cover burial expenses. This report provides a preliminary analysis of the President's budget request for FY2012 for the programs administered by the VA. For FY2012, the Administration is requesting approximately $132.1 billion for the VA. This amount includes approximately $62 billion in discretionary funds and approximately $70 billion in mandatory funding. The FY2012 budget request for VA medical care programs is $51.3 billion, an increase of approximately $240 million over the FY2012 advance appropriations request of $50.6 billion that was included in the FY2011 budget request. The FY2013 request of advance appropriations is $52.5 billion, an increase of approximately $1.7 billion over the FY2012 budget request. The President's budget is proposing an establishment of a contingency fund of $953 million for VA medical care programs in FY2012. These contingency funds would become available for obligation if the Administration determines that additional costs would be incurred due to changes in economic conditions. This report is not an exhaustive discussion of VA's budget request for FY2012. A full CRS report on FY2012 VA budget and appropriations issues is planned after initial congressional consideration of appropriations legislation. |
In health insurance, beneficiaries may face two types of out-of-pocket payments: (1) participation-related cost-sharing, typically in the form of monthly premiums, regardless of whether services are utilized, and (2) service-related cost-sharing, which consists of payments made directly to providers at the time of service delivery. Such beneficiary cost-sharing under Medicaid is described below. In order to obtain health insurance generally, enrollees may be required to pay monthly premiums and/or, less frequently, enrollment fees. Such charges are prohibited under traditional Medicaid for most eligibility groups. Nominal amounts set in regulations, ranging from $1 to $19 per month, depending on monthly family income and size, can be collected from (1) certain families moving from welfare to work who qualify for transitional assistance under Medicaid, and (2) pregnant women and infants with annual family income exceeding 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL), or, for example, about $19,800 for a family of two. Premiums and enrollment fees can exceed these nominal amounts for other specific groups. For example, for certain individuals who qualify for Medicaid due to high out-of-pocket medical expenses, states may implement a monthly fee as an alternative to meeting financial eligibility thresholds by deducting medical expenses from income (i.e., the "spend down" method). Cost-sharing is not capped for workers with disabilities and income up to 250% FPL. Premiums cannot exceed 7.5% of income for other workers with disabilities and income between 250% and 450% FPL. (If a state covers both groups, the same cost-sharing rules must apply.) Finally, some groups covered by Medicaid through certain waivers can be charged premiums that exceed nominal amounts. Under DRA authority, the general rules regarding applicable premiums are specified for three income ranges. For individuals with income under 100% FPL, and between 100% to 150% FPL, premiums are prohibited. Like traditional Medicaid, other specific groups (e.g., some children, pregnant women, individuals with special needs) are also exempt from paying premiums under the new DRA option. For persons with income above 150% FPL, DRA places no limits on the amount of premiums that may be charged. For the most part, premiums are not used under traditional Medicaid, except for workers with disabilities and waiver populations. Among the four states (Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia) with approval for alternative DRA benefit packages, only Kentucky imposes monthly premiums: (1) $20/family with children with income over 150% FPL who are enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP; additional details below), and (2) up to $30/family (not to exceed 3% of the adjusted, average monthly income) during the last six months of transitional Medicaid for working families with income over 100% FPL. Beneficiary out-of-pocket payments to providers at the time of service can take three forms. A deductible is a specified dollar amount paid for all services rendered during a specific time period (e.g., per month or year) before health insurance (e.g., Medicaid) begins to pay for care. Coinsurance is a specified percentage of the cost or charge for a specific service rendered. A copayment is a specified dollar amount for each item or service delivered. While deductibles and coinsurance are rarely used in traditional Medicaid, copayments are applied to some services and groups. The Appendix provides a comparison of the maximum charges allowed for service-related cost-sharing under traditional Medicaid, DRA, and SCHIP. SCHIP is a capped federal grant that allows states to cover low-income, uninsured children in families with income above Medicaid eligibility thresholds. Children may be enrolled in separate SCHIP programs for which SCHIP rules apply (shown in the Appendix ), or in Medicaid, for which traditional Medicaid or DRA rules apply. Some states (e.g., Kentucky) have both types of SCHIP programs (a Medicaid expansion and a separate SCHIP program), for which children with the highest income levels are enrolled in the separate program. Service-related cost-sharing under separate SCHIP programs generally parallels the rules under traditional Medicaid for lower-income subgroups; there are no limits specified for higher-income subgroups. Total SCHIP cost-sharing is capped at 5% of family income per eligibility period. Service-related cost-sharing under traditional Medicaid is prohibited for the following specific groups and services: (1) children under 18, (2) pregnant women for pregnancy-related services, (3) services provided to certain institutionalized individuals, (4) individuals receiving hospice care, (5) emergency services, and (6) family planning services and supplies. For most other groups and services, nominal amounts are allowed. For example, nominal copayments specified in regulations range from $0.50 to $3, depending on the payment for the item or service. These nominal amounts will be increased by medical inflation beginning in 2006 (regulations not yet released). Under the DRA option, certain groups and services are also exempt from the service-related cost-sharing provisions. These exemptions are nearly identical to those under traditional Medicaid. However, under traditional Medicaid, all children under 18 are exempt, while under DRA, only children covered under mandatory eligibility groups (the lowest income categories) and certain foster care/adoption assistance youth are exempt. Also, groups exempted from the general service-related cost-sharing provisions under DRA may nonetheless be subject to cost-sharing for non-emergency services provided in a hospital emergency room (ER), and/or for prescribed drugs (see the Appendix ). Under SCHIP, only American Indian and Alaskan Native children are exempt from cost-sharing, and cost-sharing is also prohibited for well-baby and well-child services. Among the four states with approval for alternative benefit packages via DRA, only Kentucky includes cost-sharing for participants, summarized in Table 1 . For many services across the four Kentucky plans, there is no cost-sharing for beneficiaries. When applicable, copayments for selected non-institutional services, acute inpatient hospital care, and for generic and preferred brand-name drugs are very similar to the maximums allowed under traditional Medicaid. For non-preferred brand-name drugs and for non-emergency care in an ER, a 5% coinsurance charge will be applicable in most cases. For all four Kentucky plans, the maximum annual out-of-pocket expense per member is $225 for health care services and $225 for prescriptions. Additionally, under DRA, the total aggregate amount of all cost-sharing (premiums plus service-related charges) cannot exceed 5% of family income applied on a monthly or quarterly basis as specified by the state. Under Kentucky's DRA SPA, this limit is applied on a quarterly basis. The rules governing consequences for failure to pay premiums differ somewhat under traditional Medicaid and DRA. Under traditional Medicaid, for certain groups of pregnant women and infants for whom monthly premiums may be charged, states cannot require prepayment, but may terminate Medicaid eligibility when failure to pay such premiums continues for at least 60 days. In contrast, under DRA, states may condition Medicaid coverage on the payment of premiums, but like traditional Medicaid, states may terminate Medicaid eligibility only when nonpayment continues for at least 60 days. States can apply this DRA provision to some or all applicable groups. Under both traditional Medicaid and DRA, states may waive premiums in cases of undue hardship. In Kentucky, benefits are terminated after two months of non-payment of premiums for children in the separate SCHIP program. Upon payment of a missed premium, re-enrollment is allowed. After 12 months of non-payment, payment of the missed premium is not required for re-enrollment. Also, working families with transitional Medicaid will lose coverage after two months of missed premiums unless good cause is established. There are more differences between traditional Medicaid and DRA with respect to rules for failure to pay service-related cost-sharing. Under traditional Medicaid, providers cannot deny care to beneficiaries due to an individual's inability to pay a cost-sharing charge. However, this requirement does not eliminate the beneficiary's liability for payment of such charges. In contrast, under DRA, states may allow providers to require payment of authorized cost-sharing as a condition of receiving services. Providers may be allowed to reduce or waive cost-sharing on a case-by-case basis. P.L. 109-432 exempts individuals in families with income below 100% FPL from the DRA failure to pay rules for both premiums and service-related cost-sharing. According to state regulations, Kentucky requires all providers to collect applicable cost-sharing from Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of service delivery or at a later date. No provider can waive cost-sharing, but only pharmacy providers can deny services for failure to pay (as per a state law). Finally, under SCHIP, states must specify consequences applicable to nonpayment of premiums and/or service-related cost-sharing, and must institute disenrollment protections (e.g., providing both reasonable notice and an opportunity to pay policies). | Under traditional Medicaid, states may require certain beneficiaries to share in the cost of Medicaid services, although there are limits on the amounts that states can impose, the beneficiary groups that can be required to pay, and the services for which cost-sharing can be charged. Prior to DRA, changes to these rules required a waiver. DRA provides states with new options for benefit packages and cost-sharing that may be implemented through Medicaid state plan amendments (SPAs) rather than waiver authority. These rules vary by beneficiary income level and for some types of service. The recently enacted P.L. 109-432 (Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006) modified the DRA cost-sharing rules. This report describes the new cost-sharing options and recent state actions to implement these provisions, and will be updated as additional activity warrants. |
The Australian radio presenters who made a prank call to the hospital treating the Duchess of Cambridge three days before the nurse who handled the call apparently killed herself have been taken off the air until further notice.
The Sydney station 2Day FM released a statement on Friday evening expressing its sadness at Jacintha Saldanha's death and saying the presenters responsible for the call, Mel Greig and Michael Christian, were "both deeply shocked".
It was not clear whether the pair had been suspended, nor whether they would return to their jobs.
"Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) and 2Day FM are deeply saddened by the tragic news of the death of nurse Jacintha Saldanha from King Edward VII's hospital and we extend our deepest sympathies to her family and all that have been affected by this situation around the world," said the statement.
"Chief executive officer Rhys Holleran has spoken with the presenters. They are both deeply shocked and at this time we have agreed that they not comment about the circumstances. SCA and the hosts have decided that they will not return to their radio show until further notice out of respect for what can only be described as a tragedy."
Vicki Heath, PR manager for Southern Cross Austereo, which owns 2Day FM, said she was being inundated with calls.
Speaking to the Guardian in the early hours of the morning in Australia, Heath said: "We've just heard about it and I guess there's still a lot of detail that we are unaware of."
Heath said the process of removing content relating to the prank from the station's website was under way.
She said: "We are working through all of that at the moment. We are just having to get the right people out of bed."
Heath added that the station had learned of the nurse's death when it was contacted at around midnight, local time, by the Daily Mail. ||||| Australian radio station boss refuses to sack Royal prank DJs and claims THEY are the victims
Jacintha Saldanha found unconscious near King Edward VII Hospital
Mother-of-two transferred prank call from Australian DJs asking about Kate
William and Kate 'deeply saddened' by death and said they did not complain
Presenters behind the hoax are taken off air following tragedy
Australian media regulator inundated with complaints about prank
Companies pull advertising from station following incident
Mel Greig and Michael Christian boasted about prank as tragedy unfolded
Both deleted their Twitter accounts after global backlash following death
Hospital has written letter to radio station's parent company
Described the prank as 'truly appalling' and 'extremely foolish'
By Mario Ledwith and Richard Sears
|
The boss of the radio company at the centre of the royal hoax call today refused to sack the DJs behind the stunt and painted them as victims.
2DayFM presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian were taken off air after it emerged the nurse who took their prank call at Kate Middleton's hospital had died in a suspected suicide.
Jacintha Saldanha, a 46-year-old mother of two, had been manning the hospital switchboard when the Australian hoaxers called and she transferred the call to the Duchess of Cambridge's ward.
Tragic: The grieving husband of nurse Jacintha Saldanha who died in a suspected suicide has tonight told of his devastation at her death. She is pictured centre, believed to be with her two children
Loss: Benedict Barboza, a 49-year-old hospital accountant, also known as Ben, posted a tribute to Mrs Saldanha on his Facebook page. He is pictured, left. It is believed the youngster on the right is the couple's son
Rhys Holleran, the chief executive of Southern Cross Austereo, which owns the station, said the presenters were 'completely shattered' and had been offered counselling.
His comments were made before King Edward VII hospital said they had sent a letter of complaint to the company about the 'truly appalling' prank earlier today.
Lord Glenarthur, chairman of the hospital , said that he wanted to 'protest' against the prank and seek assurances that the station would never do anything similar again.
Mr Holleran told a press conference in Melbourne that the primary concern was for the family of Jacintha Saldanha, whose body was found yards from the King Edward VII Hospital yesterday.
He said: 'I spoke to both presenters early this morning and it's fair to say they are completely shattered.
Nurse Jacintha Saldanha, 46, died yesterday in an apparent suicide after she transferred a hoax call from Australian DJs who retrieved sensitive information about Kate Middleton while in hospital
' These people aren't machines, they're human beings. What happened is incredibly tragic and we’re deeply saddened and we’re incredibly affected by that.’
He added: 'I think prank calls as a craft in radio have been going for decades and decades and are not just part of one radio station or network or country.
'No-one could have reasonably foreseen what ended up being an incredibly tragic day.'
Mr Holleran declined to reveal who had dreamed up the prank call but said: ‘These things are often done collaboratively.'
A source confirmed that 2DayFM’s lawyers had listened to audio of the entire call and had given it clearance to go to air.
Mr Holleran said it was ‘a bit early’ to be drawing conclusions from what was really a ‘deeply tragic matter.’
He added: ‘I don’t think anyone could have reasonably foreseen that this was going to be a result.'
This evening, the grieving husband of nurse Mrs Saldanha has told of his devastation at her death.
Benedict Barboza, a 49-year-old hospital accountant, also known as Ben, posted a tribute to Mrs Saldanha on his Facebook page.
He wrote: 'I am devastated with the tragic loss of my beloved wife Jacintha in tragic circumstances, She will be laid to rest in Shirva, India.'
Mrs Saldanha found herself at the centre of the controversy after answering the DJs' call, when they obtained intimate details about Kate Middleton's condition by posing as the Queen and Prince Charles.
The grieving family of the 'excellent' nurse said: 'We as a family are deeply saddened by the loss of our beloved Jacintha.'
Scroll down for video
Facing the media; Southern Cross Austereo CEO Rhys Holleran came out in defence of the DJs behind the prank call to Kate Middleton's hospital
Tragedy: Kate and WIlliam have said they are 'deeply saddened' by Jacintha Saldanha's death and paid tribute to the care the Duchess received at the King Edward VII Abuse: Australian radio presenters Christian Michael and Mel Greig, whose prank call about the Duchess of Cambridge was transferred by nurse Jacintha Saldanha, have been bombarded with abuse on Twitter following news of her suspected suicide. They later removed their accounts
Prince William and his pregnant wife Kate told how they are 'deeply saddened' by the tragedy. A Palace spokesman said the couple had not made a complaint about the prank call. 'Their thoughts and prayers are with Jacintha Saldanha’s family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time,' a statement said. When asked if they had expressed concern, the spokesman added: 'On the contrary we offered our full and heartfelt support to the nurses involved and hospital staff at all times.'
Sombre: Police guard the front of King Edward VII's hospital yesterday where Jacintha Saldanha had worked as a nurse for four years
The shockwaves over the death of the nurse have spread rapidly around Australia.
Australia's media regulator was inundated with complaints about the prank.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which regulates radio broadcasting, has said it is currently in the process of discussing the matter with the Sydney-based station.
A spokesman for the ACMA said it had received 'a lot' of complaints but declined to give a figure.
'Terrible tragedy': Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has offered her condolences to Jacintha's family
The spokesman said: 'We've had a lot but it doesn't actually matter, we only need one complaint to launch an investigation.
'But we haven't launched an investigation yet, we're engaging with the licensee at the moment.'
ACMA chairman Chris Chapman said: 'These events are a tragedy for all involved and I pass on my heartfelt condolences to the family of the deceased nurse in London.
'The ACMA does not propose to make any comments at this stage, but will be engaging with the licensee, Today FM Sydney, around the facts and issues surrounding the prank call.'
British-born Prime Minister Julia Gillard described the death as 'a terrible tragedy' and, through a spokesman, passed on her deep-felt condolences to the family of Jacintha.
Mrs Saldanha, also known as Jess, is thought to have come to the UK from southern India ten years ago and settled in the UK with her partner, 49-year-old hospital accountant Benedict Barboza.
The couple bought their £123,000 three-bedroomed home in 2005 in the Westbury-on-Trym district of Bristol.
After registering as a nurse in 2003 when she initially worked for the North Bristol NHS Trust, which runs Frenchay and Southmead hospitals, it is believed the nurse chose to apply for a job at King Edward VII four years ago and appears to have been living in the nursing accommodation ever since.
She has a son called Junal, 16, and daughter, believed to be 14. She stayed in London when she was working before returning to her family on days off.
Mrs Saldanha is thought to have been from the Mangalore region of India. She is thought to have spent time in the Middle East before moving to Britain .
The hospital said Mrs Saldanha had not been disciplined over the call.
'Deeply saddened': Body believed to be that of Jacintha Saldanha was found in lodgings only yards from the hospital where she worked Death: A police officer stands outside the home of Jacintha Saldanha in Bristol yesterday evening
Distraught: Nurses at the hospital head inside while clinging to eachother after hearing the news about Jacintha
Shattered: Hospital chief executive John Lofthouse spoke of their pain and sadness at the news of Jacintha's death - and clearly linked it to the hoax call she took from the Australian DJs
Told about the tragedy last night, Vicki Heath, a spokesman for 2DayFM, said: ‘Is this is a hoax call? You’re having me on, aren’t you?’ Assured that the call was genuine, she burst into tears.
‘I can’t believe this – I just can’t believe it,’ she said. ‘Oh my God, oh no.’
The owners of the radio station that employ Mel Greig and Michael Christian announced that the duo will not return to their show until further notice.
It is believed that senior management at 2Day FM were so shocked at the death of Jacintha that bosses have ordered the pair off the air.
Concerns were expressed last night about the well-being of the DJs.
Jeff Kennett, Melbourne-based chairman of the Beyond Blue group, which deals with people with mental issues, said: ‘Australians should support, rather than crucify, the pair for a prank made in good faith.’
He added: 'This is going to have terrible ramifications in terms of the impact on people’s lives well beyond the nurse in the UK.
‘I hope that both Mel and Michael are strong and firm. Nothing they did was offensive, it was a joke, a prank, never intended to have any ramifications of this sort
‘We’ve got to be careful we don’t become so politically correct that we deny ourselves the opportunity right now to extend to these two all the support we can to ensure that they come through this as strongly as possible.’
Others have come out in support of the DJs and said they were not to blame for what happened to the nurse – rather, the hospital should have had more strenuous security measures in place
The telephone giant Telstra, joined a list of companies removing their advertising from the radio station last night.
The station's owner was forced to pull advertising over panic from advertisers.
Patrol: Police officers walk outside King Edward VII hospital
Scene: A police car outside the lodgings where Jacintha Saldanha's body was found yesterday morning
Accommodation: The lodgings where Jacintha was staying - around the corner from the hospital
Guard: An officer guards the entrance to the block where the nurse's body was found
'A FIRST CLASS NURSE WHO CARED DILIGENTLY FOR HUNDREDS'
King Edward VII hospital spoke of the their shock at the death of Jacintha Saldanha in a statement:
'It is with very deep sadness that we confirm the tragic death of a member of our nursing staff, Jacintha Saldanha.
'Jacintha has worked at the King Edward VII’s Hospital for more than four years. She was an excellent nurse and well-respected and popular with all of her colleagues.
'We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital. The hospital had been supporting her throughout this difficult time.'
John Lofthouse, Chief Executive at King Edward VII’s Hospital, said: 'Our thoughts and deepest sympathies at this time are with her family and friends. Everyone is shocked by the loss of a much loved and valued colleague."
Lord Glenarthur, Chairman of King Edward VII’s Hospital, says, 'This is a tragic event. Jacintha was a first class nurse who cared diligently for hundreds of patients during her time with us. She will be greatly missed.'
A statement from the station owners said: 'Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) and 2Day FM are deeply saddened by the tragic news of the death of the nurse, Jacintha Saldanha from King Edward VII Hospital and we extend our deepest sympathies to her family, and all that have been affected by this situation around the world.
'CEO Rhys Holleran has spoken with the presenters, they are both deeply shocked, and at this time we have agreed that they not comment about the circumstances.
'SCA and the hosts have decided that they will not return to their radio show, until further notice out of respect for what can only be described as a tragedy.'
News of the death broke in the middle of the night in Australia and it was only during the evening London time yesterday that Australians woke to hear about the tragedy.
It led the news on every radio station, including the national broadcaster ABC. It reported that there had been an outpouring of anger in the UK and said thousands of people had demanded that the DJs be fired.
The Palace declined to say whether the Duchess met Jacintha Saldanha but it was very possible.
Staff at King Edward VII hospital were not believed to be disciplining Jacintha over the incident. It said it announced her death with 'very deep sadness.'
The statement added: 'Jacintha has worked at the King Edward VII Hospital for more than four years. She was an excellent nurse and well respected and popular with all over her colleagues.'
Ms Saldanha answered the hoax call at 5.30am on Tuesday morning and transferred the call through to Kate's ward.
Another nurse then told the giggling DJs, Mel Greig and Michael Christian, who were pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles, how the Duchess was about to 'get freshened up'.
The station apologised for 'any inconvenience caused' but provoked widespread fury and disbelief by continuing to promote its hoax, calling it 'the prank call the world is talking about', before playing clips of the recording.
As the backlash grew the DJs both deleted their Twitter accounts.The radio station's Facebook page was bombarded with thousands of abusive comments from outraged users.
Shock: The exact cause of Jacintha's death has not yet been confirmed but it is being treated as suicide
Dr Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: 'This is tragic news, and the thoughts of all at the Royal College of Nursing go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha.
'It is deeply saddening that a simple human error due to a cruel hoax could lead to the death of a dedicated and caring member of the nursing profession.'
Officers from Scotland Yard launched an investigation yesterday and are treating the death as ‘unexplained’.
A Downing Street spokesman said: ‘The Prime Minister’s thoughts are with the family and colleagues of Jacintha Saldanha at this sad time.’
The exact cause of death remained unclear. However, one source indicated that the woman appeared to have killed herself.
A neighbour said the family have lived in their £130,000 terraced home in Bristol for about eight years.
Household: The Bristol home of Jacintha Saldanha following news of her death yesterday
The neighbour said: 'They're a lovely family - Ben gives my lad a lift when he goes refereeing at Bristol Rovers with Junal.
'It's so so tragic, she was such a lovely woman.
'She must have thought there was no way back, that's the only thing I can think of.'
Another neighbour of Mrs Saldanha described the tragic nurse as 'a lovely woman'.
Marianne Homes, 49, said: 'I've always known her as the doctor, she was always very smartly dressed.
'Their son was always really into football, we always saw him with a ball kicking it about with his friends.
'She was a lovely woman, everytime I saw her she would talk to me.
'I hadn't seen her for a while, I wondered what had happened to her it's so sad to know this has happened.
'She was always so smartly dressed and well presented.
'I think her kids are secondary school age, she definitely has one boy and one girl.'
A former neighbour of the nurse described her as a 'nice, lovely lady'.
Boast: 2dayFM kept a recording of the prank on their website days after it was first broadcast
Pose: DJ Mel Greig lies across the laps of One Direction when they flew into Australia this year
Still boasting: DJ Michael Christian's Twitter feed pictured after the incident
Abuse: DJ Mel Greig has deleted her Twitter account after she was bombarded with messages calling on her to quit Fighting back tears, she said: 'What a terrible tragedy - just before Christmas as well. Oh those two young boys - they'll be heartbroken. Her and Ben were a lovely couple.
'They didn't live here very long, but they were such nice neighbours - they invited us in for a curry when they moved in.
'They lived here seven or eight years ago, if not more. They kept themselves to themselves mostly.
'They bought their own house and moved on - they were just renting here I think.
'I can't believe what happened. It's so sad, so tragic. They always spoke to us - she was such a nice lady.
'It's devastating to hear she's gone - and in such circumstances that could be so easily avoided.
'Those Australians that called the hospital want stringing up.' Even yesterday, before news of the death, DJ Michael Christian was urging people to tune in to their show to hear more about the prank. In the 5.30am call, Mrs Saldanha had connected them to another nurse who gave details of Kate's condition.
The presenters, from 2Day FM, remarked during their show how their efforts were the 'easiest prank call ever made', as they put on mock British accents they later described as 'terrible'.
The Australian station and presenters advertised the stunt worldwide. Both presenters have deleted their Twitter accounts after an online backlash called for them to lose their jobs. One user, Alison Hassell, told Greig: 'If you have any kind of conscience or morals..... Right about now you should be typing your resignation.'
Scott Ashworth tweeted: 'You scumbag, hope you get what's coming to you!', while another user, Michael Hird, wrote: 'I hope you're happy now.. The receptionist you rang has COMMITTED SUICIDE! You have blood on your hands now!'
Greig also received what appeared to be threats on the social networking site.
Costas Loizou swore at the presenter and ended his message: 'I might start calling your mum and leaving messages..in fact expect one on xmas day....'
Other users directed abuse at her co-presenter Christian. Justine Daniel told him the hoax was a 'sick joke' and added: 'Hope you're banished from being on air forever.' Peter Timmins wrote: 'There are no words to describe the disgust that everyone else is feeling about the prank you thought so funny.'
Sinead Gavaghan called him a 'vile, stupid creature', while Chris Campbell claimed: 'You should be fired and the station shut down.'
In the call at 5.30am on Tuesday impersonating the Queen, Miss Greig said: ‘Oh, hello there. Could I please speak to Kate please, my granddaughter?’ Row: The DJs - known simply as Matty and Mel - have been linked to the suspected suicide by the hospital Jacintha worked in Shame: Mel Greig pictured with Australian singer Natalie Bassingthwaighte, bragged along with her co-presenter for days of their hoax phone call Thinking she was speaking to the Queen, the receptionist replied: ‘Oh yes, just hold on ma’am’. She then put the presenters through to one of the nurses who was caring for the Duchess. The nurse also believed she was speaking to the Queen and went on to make a number of deeply personal observations about Kate’s health. A recording of the entire conversation was played on the Sydney-based radio station 2Day. A radio station spokesman later apologised for the 'inconvenience' caused by the call.
According to the website of the talent agency that promotes Greig, the prank was 'a bit of fun and indicative of Mel's high energy, anything for a laugh, personality'. Her profile reads: 'Mel started at 2Day FM, Sydney's number one hit music station, in early 2012 after five years experience in commercial radio and off the back of running her own radio school from her home town in Adelaide.
'Mel is well known and loved for her stint on The Amazing Race Australia in 2011 with sister Alana.
'She is also the consummate MC and has hosted everything from fashion events, modelling comps and award nights.'
Hospital boss John Lofthouse confirmed his staff had passed on information about Kate, saying: 'This was a foolish prank call that we all deplore.' Third visit: Prince William arrives at the King Edward VII Hospital to visit his wife the Duchess of Cambridge in central London
A Scotland Yard spokesman said yesterday: ‘Police were called at approximately 9.25am on Friday, December 7, to a report of a woman found unconscious an address in Weymouth Street, W1. ‘London Ambulance Service attended and the woman was pronounced dead at the scene.
'Inquiries are continuing to establish the circumstances of the incident. ‘The death is not being treated as suspicious at this stage’. In a statement, the Royal College of Nursing said: 'The Royal College of Nursing has expressed sadness at the death of the nurse from the London hospital treating the Duchess of Cambridge who took a hoax call about the Duchess's condition. 'Jacintha Saldanha, who was found dead this morning, had worked at the King Edward VII Hospital for more than four years and was described by the hospital as a first-class nurse who had cared diligently for hundreds of patients during her time there.'
Dr Peter Carter, RCN Chief Executive & General Secretary, said: 'This is tragic news, and the thoughts of all at the Royal College of Nursing go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha. 'It is deeply saddening that a simple human error due to a cruel hoax could lead to the death of a dedicated and caring member of the nursing profession.'
MailOnline did not publish details of the tragedy until the hospital confirmed the woman's family had been contacted. Scrum: John Lofthouse the Chief Executive of King Edward VII's hospital and Lord Glenarthur, the hospital's Chairman, deliver a statement LEVESON: AUSSIE HOAX PROVES NEW PRIVACY LAWS NEEDED
The prank call by Australian radio presenters who got a condition report from the Duchess of Cambridge's nurse by pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles proves the need for new privacy laws, Lord Justice Leveson has said. He blamed the 'historic failure' of successive British governments for failing to curb media intrusion and added individuals who tweet or use social media platforms are not beyond reach of the criminal law.
The judge also criticised European magazines for publishing photographs of Kate topless on holiday and blamed the 'historic failure' of successive governments to curb media intrusion.
During a speech in Sydney, he refused to respond to what he described as 'misconceived' criticism of his milestone report into the press.
He was speaking to a £620-a-head audience at the Shangri-La Hotel.
Leveson criticised 'certain sections' of the press which had “started to push against ethical boundaries and in some instances have pushed too far'. He then highlighted the 'recent Australian intrusion' into the Duchess of Cambridge’s 'private life while she was in hospital'. The Duchess of Cambridge is now resting at the London home she shares with Prince William after her release from the hospital where she had been recovering from hyperemesis gravidarum. She was forced to cancel a string of engagements because of her acute morning sickness. Kate, who was admitted to hospital on Monday, returned to Nottingham Cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace and cancelled upcoming engagements after doctors told her to rest. And she may have to recuperate without Prince William by her side, as he may be returning to duty with his Search and Rescue squadron at RAF Valley in Anglesey, it has been reported.
She missed a planned fundraising engagement in the City of London on Wednesday because she was confined to hospital. William and the Duchess of Cambridge had been hoping to keep the news they were expecting a baby to themselves until Christmas Day.
But with Kate admitted to hospital with acute morning sickness, they had little choice but to make the announcement.
They delighted millions around the world – including their own families – with the happy news.
But as the word spread, the parents-to-be were together in hospital, facing the first hurdle in a much longed for pregnancy.
Kate, 30, who is barely eight weeks pregnant, was taken to the hospital just after Sunday lunch by her husband and immediately put on a drip to stop her becoming dehydrated.
For confidential support call the Samaritans in the UK on 08457 90 90 90 or visit a local Samaritans branch. 'ROYAL HOSPITAL PRIDES ITSELF ON DISCRETION AND EXCELLENT CARE '
King Edward VII hospital is one of the most exclusive private hospitals in the country, attracting world-class medical specialists
It has been treating the Royal Family since it opened in 1899 at the suggestion of the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and its patron is the Queen.
It prides itself on 'a strong tradition of excellence in nursing', with one of the best nurse-to-patient ratios in the country, far exceeding the national average.
Its website states: 'Our nursing staff are some of the very best and - unlike many hospitals - the vast majority are permanently employed by us.'
It also states there has never been a case of hospital acquired MRSA or C-difficile.
The hospital has been run by John Lofthouse, who has been chief executive since June 2009. Prior to that he worked as a general manager at the privately owned Circle Health, managing the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre.
Previous royal patients of King Edward VII include Prince Philip, who was treated for a bladder infection in June. Other royal patients are said to include Prince Charles, the Queen herself, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and the Countess of Snowdon.
However, it is unlikely that the new arrival to the family will be born at King Edward VII. St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, is the said to be the bookies' favourite, helping to affirm the new tradition of The royal family of having children in NHS hospitals.
Both Prince William and Prince Harry were born there, as were Zara and Peter Philips, the Princess Royal’s children. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were born in the private Portland Hospital, while older generations, including Prince Charles, have traditionally been born at Buckingham Palace.
As a registered charity, there are currently around 1,800 Friends of the Hospital who contribute £40 per year. The hospital also claims to have more than 4,000 supporters and the 2010 annual report shows that more than £2 million was raised through fundraising.
Founded by Agnes Keyser in 1899 as a hospital for sick and wounded Officers returning from the Boer War, subsidies are automatically offered to all Service patients and are given regardless of rank, length of service or treatment.
ANNA HODGEKISS
VIDEO: RADIO STATION BOSS 'DEEPLY SADDENED' BY NURSE DEATH | The Australian radio hosts whose royal hoax led to the apparent suicide of the nurse they tricked are off the air for the time being, reports the Guardian. Sydney station 2Day FM said Mel Greig and Michael Christian were "both deeply shocked" at the death of Jacintha Saldanha. "They will not return to their radio show until further notice out of respect for what can only be described as a tragedy." Earlier this week, the male-female radio team called up the London hospital where Kate Middleton was being treated and tricked Saldanha into giving them information by impersonating the queen. The mother of two was found unconscious today near King Edward VII hospital. "We as a family are deeply saddened by the loss of our beloved Jacintha," said a family statement. A hospital spokesperson called her an "excellent nurse," reports the Daily Mail. |
Fred Willard Arrested for Lewd Conduct
Fred Willard Arrested for Lewd Conduct
EXCLUSIVE
was arrested for lewd conduct last night in Hollywood when police allegedly caught him with his pants down in an adult movie theater ... TMZ has learned.According to law enforcement sources, LAPD undercover vice officers went into the Tiki Theater in Hollywood and found the 78-year-old "Anchorman" star watching last night's feature ... with his penis exposed and in his hand.We're told Willard was arrested around 8:45PM and booked for lewd conduct.It was a quick release -- we're told he was out of police custody a short while later.As for which movie Fred was watching -- there are 3 flicks in rotation at the theater ... "Follow Me 2," a XXX parody of "The Client List," and "Step Dad No. 2."Willard is best known for his memorable roles in "Best in Show", "For Your Consideration", "American Wedding" and "Everybody Loves Raymond."According to IMDB, Fred is "rumored" to be in pre-production for a movie entitled ... "."It's a comedy.We're starting to get comments from people who say Fred is 72 and not 78 ... but official records show that he was born on September 18, 1933 ... NOT 1939.-- Law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... the LAPD vice officers were not conducting a raid ... but rather a "random walk-through" of the premises.We're told ... when theaters like this get their license, they have to allow cops in whenever they want ... to inspect.In fact, the theater has a sign posted in the front which warns customers that the theater is "viewed by LAPD."The theater also warns, "No Alcohol, No Weapons, No smoking inside" ... and no pets.The signs do not warn about flogging the dolphin. ||||| Paul Reubens (; né Rubenfeld; born August 27, 1952)[1] is an American actor, writer, film producer, game show host, and comedian, best known for his character Pee-wee Herman. Reubens joined the Los Angeles troupe The Groundlings in the 1970s and started his career as an improvisational comedian and stage actor. In 1982, Reubens put up a show about a character he had been developing for years. The show was called The Pee-wee Herman Show and it ran for five sold-out months with HBO producing a successful special about it. Pee-wee became an instant cult figure and for the next decade, Reubens would be completely committed to his character, doing all of his public appearances and interviews as Pee-wee. In 1985 Pee-wee's Big Adventure, directed by the then-unknown Tim Burton, was a financial and critical success, and soon developed into a cult film. Big Top Pee-wee, 1988's sequel, was less successful than its predecessor. Between 1986 and 1990, Reubens starred as Pee-wee in the CBS Saturday-morning children's program Pee-wee's Playhouse.
Thereafter, Reubens decided to take a sabbatical from Pee-wee. In July 1991, Reubens was arrested for indecent exposure in an adult theater in Sarasota, Florida. The arrest set off a chain reaction of national media attention that changed the general public's view of Reubens and Pee-wee.[2] The arrest postponed Reubens' involvement in major projects until 1999 when he appeared in several big-budget projects including Mystery Men and Blow and started giving interviews as himself rather than as Pee-wee.
Since 2006, Reubens has been making cameos and guest appearances in numerous projects, such as Reno 911!, 30 Rock, Dirt, Pushing Daisies, and The Blacklist. Since the 1990s, he has worked on two possible Pee-wee films: one dark and adult, dubbed The Pee-wee Herman Story, and one a family-friendly epic adventure called Pee-wee's Playhouse: The Movie.[3] In 2010, he starred on Broadway in The Pee-wee Herman Show.
In 2016, Reubens helped write and starred in the Netflix original film Pee-wee's Big Holiday, reprising his role as Pee-wee Herman.[4]
Early life and education
Reubens as a high school senior, 1970
Reubens was born Paul Rubenfeld in Peekskill, New York, and grew up in Sarasota, Florida, where his parents, Judy (Rosen) and Milton Rubenfeld, owned a lamp store. His mother was a teacher. His father was an automobile salesperson who had flown for Britain's Royal Air Force and for the U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II, later becoming one of the founding pilots of the Israeli Air Force during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[5] Paul has two younger siblings, Luke (born 1958), who is a dog trainer,[6] and Abby (born 1953),[7] who is an attorney, and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.[8][9][10]
Reubens spent a significant amount of his childhood in Oneonta, New York. As a child, Reubens frequented the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, whose winter headquarters was in Sarasota. The circus's atmosphere sparked Reubens' interest in entertainment and influenced his later work.[11][12] Reubens also loved to watch reruns of I Love Lucy, which made him want to make people laugh.[13] At age five, Reubens asked his father to build him a stage, where he and his siblings would put on plays.[14]
Reubens attended Sarasota High School, where he was named president of the National Thespian Society. He was accepted into Northwestern University's summer program for gifted high-school students and also joined the local Asolo Theater and Players of Sarasota Theater, appearing in several plays.[6] After graduation, he attended Boston University and began auditioning for acting schools. He was turned down by several schools, including Juilliard, and twice by Carnegie-Mellon, before being accepted at the California Institute of the Arts and moving to California, where he worked in restaurant kitchens and as a Fuller Brush salesman.[6]
In the 1970s, Reubens performed at local comedy clubs and made four guest appearances on The Gong Show as part of a boy–girl act he had developed with Charlotte McGinnis, called The Hilarious Betty and Eddie.[6] He soon joined the Los Angeles–based improvisational comedy team The Groundlings and remained a member for six years, working with Bob McClurg, John Paragon, Susan Barnes, and Phil Hartman. Hartman and Reubens became friends, often writing and working on material together.[15] In 1980, he had a small part as a waiter in The Blues Brothers.
Pee-wee Herman
Reubens giving an interview in character at the 1988 Academy Awards
The character of "Pee-wee Herman" originated during a 1978 improvisation exercise with The Groundlings, where Reubens came up with the idea of a man who wanted to be a comic but was so inept at telling jokes that it was obvious to the audience that he would never make it.[16] Fellow Groundling Phil Hartman would afterwards help Reubens develop the character while another Groundling, John Paragon, would help write the show.[17][18] Despite having been compared to other famous characters, such as Hergé's Tintin and Collodi's Pinocchio,[19][20] Reubens says that there is no specific source for "Pee-wee" but rather a collection of ideas. Pee-wee's voice originated in 1970 when Reubens appeared in a production of Life with Father, where he was cast as one of the most obnoxious characters in the play, for which Reubens adopted a cartoon-like way of speaking that would become Pee-wee's.[21][22] Pee-wee's name resulted from a one-inch Pee Wee brand harmonica Reubens had as a child, and Herman was the surname of an energetic boy Reubens knew from his youth.[11][22] The first small gray suit Pee-wee ever wore had been handmade for director and founder of the Groundlings Gary Austin, who passed it on to Reubens, while "someone" handed him the "little kid bow tie" before a show.[23][24]
The Pee-wee Herman Show: 1981–1984
Reubens as Pee-wee Herman at the 1988 Academy Awards.
Reubens auditioned for Saturday Night Live for the 1980–1981 season, but Gilbert Gottfried, who was a close friend of the show's producer and had the same acting style as Reubens, got the place[14][24] (ironically, Gottfried would later get in trouble for joking about Reubens' indecent exposure arrest as an award presenter at the Emmys).[25] Reubens was so angry and bitter that he decided he would borrow money and start his own show in Los Angeles using the character he had been developing during the last few years, "Pee-wee Herman".[26]
With the help of other Groundlings like John Paragon, Phil Hartman and Lynne Marie Stewart, Pee-wee acquired a small group of followers and Reubens took his show to The Roxy Theatre where "The Pee-wee Herman Show" ran for five sellout months, doing midnight shows for adults and weekly matinees for children, moving into the mainstream when HBO aired The Pee-wee Herman Show in 1981 as part of their series On Location.[27] Reubens also appeared as Pee-wee in the 1980 film Cheech & Chong's Next Movie.[6] Although it was Reubens in the role of Pee-Wee, the end credits of the movie billed him as Hamburger Dude. Reubens' act had mainly positive reactions and quickly acquired a group of fans, despite being described as "bizarre",[28] and Reubens being described as "the weirdest comedian around".[29] Pee-wee was both "corny" and "hip", "retrograde" and "avant-garde".[30]
When Pee-wee's fame started growing, Reubens started to move away from the spotlight, keeping his name under wraps and making all his public appearance and interviews in character while billing Pee-wee as playing himself; Reubens was trying to "get the public to think that that was a real person".[16][27] Later on he would even prefer his parents be known only as Honey Herman and Herman Herman.[21] In the early and mid-1980s, Reubens made several guest appearances on Late Night with David Letterman as Pee-wee Herman which gave Pee-wee an even bigger following.[28] During the mid-1980s, Reubens traveled the United States with a whole new The Pee-wee Herman Show, playing notably at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Caroline's in New York City and, in 1984, in front of a full Carnegie Hall.[15]
Pee-wee's Big Adventure: 1985
The success of The Pee-wee Herman Show prompted Warner Bros. to hire Reubens to write a script for a full-length Pee-wee Herman film. Reubens' original idea was to do a remake of Pollyanna, which Reubens claims is his favorite film. Halfway through writing the script, Reubens noticed everyone at Warner Bros. had a bike with them, which inspired Reubens to start on a new script with Phil Hartman.[31] When Reubens and the producers of Pee-wee's Big Adventure saw Tim Burton's work on Vincent and Frankenweenie, they chose Burton to be the film's director.[32] The film tells the story of Pee-wee Herman embarking on nationwide adventure in search of his stolen bicycle. The movie went on to gross $40,940,662 domestically, recouping almost six times its $7 million budget.[33] At the time of release in 1985, the film received mixed reviews, but Pee-wee's Big Adventure developed into a cult film.[34]
Pee-wee's Playhouse: 1986–1991
After seeing the success of Pee-wee's Big Adventure, the CBS network approached Reubens with an ill-received cartoon series proposal.[20] In 1986, CBS agreed to sign Reubens to act, produce, and direct his live-action children's program, Pee-wee's Playhouse, with a budget of $325,000 per episode, the same price as a prime-time sitcom,[27] and no creative interference from CBS; although CBS did request a few minor changes throughout the years.[13] After casting actors like Laurence Fishburne and S. Epatha Merkerson, production began in New York City.[24] The opening credits of the show were sung by Cyndi Lauper. Playhouse was designed as an educational yet entertaining and artistic show for children and, despite being greatly influenced by 1950s shows Reubens watched as a child like The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, The Mickey Mouse Club, Captain Kangaroo and Howdy Doody, it quickly acquired a dual audience of kids and grownups.[19][22][23] Reubens, always trying to make of Pee-wee a positive role model, was after making a significantly moral show, one that would teach children the ethics of reciprocity.[23] Reubens believed that children liked the Playhouse because it was fast-paced, colorful and "never talked them down"; while parents liked the Playhouse because it reminded them of the past.[23]
In 1986, Reubens (billed as Paul Mall) was the voice of the ship's computer in Flight of the Navigator. In 1987, Reubens provided the voice of REX, the main robot in the George Lucas produced Disneyland attraction, Star Tours,[6] and reprised the role of Pee-wee Herman in cameo appearances in the film Back to the Beach and TV show Sesame Street, the latter of which made a cameo in Playhouse.[35]
Right after the success of Pee-wee's Big Adventure Reubens began working with Paramount Pictures on a sequel entitled Big Top Pee-wee. Reubens and George McGrath's script was directed by Grease director Randal Kleiser. The film was not as successful as its predecessor, receiving mild reviews and doing just over one third as well in the box office,[36][37] earning only $15 million.[38]
Reubens attended 1988 Academy Awards with Top co-star Valeria Golino, which stirred rumors that the two were dating.[39][40] The following year Reubens exchanged vows with Doris Duke's adopted daughter, Chandi Heffner, at a mock wedding over which Imelda Marcos presided, in Shangri-La, Doris Duke's mansion in Honolulu, Hawaii.[11]
Pee-wee's Playhouse aired from September 13, 1986, until November 10, 1990. Reubens had originally agreed to do two more seasons after the third, and when CBS asked Reubens about the possibility of a sixth season he declined, wanting to take a sabbatical.[24] Reubens had been suffering from burnout from playing Pee-wee full-time and had been warning that Pee-wee was temporary and that he had other ideas he would like to work on.[6] The parties agreed to end the show after five seasons, which included 45 episodes and a Christmas Special.[41] Playhouse garnered 15 Emmy Awards, all of them in the Creative Arts Emmy Award category.
Pee-wee's legacy
Reubens had not always thought of his character as one for children, but sometime during the mid-1980s, he started forming Pee-wee into the best role model he possibly could, making of his show a morally positive show that cared about issues like racial diversity.[23] Reubens was also careful on what should be associated to Pee-wee. Being a heavy smoker, he went to great lengths never to be photographed with a cigarette in his mouth, even refusing to endorse candy bars and other kinds of junk food, all the while trying to release his own sugar-free cereal "Ralston Purina Pee-wee Chow cereal", a project that died after a blind test.[11]
Harvard Lampoon ' s Elmer Award for lifetime achievement in comedy.[21] Reubens in 1985 receivings Elmer Award for lifetime achievement in comedy.
With his positive attitude and quirkiness, Pee-wee became an instant cult figure, earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame by 1989,[11] and successfully building a Pee-wee franchise, with toys, clothes and other items generating more than $25 million at its peak in 1988.[42] Reubens also published a book as Pee-wee in 1989 called Travels with Pee-Wee.[43] CBS aired reruns of Playhouse until July 1991, when Reubens was arrested, pulling from their schedule the last two remaining reruns.[44] Fox Family Channel briefly aired reruns of the Playhouse in 1998.[24] In early July 2006, Cartoon Network began running a teaser promo during its Adult Swim lineup. A later press release and many other promos confirmed that the show's 45 original episodes would nightly air from Monday to Thursday starting on that date.[45] Playhouse attracted 1.5 million viewers nightly. In 2007, TV Guide named Playhouse one of the top 10 TV cult classics of all time.[23] Several children's television personas cite Pee-wee Herman as an inspiration, including Blue's Clues's Steve Burns[46] and SpongeBob SquarePants's Stephen Hillenburg.[47]
In November 2004, all 45 episodes of the Playhouse, plus six episodes that had never before been released on home video, were released on DVD split between two box set collections. On July 3, 2013, Shout! Factory announced that they had acquired the rights to the entire series from Reubens, which was released on Blu-ray on October 21, 2014. In addition, the entire series was digitally remastered from the original 35mm film elements and original audio tracks.[48][49][50][51]
Pee-wee's small glen plaid suits seemed ridiculous during the 1980s, but since the late 1990s have made him a "style icon",[52] with fashion houses and designers like Christopher Bailey, Ennio Capasa, Miuccia Prada,[53] Viktor & Rolf,[54] and Thom Browne creating tightly cut suits with high armholes and short trousers that have been compared to Pee-wee's.[55] In early 2007 Nike released a collection of Nike SB sneakers called "Fallen Heroes". The collection was loosely inspired by Milli Vanilli, MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, and Pee-wee Herman. Pee-wee's sneakers use a gray and white color scheme with red detail, with an illustration on the insole of a man in a suit sitting alone in a theatre with his hand on his lap suggesting Reubens' 1991 theatre arrest.[56]
Reubens has mentioned he has plans for a museum, which would contain many of the Playhouse sets and props he still owns.[44]
1991 arrest and retreat from public eye
In July 1991, while visiting with relatives, Reubens was arrested in Sarasota, Florida, for masturbating during a film at an adult movie theater.[42] During a random police inspection, a detective who had observed Reubens detained him as he was readying to leave. (This sweep also resulted in three other arrests). When detectives examined his driver's license, Reubens told them, "I'm Pee-wee Herman", and offered to do a children's benefit for the sheriff's office, "to take care of this".[57] The next day, after a local reporter recognized Reubens' name, Reubens' attorney made the same offer to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune in exchange for withholding the story.[57] In 1971, Reubens had been arrested in the same county for loitering and prowling near an adult theater, though charges were dropped. His second arrest was in 1983 when Reubens was placed on two years' probation for possession of marijuana, although adjudication was withheld.[58] On the night of the arrest, Reubens went to Nashville, where his sister and lawyer lived, and then to New Jersey, where he would stay for the following months at his friend Doris Duke's estate.[11]
The 1991 arrest was widely covered, and Reubens and his character both became the subject of ridicule. Disney-MGM Studios suspended a video that showed Pee-wee explaining how voice-over tracks were made from its studio tour. Toys "R" Us removed Pee-wee toys from its stores.[42] It was commonly thought that Pee-wee's Playhouse got cancelled due to the arrest; in actuality the show was already retired as Reubens, claiming an overworked crew and fear of decline of quantity and quality in material, had decided against a sixth season. However, the popularity of the show had put it into syndication, which CBS revoked on July 29, 1991.[58][59][60][61] Reubens released a statement denying the charges.[62]
On November 7, 1991, Reubens pleaded no contest. The plea kept the charge off Reubens' record and obligated him to spend 75 hours performing community service, where he made two anti-drug public service announcements that were self-produced and financed.[63] One PSA had Pee-Wee explaining the dangers of cocaine, and a lesser known was with a claymation character called "Penny", which had been a staple of Pee-Wee's Playhouse. Both PSAs were praised for showing the dangers of drugs in a manner kids could understand.
Despite the negative publicity, many artists who knew Reubens, such as Cyndi Lauper, Annette Funicello, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and Valeria Golino, spoke out in his support.[35][42] Bill Cosby defended Reubens, saying, "Whatever [Reubens has] done, this is being blown all out of proportion." Other people who knew Reubens, such as Playhouse production designer Gary Panter, S. Epatha Merkerson, and Big Top Pee-wee director Randal Kleiser, also spoke in support.[24][35] Reubens' fans organized support rallies after CBS canceled the reruns, picketing in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco.[42][64] The TV news magazine A Current Affair received "tens of thousands" of responses to a Pee-wee telephone survey, in which callers supported Reubens by nine-to-one.[42]
Reubens, who for years would not give interviews or appear on talk shows,[59][62] did make a subsequent public appearance as Pee-wee at the 1991 MTV Video Music Awards on September 5,[65] where he asked the audience, "Heard any good jokes lately?" He received a standing ovation. Reubens then appeared as Pee-wee once in 1992, when he participated in a Grand Ole Opry tribute to Minnie Pearl.[20][24]
1990s and comeback in Blow
During the 1990s, Reubens kept a low profile, dedicating himself to writing and collecting a variety of things, "everything from fake food, to lamps",[27] although he did do some dubbing and took small parts in films such as 1992's Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Tim Burton's Batman Returns (Reubens portrayed the Penguin's father) and 1996's Matilda and Dunston Checks In. In 1993, he voiced for a character in another one of Burton's productions, The Nightmare Before Christmas. (Reubens would later voice Lock for the video game The Nightmare Before Christmas: Oogie's Revenge in 2004.)
Reubens dated actress Debi Mazar in 1993 after he started attending film premieres with her.[66] Reubens has since credited Mazar with ending his depression from his arrest.[67]
During the mid-1990s, Reubens played a recurring role on the TV series Murphy Brown. The role earned him positive reviews and his first and only non-Pee-wee Emmy nomination, for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Comedy Series. He appeared six times on the show between 1995 and 1997. Afterward, Reubens began working on an NBC pilot entitled Meet the Muckles, a show that would be based on You Can't Take It with You. The project got stuck in development hell, and was later dropped when Reubens' ideas grew too elaborate and expensive, although Philip Rosenthal blamed NBC's negative response on Reubens being on a "blacklist".[11]
By 1999, Reubens had given several interviews as himself and made public appearances while promoting the movie Mystery Men, the first being on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in 1999.[68] He also starred in Dwight Yoakam's Western South of Heaven, West of Hell, playing as a rapist and killer. In 2001, Reubens had his first extended television role since Playhouse, as the host of the short-lived ABC game show You Don't Know Jack, based on the game of the same name. It was cancelled after six episodes due to low ratings.[69]
Reubens played a flamboyant hairdresser turned drug dealer in Ted Demme's 2001 drama Blow, which starred Penélope Cruz and Johnny Depp. His performance was praised and he began receiving scripts for potential movie projects.[70][71]
Pornography arrest: 2002
In November 2002, while filming David LaChapelle's video for Elton John's "This Train Don't Stop There Anymore", Reubens learned that police were at his home with a search warrant, acting on a tip from a witness in the pornography case against actor Jeffrey Jones,[72] finding among over 70,000 items of kitsch memorabilia, two grainy videotapes and dozens of photographs that the city attorney's office characterized as a collection of child pornography.[2] Kelly Bush, Reubens' personal representative at the time, said the description of the items was inaccurate and claimed the objects were "Rob Lowe's sex videotape, and a few 30- to 100-year-old kitsch collectible images."[73] Reubens turned himself in to the Hollywood division of the LAPD and was charged with possession of obscene material improperly depicting a child under the age of 18 in sexual conduct.[74] The district attorney looked at Reubens' collection and computer and found no grounds for bringing any felony charges against him, while the city attorney, Rocky Delgadillo brought misdemeanor charges against Reubens on the last day allowed by the statute.[75] Reubens was represented by Hollywood criminal defense lawyer Blair Berk.[76] In December he pleaded not guilty through Berk, who also complained that the city attorney failed to turn over evidence to the defense, which City Attorney Richard Katz countered that prosecutors were not required to do until after arraignment, after which they did; neither side disclosed the contents.[77]
"One thing I want to make very, very clear, I don't want anyone for one second to think that I am titillated by images of children. It's not me. You can say lots of things about me. And you might. The public may think I'm weird. They may think I'm crazy or anything that anyone wants to think about me. That's all fine. As long as one of the things you're not thinking about me is that I'm a pedophile . Because that's not true." Paul Reubens on the charges.[27]
In March 2004, child pornography charges were dropped in exchange for Reubens' guilty plea to a lesser charge. For the next three years, he was required to register his address with the sheriff's office and he could not be in the company of minors without the permission of a parent or legal guardian.[27] Reubens later stated that he was a collector of erotica, including films, muscle magazines and a sizable collection of mostly homosexual vintage erotica,[2] such as photographic studies of teen nudes.[27] Reubens said that what the city attorney's office viewed as pornography, he considered to be innocent art and that what they described as people underage engaged in masturbation or oral copulation was, in fact, a judgmental point of view of the nudes that Reubens described as people "one hundred percent not" performing sexual acts.[27] Being an avid collector, Reubens had often purchased bulk lots, and one of his vintage magazine dealers declared that "there's no way" he could have known the content of each page in the publications he bought and that he recalled Reubens asking for "physique magazines, vintage 1960s material, but not things featuring kids".[2]
He spent the next two years in Florida, caring for his terminally ill father, who died in February 2004 of cancer.[5][78]
Later career
2004–2008
Reubens with the curator of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum in the Santa Cruz Mountains in March 2006
Reubens has made cameos and guest appearances in numerous projects. He played Rick of the citizen's patrol on the popular Comedy Central series Reno 911!, which gained him a small role in the 2007 film Reno 911!: Miami.[79] That same year he appeared in the second music video version of The Raconteurs song "Steady, As She Goes". The video has the band engaging in a comical soapbox car race, with Reubens playing the bad guy who sabotages the race.[80]
In 2007, Reubens attended his own tribute at the SF Sketchfest, where he talked about his career with Ben Fong-Torres.[14] He also signed with NBC to make a pilot on a show called Area 57, a sitcom about a passive-aggressive alien,[79] but it was not picked up for the 2007–2008 season.[81] Reubens did, however, appear on the hit NBC series 30 Rock as an inbred Austrian prince, a character Tina Fey created for him.[82] He also made three guest appearances on FX's series Dirt. This time he was recommended for the role by Dirt star and close friend Courteney Cox. Cox's husband, David Arquette, would then cast Reubens for his directorial debut, the 2007 film The Tripper.[78]
Reubens has also had small parts dubbing or making cameos in a series of Cartoon Network projects such as the 2006 television film Re-Animated, the animated cartoon series Chowder, Tom Goes to the Mayor, and Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!.
In 2008, Reubens was slated to appear as homeopathic antidepressant salesman Alfredo Aldarisio in the third episode of Pushing Daisies, but the role was recast with Raúl Esparza.[83][84] Reubens instead appeared in the role of Oscar Vibenius in the series' 7th and 9th episodes.
Also during 2008, Reubens did a PSA for Unscrew America, a website that aims to get people to change regular light bulbs for more energy-efficient ones in the form of CFLs and LED.[85] He has also been working on David O. Russell's Nailed and Todd Solondz's Life During Wartime.[86][87]
In 2009, Reubens voiced Bat-Mite in the Batman: The Brave and the Bold episode "Legends of the Dark Mite".[88]
2009–present: the new Pee-wee Herman Show and future films
In January 2009, Reubens hinted that negotiations were under way for his stage show to come back,[89] and in August the return of The Pee-wee Herman Show was announced.[90] Reubens said he felt Pee-wee calling, "I just got up one day and felt like I'm gonna come back, that was it."[91] The show is also a way to "introduce Pee-wee to the new generation that didn't know about it", preparing the way for Reubens' main project, the Playhouse movie.[92] Before this comeback, Reubens' present age and shape had been pointed out as a possible issue, since Pee-wee's slim figure and clean skin have been one of his trademarks. But after appearing for the first time since 1992 as Pee-wee at Spike TV's 2007 Guys' Choice Awards, Reubens had remained optimistic and had jokingly said he's no longer nervous about being young Pee-wee again thanks to digital retouching.[24]
The show was originally scheduled to begin November 8 and continue until the 29th at the Music Box Theater in Hollywood. Due to high demand, the show moved to Club Nokia @ LA Live and was scheduled to run between January 12, 2010, and February 7.[93] To promote the show Reubens once again gave interviews in character, appearing as a guest on The Jay Leno Show, The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien (as well as O'Brien's subsequent Legally Prohibited Tour) and Jimmy Kimmel Live! among others. A Twitter account, a Facebook account and a new website were made for Pee-wee after the show changed venues.[94]
On November 1, 2010, Reubens was a special guest star on a WWE Raw episode as Pee-wee.[95]
On November 11, 2010, the show relocated to New York for a limited run at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre, selling over $3 million in advance tickets.[96] An extra performance was taped for the HBO network on January 6, 2011, and debuted March 19.[97]
On January 15, 2011, Reubens appeared on Saturday Night Live as Pee-Wee in an extended and well received segment depicting Andy Samberg and Pee-wee getting drunk, taking a ride on a mechanical bull, doing the tequila dance and ambushing Anderson Cooper in an alley way with a chair.
From 2012 to 2013 Reubens contributed his voice talents to the animated series Tron: Uprising as Pavel.[98]
In 2014, Reubens appeared in TV on the Radio's music video for Happy Idiot.[99]
Pee-wee's Big Holiday and undeveloped scripts
Ever since Reubens started giving interviews again after his 2002 arrest, he has talked about the two scripts he has written for future Pee-wee Herman films.
Reubens once called his first script The Pee-wee Herman Story,[11] describing it as a black comedy. He has also referred to the script as "dark Pee-wee" or "adult Pee-wee",[13] with the plot involving Pee-wee becoming famous as a singer after making a hit single and moving to Hollywood, where "he does everything wrong and becomes a big jerk".[100] Reubens further explained the film has many "Valley of the Dolls moments".[71] Reubens thought this script would be the first one to start production, but in 2006 Reubens announced he was to start filming his second script in 2007.[13]
The second film, a family-friendly adventure, is called Pee-wee's Playhouse: The Movie by Reubens,[26][101] and follows Pee-wee and his Playhouse friends on a road-trip adventure, meaning that they would leave the house for the first time and go out into "Puppetland". All of the original characters of the show, live-action and puppets are included in Reubens' script. The story happens in a fantasy land that would be reminiscent of H.R. Pufnstuf and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.[100] In January 2009, Reubens told Gary Panter that the rejected first script of Pee-wee's Big Adventure (which they co-wrote) could have a movie deal very soon and that it would be "90 minutes of incredible beauty".[89] On December 2009, while in character, Reubens said this film is "already done, the script is already fully written; It's ready to shoot." Most of the film will take place in Puppetland and claymation might be used.[3]
Although he hasn't revealed much about the scripts, he has said that one of the two films opens in prison.[71] He has also said that using CGI for "updating" the puppets' looks could be an option, but it all depended on the budget the films would have.[13] Reubens once mentioned the possibility of doing one of the two as an animated film along the lines of The Polar Express, which uses performance capture technology, incorporating the movements of live actors into animated characters.[102]
Reubens approached Pee-wee's Big Adventure director Tim Burton with one of the scripts and talked to Johnny Depp about the possibility of having him portray Pee-wee, but Burton was too busy, and Depp said he would have to think about it.[100]
In January 2010, Reubens reprised his role as Pee-wee and reused the set of Pee-wee's Playhouse (albeit slightly modified) for a short sketch on Funny or Die. In the sketch, Pee-wee comes home and shows off a brand-new iPad given to him by Steve Jobs. This leads to a long argument between him and his puppet friends, who point out all of the iPad's disadvantages – even Conky himself points out its flaws by stating that "it looks like a giant iPhone". In the end, Pee-wee uses the iPad as a serving tray to hold glasses of milk and lemonade during a party being held at the Playhouse hours later.[103] All the voices of the puppet characters are dubbed in by different actors than the TV series, except for Globey whose voice is still done by George McGrath.
In June 2010, various film news sites reported that Paul Reubens was working with Judd Apatow on a new Pee-wee Herman feature film.[104]
In February 2015, Netflix acquired the rights to produce a new Pee-wee film entitled Pee-wee's Big Holiday with Apatow and Reubens producing the film, John Lee directing, and Reubens and Paul Rust writing the screenplay. The film released on March 18, 2016 on Netflix to positive reception.[105][106][107]
Filmography
Film
Television
Video games | This is probably not how you want to picture Fred Willard, but: He's gone and pulled a Pee-Wee (pun intended) and gotten himself arrested for allegedly masturbating in an adult movie theater. Undercover LAPD officers entered Hollywood's Tiki Theater last night and found Willard, who was watching one of the following three movies currently showing there: Follow Me 2, Step Dad No. 2, or a dirty parody of The Client List. He was charged with lewd conduct. Hilariously, Willard—who frequently appears in Christopher Guest mockumentaries and has also been seen in Anchorman and Everybody Loves Raymond, among other roles—has a new movie in the works called The Yank, TMZ notes. Click for a picture of the theater's sign, which specifically warns of the LAPD. |
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Air Force officer, his wife and four children were injured in the attack at the Brussels airport, U.S. officials said Tuesday, as more details began to surface about Americans hurt in the bomb blasts that killed at least 31 and wounded nearly 190.
The command also said that any official travel to the NATO hub would require approval. The restrictions don't apply to military personnel assigned to posts in the city.
European Command officials would not release details of the injuries to the Air Force officer or his family, due to privacy concerns. But U.S. officials confirmed the officer was a lieutenant colonel, and that he and his family were injured at the attacks in the airport. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the details publicly.
Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander U.S. European Command, said the U.S. will assist authorities in Belgium in any way they can, adding that we "will continue to stand by our NATO allies and partners to defeat these terrorists who threaten our freedoms and our way of life."
European Command said that it is continuing to confirm the safety of U.S. military personnel and families in the region, including those who may be there on vacation or official travel.
The injuries bring the total to at least nine Americans who were hurt in the explosions that ripped through the Brussels Airport and a metro station Tuesday. Mormon church officials said three missionaries from Utah were seriously injured in the airport attack and have been hospitalized.
The Islamic State militant group has claimed responsibility for the attack. ||||| Three Mormon missionaries from Utah and a U.S. Air Force member and his family were among an unknown number of Americans hurt on Tuesday in the deadly bomb attacks in Brussels, government and church officials said.
No Americans are known to be among the at least 30 people killed in the blasts at the airport and on a subway train in the Belgian capital, the U.S. State Department said.
The blasts occurred Tuesday morning in Brussels, which is also the headquarters of the European Union. The attack on the subway train occurred at a station close to EU institutions.
"We know that a number of U.S. citizens were injured in the attack, but we do not have an accurate figure right now," State Department spokesman John Kirby told a briefing.
The American missionaries and service member were all injured in the attack in the departure hall of Zaventem airport, according to the military and church officials.
The U.S. Air Force said the airman was from Joint Force Command Brunssum in the Netherlands. He was not identified by name, and officials provided no details on his condition or that of his injured family members.
"We are saddened by today's attacks and extend our sincere condolences to the victims and families of those impacted," Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said in a statement.
The three missionaries were seriously injured and have been hospitalized, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said in a statement.
The church identified them as Richard Norby, 66, Joseph Empey, 20, and Mason Wells, 19. They are based at the church's mission in Paris.
Empey's parents said he had been treated for burns to his hands, face and head, and had undergone surgery for shrapnel injuries to his legs.
"We have been in touch with him and he is grateful and in good spirits," Court and Amber Empey said in a statement.
A fourth missionary, Sister Fanny Rachel Clain, 20, of Montélimar, France, who was with the American missionaries, also was hospitalized with minor injuries. Although Clain was with the three other missionaries who were injured, she had left them and passed through airport security when the explosion occurred, the church said.
Three students from Quinnipiac University in Connecticut were in the Brussels airport at the time of the attack but are safe, the school said on Facebook.
(Additional reporting by David Alexander, Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, James Dalgleish and Leslie Adler) ||||| CLOSE Three Mormon missionaries from Utah were injured during the explosions at Brussels' international airport. Video provided by Newsy Newslook
Mormon missionary Richard Norby, 66, of Lehi, Utah, pictured with his wife, was injured in the Brussels airport attacks on Tuesday. (Photo: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Three Mormon missionaries from Utah were among those injured during terror attacks Tuesday in the main airport in Brussels, according to church officials and family members.
The bombings, two at the airport and one in the city's subway, killed at least 30 people and injured scores.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said the three — Richard Norby, 66, of Lehi, Joseph Empey, 20, of Santa Clara, and Mason Wells, 19, of Sandy — were serving in the church’s Paris mission. They were all “seriously injured” while dropping off another missionary at airport security, the church said in a statement.
“The missionaries were taking Sister Fanny Rachel Clain, 20, of Montélimar, France, to the airport,” the church's statement added. “Sister Clain had been serving in that mission while awaiting a permanent visa for the United States.”
In a later statement, the church said that Clain was hospitalized with minor injuries. "She was with the three other missionaries who were injured," the statement said, "but had left them and passed through airport security when the explosion occurred."
Mormon missionary Joseph Empey, 20, of Santa Clara, Utah, was injured in the Brussels attacks Tuesday. (Photo: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
In a Facebook post, Empey's parents, Court and Amber Empey, said that they were "grateful that Elder Empey and his companion Elder Wells are okay."
The couple said their son will need surgery on a leg wound "and does have some shrapnel in his ankles and knee. He has some 2nd degree burns to his hands and head. He has been in contact with us. We would all like to thank you for your love and prayers.”
In a later statement issued through the church's public affairs office, the Empeys said that surgery "was just completed for shrapnel injuries to his legs. We have been in touch with him and he is grateful and in good spirits. ... We are thankful for the outpouring of love and prayers from throughout the world, and we pray for all those affected by this tragedy."
Santa Clara 14th ward bishop Chad Parker said he had visited the Empey family on Tuesday morning. "They're just grateful that he and the other missionaries are doing OK," he said,
Empey was scheduled to return home from his mission in July.
Kaleen Lambson-Talley, the secretary to the principal at Snow Canyon High School, where Empey graduated in the class of 2014, said her son played on the rugby team with Empey.
Mason Wells, 19, of Sandy, Utah. was injured in the Brussels airport attacks on Tuesday. (Photo: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
“He’s a great individual. … Smart, a good student,” Lambson-Talley said. “It’s a real hard day for us.”
Empey’s friend Navy Dalton said he visited the young man’s family Tuesday morning and saw the missionary and his parents text each other.
"He loves having fun, he loves making people smile and he loves joking," Dalton said, adding that Empey is “an amazing musician” who enjoys playing the guitar, banjo and ukulele.
He said the pair wants to set up a non-profit for inner-city youths after Empey returns home. “We want to focus on kids in the inner city that get looked over,” Dalton said, noting that during his own mission in Denver he saw children who never seemed to have more than one pair of clothes, and who played in the streets without shoes.
“We want to educate them, help them,” Dalton said.
Empey is serving in the France-Paris mission, a portion of which covers parts of Belgium. He was serving in France when terrorists launched an attack on Paris neighborhoods in November, killing more than 100 people.
Two prominent Utah politicians, longtime U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch and Governor Gary Herbert reacted to the events in Belgium, including the injuries to the missionaries.
Mormon missionary Fanny Rachel Clain, 20, had passed through security. She received minor injuries. (Photo: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
"Once again, the forces of evil have attacked an ally of freedom," Hatch said in a tweet. "We pray for the families of the fallen and for the LDS missionaries from Utah who have been injured in these attacks. The world must stand united against terrorism to hold those accountable for these senseless acts of violence."
Gov. Gary Herbert also posted on Twitter: "“It is not uncommon for innocent victims to be targeted in these terrorist attacks," he said, "but seldom do we see people of faith who have forsaken everything – family, friends, school and careers – in order to share a message or hope and love with the world also fall victim," Herbert said, referring to the missionaries.
"To the Norby, Empey and Wells families, please know that the state of Utah is united in prayer at this time for the health and well-being of your missionaries. As Utahns, we stand together with our fellow Americans and those around the world in our resolve to put an end to these acts of terror.”
Contributing: Jud Burkett, Kevin Jenkins and Casie Forbes, The (St. George, Utah) Spectrum.
Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Brussels bombers originally planned more attacks in Paris | 0:56 Prosecutors say the Brussels attackers were originally targeting Paris in a second wave of attacks.Video provided by Newsy Newslook 1 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION 'Man in hat' among several Brussels bombing suspects arrested | 0:45 Authorities have arrested several suspects in the Brussels bombings, including one of the wanted men seen in airport surveillance footage.Video provided by Newsy Newslook 2 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: Muslims Honor Brussels Attacks Victims | 0:55 Representatives of Belgium's Muslim communities gathered outside Maelbeek Metro station on Saturday to pay their respects to those killed in an attack at the station last month. (April 9) AP 3 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: Police Continue Raid Operations in Brussels | 1:27 A police operation was under way on Saturday in the Brussels district of Etterbeek after Belgian officials confirmed a sixth arrest over suspected links to the March 22 Brussels bombings. Five others were arrested on Friday. (April 9) AP 4 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Belgian police arrest 6th suspect in attacks | 0:25 Belgium's justice minister Koen Geens said Belgian authorities arrested a sixth person late on Friday in connection with the suicide attacks in Brussels. Wochit 5 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: New Images of Brussels Airport Suspect | 1:07 Belgium's Federal Prosecutor's Office has released new video and surveillance photographs of a suspect wanted in connection with the deadly Brussels airport attack. (April 7) AP 6 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Brussels attacker's escape route traced by Belgian police | 2:09 Belgian Federal police released this video showing what they believe is the escape route of one of the terrorists involved in the attack on the Brussels airport. Video by Jasper Colt, USA TODAY 7 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Brussels death toll revised to 32 | 0:37 Belgian authorities have lowered the death toll from last week's Brussels suicide attacks to 32 victims after "thorough verification," a day after they had raised the number of dead to 35. Video provided by AFP Newslook 8 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION U.S. couple dead in Brussels were avid travelers | 0:44 Justin and Stephanie Shults moved to Belgium a few years after getting married. They loved exploring new cities together. VPC 9 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Parents of Belgium survivor thankful for support | 1:10 The parents of a U.S. teen injured in the Brussels attacks said Friday they are thankful for the support they have received from around the world. (March 25) AP 10 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Brussels attack: What we know so far | 1:06 Americans were among those killed in the Brussels terror attacks, confirmed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who traveled to Belgium to hold counter-terrorism talks with European officials. VPC 11 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Brussels Attack Survivor: ‘I Feel Lucky’ | 2:39 Mason Wells, a 19-year-old from Utah, is expected to make a full recovery after surviving the bombing attack at the Brussels airport on Tuesday. (March 25) AP 12 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION 5 things to know about the Brussels terror attacks | 1:00 Tragedy struck Brussels when bombers targeted Brussels Airport and a city metro station. ISIL is claiming responsibility for the violence. VPC 13 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION 3 things we still don't know about the Brussels attack | 0:44 While investigators try to piece together the Brussels attack, many questions about the terrorists involved and missing victims still remain unanswered. VPC 14 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Kerry confirms that Americans died in Brussels attack | 0:46 U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that Americans were among the dead after the terrorist attacks in Belgium. USA TODAY 15 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: Hundreds Honor Brussels Attack Victims | 1:13 Hundreds of people gathered at Place de La Bourse in central Brussels on Thursday to observe a minute of silence for the victims of attacks that hit the city two days ago. (March 24) AP 16 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Ohio volunteers return home from Brussels attack | 0:49 Two volunteers from Ohio have returned home after being in the Brussels airport when two bombs exploded, killing at least 30 people and injuring scores. (March 24) AP 17 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: EU Lawmakers Pay Respects In Belgium | 0:55 Lawmakers and the King and Queen of Belgium held a minute of silence on Wednesday for the victims of the Brussels attacks that claimed 34 lives and injured dozens on Tuesday. Officials also laid a wreath at the Maelbeek metro station. (March 23) AP 18 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION ISIL claims responsibility for deadly explosions in Brussels | 1:40 The multiple explosions have killed at least 34 people at an airport and a subway station in Brussels.Video provided by Newsy Newslook 19 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Manhunt Underway For Brussels Bombing Suspect | 1:41 Belgian authorities searched Wednesday for a man pictured with two apparent suicide bombers, a day after 34 people were killed, including three suicide bombers, and more than 200 wounded in attacks at the Brussels airport and subway. (March 23) AP 20 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION 3 Mormon missionaries from Utah hurt in Brussels attacks | 1:03 Three Mormon missionaries from Utah were injured during the explosions at Brussels' international airport. Video provided by Newsy Newslook 21 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION U.S. cities step up security after Belgium attacks | 1:54 US Cities ramped up security at airports, transit systems and landmarks across the country Tuesday following the deadly terror attacks in Brussels. Still, officials assured Americans they knew of no specific or credible threats. (March 22) AP 22 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Obama: We 'stand in solidarity' with people of Belgium | 0:48 President Barack Obama commented on the Brussels terror attacks before addressing the people of Cuba in Havana. He said the world needs to unite to fight violence and terrorism. USA TODAY 23 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Fear, panic as people escape from Brussels attacks | 1:21 Dramatic raw videos show people fleeing from Brussels airport and a metro station after several deadly explosions rocked the city. USA TODAY 24 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: Brussels airport damaged after attacks | 0:51 Attackers detonated bombs at the airport and on a metro train beneath the European Union's capital on Tuesday, killing at least 31 people and wounding dozens. AP 25 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION France to deploy 1,600 extra police after Brussels attacks | 1:05 French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve Tuesday said Paris was deploying 1,600 additional police to border crossings and air, sea and rail infrastructure after the Brussels attacks which killed at least 21 people. Newslook 26 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: Inside Brussels airport and subway attacks | 2:34 Video of passengers trapped inside the Brussels airport and inside the underground transport system in immediate aftermath of two explosions at the airport and one in the metro system. AP 27 of 28 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE TERROR ATTACKS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT, METRO STATION Raw: Inside Belgium airport after attack | 2:09 The immediate aftermath of the explosion at the departure terminal at Brussels' Zavantem airport was caught on camera on Tuesday. AP 28 of 28 Last VideoNext Video Brussels bombers originally planned more attacks in Paris
'Man in hat' among several Brussels bombing suspects arrested
Raw: Muslims Honor Brussels Attacks Victims
Raw: Police Continue Raid Operations in Brussels
Belgian police arrest 6th suspect in attacks
Raw: New Images of Brussels Airport Suspect
Brussels attacker's escape route traced by Belgian police
Brussels death toll revised to 32
U.S. couple dead in Brussels were avid travelers
Parents of Belgium survivor thankful for support
Brussels attack: What we know so far
Brussels Attack Survivor: ‘I Feel Lucky’
5 things to know about the Brussels terror attacks
3 things we still don't know about the Brussels attack
Kerry confirms that Americans died in Brussels attack
Raw: Hundreds Honor Brussels Attack Victims
Ohio volunteers return home from Brussels attack
Raw: EU Lawmakers Pay Respects In Belgium
ISIL claims responsibility for deadly explosions in Brussels
Manhunt Underway For Brussels Bombing Suspect
3 Mormon missionaries from Utah hurt in Brussels attacks
U.S. cities step up security after Belgium attacks
Obama: We 'stand in solidarity' with people of Belgium
Fear, panic as people escape from Brussels attacks
Raw: Brussels airport damaged after attacks
France to deploy 1,600 extra police after Brussels attacks
Raw: Inside Brussels airport and subway attacks
Raw: Inside Belgium airport after attack
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1MkHvl5 | Among those hurt in the terrorist attacks in Brussels on Tuesday: three Mormon missionaries from Utah and an Air Force officer and his family. Richard Norby, 66, Joseph Empey, 20, and Mason Wells, 19, were injured in the explosion at Brussels airport, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confirmed, as Reuters reports. The Paris-based missionaries have been hospitalized and USA Today reports they were "seriously" hurt, but details are scarce. US officials tell the AP an Air Force lieutenant colonel, his wife, and their four children were also injured in the airport attack, though no further details were available on their conditions. At least 31 people were killed in the attacks at the airport and on a metro train. |
Georgia gained its independence at the end of 1991 with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Its elected president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, faced insurrection and fled the country in January 1992. Coup leaders invited former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze to head a ruling State Council, and he was elected the speaker of the legislature in late 1992 and president under a new constitution in 1995. The country was roiled by secessionist conflict by South Ossetia and Abkhazia that resulted in cease-fires in 1992 and 1994, respectively. Shevardnadze was ousted in the wake of a suspect legislative election in late 2003, and coup co-leader Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president in January 2004. A November 2007 government crackdown on political oppositionists led Saakashvili to step down as president in the face of domestic and international criticism to seek a mandate on his continued rule. He was reelected president in January 2008 with 53% of the vote. Electoral observers hosted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) stated that the election broadly met its standards, but that irregularities needed to be addressed. He is constitutionally limited to two terms in office, and has stated that in accordance with the constitution, he will not run in a planned 2013 presidential election, although he does not plan to leave politics entirely. In an address at the U.N. General Assembly on September 23, 2008, President Saakashvili announced new democratization initiatives as a means to strengthen Georgia's sovereignty and independence and thereby prevent Russia from subverting Georgia's statehood. After lengthy attempts, President Saakashvili met with a few opposition leaders in April-May 2009 to discuss setting up a constitutional commission to work out changes to the political system, and such a commission was established in June 2009. In his March 2010 and February 2011 state of the nation addresses, Saakashvili pledged further democratization efforts. In his 2011 speech, he outlined his goals for the creation of a "modern" Georgia that would be "a democratic European nation with the fastest growing economy in Europe," where Georgian citizens would be more confident, "more educated" and "more competitive," and not subject to subjugation by Russia. He outlined a series of goals to be achieved by 2015 in agriculture, trade, employment, infrastructure development, and tourism. In his February 2012 state of the nation address, President Saakashvili discussed progress in meeting the 2015 goals. In the democracy realm, he did not announce new initiatives, but pledged that the upcoming October 2012 legislative election would be the "freest, most transparent and most democratic ... ever held in Georgia," and asserted that Georgia has a political system open to parties that play by the rules. Local elections to 64 city councils, as well as the first popular election of Tbilisi's mayor, were held at the end of May 2010. The ruling United National Movement (UNM)—headed by President Saakashvili—won over 65% of the vote in the city council races, followed by the moderate opposition Christian Democratic Alliance party bloc with about 12% of the vote. In the Tbisili mayoral race, the UNM incumbent—Gigi Ugulava—was reelected with about 55% of the vote. The elections were widely viewed as a rehearsal for the planned October 2012 legislative and 2013 presidential elections, and as such appeared to be a mandate for the UNM and a legitimization of the moderate opposition, according to some observers. Some observers suggest that Ugulava may be the likely candidate backed by UNM in the 2013 presidential election. The boycott of the elections by much of the radical opposition—including Nino Burjanadze's Democratic Movement-United Georgia, Levan Gachechiladze's Defend Georgia, and Irakli Okruashvili's For a United Georgia parties—appeared to further marginalize them in the public's eyes, according to some observers. Monitors from the OSCE reported that the local elections "marked evident progress towards meeting OSCE and Council of Europe [democratization] commitments," but that "significant shortcomings" remained, including apparent ballot-box stuffing and multiple voting, vote-counting and tabulation problems, the use of administrative resources for favored candidates, and deficiencies in the legal framework and its implementation. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley repeated the findings of the OSCE that the local elections showed progress in democratization, but that "significant shortcomings need to be addressed." In May 2010, the constitutional commission (mentioned above) agreed on amendments to slightly reduce the power of the president and increase the powers of the legislature and prime minister. In October 2010, the Georgian legislature approved the constitutional changes. Most of the changes will not come into effect until after the next presidential election, scheduled for early 2013. Under the changes, the party that has the largest number of seats in the legislature will nominate the candidate for prime minister. This nominee will select ministers and draft a program, and upon approval by the legislature, the president will appoint the prime minister. The changes also call for regional governors to be appointed by the prime minister rather than the president, as is currently the case. Some suggestions by the Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, were not enacted. The Commission had raised concerns that the proposed presidential powers were still substantial relative to those of the prime minister and legislature, and that clashes between the president and prime minister might emerge on foreign policy and other matters. The Venice Commission suggested that a more powerful legislature might appoint the prime minister, be able to remove the prime minister with a simple majority vote (rather than 60% of the vote), and approve changes to the cabinet. A citizen's group likewise complained that the legislature's powers remained weak and criticized the retention of gubernatorial appointments. Some opposition parties allege that the constitutional changes are designed to permit Saakashvili to serve as prime minister after his term as president ends, and have called for a new constitutional amendment to ban a former president from subsequently serving as prime minister. The People's Assembly civic organization— formed in May 2009 by parties and groups comprising the radical opposition, and led by former legislative speaker Nino Burjanadze and former border guards' chief Badri Bitsadze) launched large-scale demonstrations in Tbilisi beginning on May 22, 2011. Their parade permit was due to expire on the evening of May 25, and the government planned to hold an independence day parade the next day. Immediately upon the expiration of the permit, Georgian security forces moved to forcibly disperse the demonstrators, reportedly resulting in four deaths, dozens of injuries, and scores of detentions. The Georgian government alleged that the Russia-backed protesters had planned to launch an armed overthrow of the government. The prosecutor issued a warrant for the arrest of Badri Bitsadze, the husband of Nino Burjanadze, leader of the opposition Democratic Movement-United Georgia Party, on the grounds that he was involved in planning the putsch. U.S. Ambassador John Bass, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the EU, and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called on the government to launch an inquiry into whether security forces used excessive force against the protesters. In July 2011, the Interior Ministry announced that an internal probe had resulted in 16 police being fired or disciplined. In August 2011, Bitsadze was sentenced in absentia to 5.5 years in prison on charges of organizing attacks on police and disturbing the public order. He returned to Georgia in January 2013 after a Tbilisi court annulled his sentence. The ruling UNM and several opposition parties launched talks on reforming the electoral code in November 2010. Talks reached an impasse in early March 2011 but were resumed in June 2011. Later that month, two prominent opposition parties, the Christian Democratic and the New Rights parties, broke with other opposition parties forming the "Opposition Eight" alliance and agreed with the ruling party on several electoral reforms. They formed an inter-party group to draft legislation based on the agreement. The agreement called for increasing the number of legislators from 150 to 190, 107 of whom would be elected by party lists and 83 by single-mandate constituencies. Since the UNM in the past had won most of the majoritarian seats, the increase in the proportion of seats to be allocated through party list voting was viewed by some observers as somewhat increasing the chances for opposition parties to gain seats in the legislature. The draft electoral code was publicized for public discussion in September and then was considered by the legislature. In December 2011, however, the UNM and some opposition parties agreed in approving the new electoral code that 77 members of the 150-seat legislature to be elected in October 2012 would be chosen through proportional voting and the remaining 73 through majoritarian voting in single member districts (previously, 50% of the members had been elected by each method). Another provision guaranteed that a party that gains a minimum of 5% of the vote will get at least six seats. A major provision recommended by the Venice Commission—that single member districts have relatively equal populations—was not included in the new electoral law. Under a 2011 constitutional amendment, the newly elected legislature would convene in a new building being completed in the city of Kutaisi (in western Georgia). In early October 2011, reclusive Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili declared that he would set up a party and would participate in 2012 legislative elections in opposition to the ruling UNM. A few days later, Saakashvili signed an order revoking Ivanishvili's Georgian citizenship on the grounds that he also held Russian and French citizenship, and the government reportedly began investigating and seizing assets of Ivanishvili's Cartu Bank. With his citizenship revoked, Ivanishvili was barred from running for office or providing donations to political parties. Ivanishvili relinquished his Russian citizenship, and stated that he intended to give up his French citizenship when he regained his Georgian citizenship. Besides the revocation of citizenship, the ruling party pushed through legislation barring corporate contributions and limiting corporate employee contributions to political parties, which critics viewed as aimed to block Ivanishvili from financing prospective or existing parties. Instead, state financing of campaigns by existing parties that had won past elections was stepped up, also viewed by critics as a means to constrict any new party created through Ivanishvili's interests. His party coalition, Georgia Dream-Democratic Georgia (GD), was launched in April 2012. At the end of May 2012, constitutional changes went into effect permitting a citizen of an EU country who lived for five years in Georgia to be elected to high political office, a provision aimed to ease political tensions and permit Ivanishvili to participate in the October 2012 legislative election or in the 2013 presidential election. However, Ivanishvili proclaimed that he would not run in the legislative election except as a citizen of Georgia. Launching the GD election campaign on May 29, 2012, he affirmed support for Georgian integration into NATO and the EU, pledged to peacefully reintegrate Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Georgia, vowed to reduce poverty, unemployment, and emigration and to increase health, education, and other social services, and generally stated that his coalition aimed to bolster Georgia as a democratic and free market country. Georgia's State Audit Chamber—given responsibilities to monitor the new restrictions on campaign spending—announced on June 7, 2012, that it was filing court documents seeking a fine of over $90 million on GD, and was considering other fines. On June 11, the court decided that Ivanishvili's businesses had provided under-compensated services to GD and free satellite dishes to the public. A U.S. citizen involved in Ivanishvili's broadcasting business briefly was detained. The fine was reduced to $45.4 million on appeal. Ivanishvili refused to pay it, so on June 21 the government raided Global TV, a cable and satellite television provider co-owned by Ivanishvili's brother, and seized satellite dishes. Other businesses linked to Ivanishvili also were seized, including two banks that were placed under state management until the fine was paid. Besides broadcasting on the Internet, a television station owned by Ivanishvili's wife had relied on Global TV to carry its pro-GD Party programming. Some human rights NGOs raised concerns that the raid on Global TV might jeopardize freedom of information in the run-up to the election. Perhaps in response to these concerns, on June 29, the legislature approved an amendment to the electoral code requiring cable providers to carry all significant television channels with news programming for 60 days prior to the election (however, only a tiny fraction of Georgian homes receive cable). In late May 2012, Ivanishvili held a campaign rally in Tbilisi and over the next month held several more in the towns of Kutaisi and Ozurgeti and in several villages. His main campaign priorities included cutting utility rates, investing in agriculture, establishing universal health insurance, and increasing pensions. Two weeks after Ivanishvili visited the Samegrelo region in western Georgia, Saakashvili rushed there following flooding to offer assistance. On June 30, 2012, President Saakashvili appointed Interior Minister Ivane (Vano) Merabishvili as the new Prime Minister. The president stated that the new prime minister would combat unemployment, and Merabishvili added that he also would address problems of agriculture and healthcare. Saakashvili also announced that an Employment Ministry would be created. In early July 2012, the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) issued a report on the political environment in Georgia prior to the planned October legislative election. An ODIHR mission reported that the electoral environment was polarized, with political parties already campaigning. ODIHR raised concerns that the revised law on campaign spending gave too much authority to the State Audit Chamber to investigate campaign spending, and reported there were accusations that the audit chamber was selectively and excessively focusing on Ivanishvili. In another pre-election assessment, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), an NGO, warned on June 29, 2012, that the tense electoral environment already included hate speech against ethnic and religious minorities, harassment of political opponents, improper campaign spending and use of government resources, and attempted bribery of government officials. NDI reported that Georgian civil society organizations and many opposition parties had raised concerns that the new electoral and campaign finance legislation would not be implemented impartially. NDI raised concerns that the State Audit Chamber and the courts had levied several large fines against Ivanishvili, and only a few minor ones against the ruling party, and called for the "transparent, equal, and reasonable application" of the campaign finance law. The election for the 150-member Parliament of Georgia was held on October 1, 2012. Georgia's Central Electoral Commission registered 16 parties and blocs and several thousand candidates to run in mixed party list and single-member constituency races. GD posed the main opposition to UNM, which at that time held the majority of legislative seats. A video tape of abuse in a prison released by GD late in the campaign seemed to be a major factor in the loss of voter support for the UNM and in the electoral victory of GD. After runoffs were held in three districts, GD emerged with 85 (57%) of the 150 legislative seats. According to observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the election freely reflected the will of the people and marked the first peaceful change of power in Georgia, although a few procedural and other problems were reported. The observers described the electoral environment as polarized and tense, with the frequent use of harsh rhetoric and some instances of violence. The campaign appeared to juxtapose the advantages of incumbency on one side against the private financial assets on the other side, rather than on concrete political platforms and programs. Mostly opposition party activists were detained and fined by the authorities. The distinction between state activities and the campaign of the ruling party was at times blurred. Two of the three main nationwide television channels were pro-government, although the third, the public broadcasting channel, provided balanced coverage. Cable networks were required to carry opposition party channels. The enforcement of campaign finance law by the State Audit Office was inconsistent and non-transparent. Voting was generally well organized and polling officials administered the vote in professional manner. Election observers evaluated the process positively in 93% of some 1,450 monitored polling stations. In some cases, voters did not mark their ballots in secret or individuals cast votes for other family members. Observers evaluated the counting and tabulation process less positively. Some technical procedures to be implemented prior to the opening of ballot boxes were not followed, and some indications of ballot box stuffing were observed. In about one-quarter of precinct electoral commissions, there were errors or omissions in completing the results protocols, leading in several cases to corrections. The White House described the election as "another milestone" in Georgia's development as a democracy, and called for Ivanishvili and Saakashvili to work together to ensure the country's continued peaceful transition of power. The Administration also stated that it looked forward to strengthening the U.S.-Georgia partnership. Several Members of Congress observed the election, and several Members of the Senate issued a post-election statement commending President Saakashvili for his efforts to transform Georgia into a prosperous democracy, while cautioning that the future of U.S.-Georgia relations depended on the country's continued commitment to democratization. On October 25, 2012, the new legislature convened and the parties making up the majority GD coalition approved Ivanishvili as prime minister, along with his proposed cabinet ministers and his government program. The program calls for "large-scale reforms in all strategic directions," including changing the constitution to bolster parliamentary power, restructuring the Interior (police) Ministry and depoliticizing the Interior and Defense Ministries, promulgating a new national security strategy, and modernizing the economy. The latter will include new grants for agriculture, pursuit of a free trade agreement with the United States, and talks with Russia to persuade it to lift its embargo on many Georgian products. The program also proclaims that the United States is Georgia's main ally and that foreign policy objectives include EU and NATO membership. At the same time, the program calls for opening a dialogue with Russia to improve relations. The bulk of UNM members in the legislature voted against the new government and criticized its program as failing to build on the reforms of the Saakashvili government. Relations between the parties making up the GD coalition and the UNM in the legislature and between the GD-led cabinet and the president have been contentious, and may well remain so in coming months, as both sides maneuver before a planned 2013 presidential election. Saakashvili is term-limited and cannot run, but the UNM hopes to retain the presidency. Under constitutional provisions already in place, the legislature is slated to gain greater powers vis-à-vis the presidency, so a divided political situation could endure for some time. In such a case, statesmanship and a commitment to compromise and good governance are essential for Georgia's continued democratization, observers stress. In early November 2012, the Ivanishvili government began arresting officials who had served in the previous Saakashvili government or who were active in the UNM, most prominently former defense and interior minister Bacho Akhalaia and chief of the armed forces Georgy Kalandadze, both of whom were charged with allegedly beating six servicemen in 2011. Addressing concerns by many domestic and international observers about due process, Prime Minister Ivanishvili asserted on November 22 that Akhalaia's "guilt will be proven quite soon." During a mid-November visit to Georgia, Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon stressed to Prime Minister Ivanishvili that the United States recognized that those who committed crimes should be investigated and prosecuted, but "nobody wants to see or get the perception that what this is about it retribution against political enemies.... For Georgia to continue down the path to Euro-Atlantic integration ... [it needs] to be absolutely scrupulous in making sure that due process and transparency are applied." On November 29, 2012, Georgian Foreign Minister Maia Panjikidze met with then-Secretary Clinton in Washington DC; Clinton urged that prosecutions by the Ivanishvili government against possible "wrongdoers" be undertaken "with due process and the rule of law." Panjikidze assured Clinton that the arrests were not politically motivated but rather represented "the restoration of justice." The next day, Prime Minister Ivanishvili endorsed Clinton's statement, and pledged that investigations would be carried out in a transparent manner. At the same time, he dismissed a Washington Post editorial that raised concerns about the many investigations and arrests, claiming that the newspaper had been influenced by the UNM, an allegation termed "fanciful" by UNM leaders. In December 2012, Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Joe Lieberman, James Risch, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain sent a letter to Prime Minister Ivanishvili raising concerns that the arrests were politically motivated. In an interview in early December 2012, President Saakashvili decried the "dozens" of investigations and arrests of his former colleagues by the Ivanishvili government. He also stated that he wanted to ease tensions with Ivanishvili by relinquishing most influence over domestic affairs and focusing on foreign policy, in order to stress the importance to traditional allies of continuing close ties with Georgia. One sign of cooperation between the two leaders appeared to be their agreement early in December to name Colonel Irakli Dzneladze, a military attaché at the Georgian Embassy in Ukraine, as the next chief of staff of the armed forces. In January 2013, the Ivanishvili government continued to launch investigations and to arrest former government officials and civil servants. At the same time, the legislature overrode a presidential veto of a law on amnesty for "political prisoners," and nearly 200 alleged victims subsequently were released from prison, including 13 individuals sentenced as Russian espionage agents. In addition, courts have exonerated other prominent individuals sentenced by the former Saakashvili government. Some observers have raised concerns that the increasing numbers of arrests might harm Georgia's international reputation and its foreign relations with Western governments and international organizations. Elected local councils and executive leaderships, dominated by members of the UNM, have faced protesters, and many members and leaders have resigned, switched parties, or declared that they are independent of party affiliation. Some observers have decried this situation, terming it an attempt by GD to take over local politics rather than cooperate with the UNM. They also have raised concerns that Georgia will thus come to sustain a political environment where one party is predominant, rather than evolve into a competitive party democracy. On January 23, 2013, Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili dismissed Irakly Alasania as first deputy prime minister, reportedly after the two officials had wrangled over who would be nominated by the GD coalition to run in the planned October 2013 presidential election. Alasania retained his portfolio as defense minister. On February 7, 2013, legislative speaker Davit Usupashvili announced that President Saakashvili would not be permitted to deliver his annual speech to the legislature until he agreed to amend the constitution to reduce his powers (see below). The next day, Saakashvili attempted to deliver the speech from the legislative library, but pro-Ivanishvili protesters blocked the library entrance. Instead, Saakashvili delivered the speech from his residence. Ivanishvili issued a statement after the speech condemning the violence, and suggesting that it could have been avoided if Saakashvili had postponed his speech. After the tumult of the blocked annual address, the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Georgia—Representatives Bill Shuster and Allyson Schwartz—as well as Representative Michael Turner and Representative Mario Diaz-Balert, called in a letter for Secretary Kerry to inform Georgia's leaders of U.S. concerns about the many arrests of former officials and other democratization trends in the country. In late March 2013, GD convinced enough UNM legislators to join in a two-thirds majority vote to amend the constitution to take away President Saakashvili's power to dismiss the sitting cabinet and to appoint a new cabinet without parliamentary approval. He had disavowed any intention of carrying out such an action during the few days that the constitution permitted it between the legislative and presidential elections. Responding to reports of ongoing pressure by GD activists to force UNM local legislators to resign or switch parties, and of the firing of local government workers belonging to UNM, Prime Minister Ivanishvili issued a statement on April 15, 2013, denying any official effort by GD to fire local personnel or to pressure local legislators. He called for local government workers not to be fired for political reasons. At the same time, he indicated that provisions were being developed to support "real and effective local self-governance," presumably after the holding of local legislative elections in 2014. These proposals may include a different process for choosing regional governors (state commissioners), who currently are appointed by the president. In a speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on April 23, 2013, Ivanishvili asserted that Georgia is committed to democratization and respect for human rights, and remains Western-oriented, pointing to the foreign policy statement recently approved by the Georgian legislature. Seemingly underlining this orientation, he stressed that he remains a French citizen. He stated that he had advocated for the EU's appointment of Thomas Hammarberg, the former COE High Commissioner on Human Rights, as a Special Advisor for Legal and Constitutional Reform and Human Rights in Georgia, and pledged that OSCE observers and other human rights advocates would be permitted to monitor the prosecutions of former government officials. He rebuffed other concerns about judicial independence, and appeared to argue that President Saakashvili was responsible for the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. Some observers have argued that while the Ivanishvili government may be demonstratively less pro-American, it is pro-European. Others raise concerns that Ivanishvili has maintained ties to Russian state-business officials. Ivanishvili announced on May 11, 2013, that GD had selected—in a non-transparent manner—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education Giorgi Margvelashvili as its candidate for president. Other candidates who have declared their intention to run include Labor Party leader Shalva Natelashvili and Democratic Movement-United Georgia leader and former parliamentary speaker Nino Burjanadze. In a poll sponsored by the National Democratic Institute in late March 2013, a majority of respondents stated at that time that they planned to vote for the GD candidate for president. The UNM has stated that it hopes to hold party primaries to select a candidate. On May 21, 2013, former Prime Minister Merabashvili, an UNM official and possible presidential candidate, was arrested on charges of corruption, embezzlement, and abuse of office. Several Members of Congress raised concerns that the arrest was politically motivated and could harm Georgia's democratization and trans-Atlantic aspirations. As of mid-2013, eleven legislators elected under the UNM banner had left the party and declared themselves non-party representatives, reducing the presence of the UNM in the legislature. Freedom House, an NGO, ranked Georgia as "partly free" in its latest assessment of civil liberties and political rights for 2012. Georgia was judged to have improved in political rights during the year, particularly in holding a legislative election that resulted in a peaceful transition of power, but Freedom House also raised concerns about the arrests of former government officials late in the year. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 20 12 , NGOs and the Public Defender's Office documented several cases of police officers mistreating detainees, beating them, and withholding permission to contact a lawyer during the year. The public defender also noted frequent instances of prison employees mistreating inmates. According to some observers, systemic abuse at Gldani Prison in Tbilisi was part of an official strategy to coerce confessions and facilitate convictions in criminal cases. In September 2012, media sources aired a series of graphic videos depicting prison officials assaulting and abusing inmates at Gldani Prison. Although the government took some steps to prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, the pre-election government frequently terminated or delayed investigations into such allegations, contributing to an atmosphere of impunity. However, after the parliamentary elections, more than two dozen high-level former government officials were indicted on torture, abuse of power, and corruption-related charges by the end of the year. Most arrests were made without a warrant, with courts later rubber-stamped police justifications, leading to a climate of impunity and public perceptions that the judiciary was not a meaningful check on police actions. Observers argued that the executive branch controlled the judiciary through the High Council of Justice (HCOJ), which appointed, promoted, transferred, and dismissed judges as well as implemented judicial reforms. The Supreme Court chairman, who was appointed by the president, chaired the HCOJ and nominated eight of its 15 members. Since only an insignificant percentage of court cases resulted in acquittal, defendants were pressured to enter into plea bargains regardless of their legal interests. NGOs, civil society groups, and opposition party members alleged that politically motivated arbitrary arrests occurred, particularly of GD supporters in the run-up to the election. There were also allegations that family members of GD supporters were fired from public sector jobs. Several NGOs and others alleged that there were political prisoners held by the Saakashvili government. On December 5, 2012, the legislature passed a resolution declaring 190 individuals political prisoners and 25 political exiles. Some opposition figures, including GD leader Ivanishvili, and NGOs alleged that surveillance included monitoring of e-mails and cellular telephone conversations. In November 2012, the Prosecutor's Office arrested Tbilisi's vice mayor, the head of the Constitutional Security Department, and nine other officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and charged them with illegal surveillance through unauthorized access to private computer networks. Although independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views, direct or indirect government influence over the most watched countrywide media outlets remained a problem. There were reports during the year of physical and verbal assaults of journalists by police, confiscation of journalists' cameras by authorities, and intimidation of journalists by government officials due to their reporting, particularly during the run-up to the legislative election. Some opposition television stations faced tax audits, damage or confiscation of equipment, and liens on broadcast licenses during the election campaign. Observers accused both high-ranking government officials and opposition politicians of influencing editorial and programming decisions through their personal connections with news directors and media executives and by directing advertising using their personal connections with business owners. Georgia was a source, transit, and destination country for women and girls subjected to sex trafficking and men and women subjected to conditions of forced labor. The government worked to eliminate trafficking, and boosted funding for anti-trafficking efforts and for two shelters, and increased the number of convictions of offenders. USAID has argued that Georgia has significant economic resources that could spur growth if it can overcome various impediments to development. Among Georgia's potentialities are its strategic location as an east-west and north-south trade and transit corridor, its climate and agricultural endowments, ample water resources that could be used for hydropower, and inexpensive and eager labor. Economic problems include rising unemployment and lagging educational achievement, a dearth of skilled labor, persistently high poverty rates, and high income and gender inequality. Oligopolistic market conditions hamper private enterprise development. Georgia's role in the global economy is precarious, since it has not bolstered export markets, remains dependent on energy imports, has faltered in attracting foreign direct investment, and imports food in part because agricultural productivity is below the global average. To address these problems, the Georgian government released an economic plan in 2011 to bolster job growth. Georgia's economy suffered in 2008-2009 from the after-effects of the world economic downturn and the Russia-Georgia conflict, but began to recover in 2010. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimates that Georgia's gross domestic product (GDP) contracted in 2009, but resumed growth in 2010. The EIU estimates that GDP grew by 7% in 2011, but slowed slightly to 6.1% in 2012, mainly due to a fall-off in economic activity during the fourth quarter related to a poor harvest and post-election uncertainties. Consumer price inflation was 8.5% in 2011 but a slight deflation of -0.9% was reported for 2012, attributable to lower prices for imports and to lower consumer demand. The EIU projects that economic growth might slow to 4.5% in 2013, related to slowed government spending early in the year and to a fall-off in foreign direct investment. Economic activities include agriculture, mining, and a small industrial sector. Civil conflict and poverty have spurred the emigration of about one-fifth (1 million) of the population since 1991. A large percentage of the working population has migrated for work in Russia or elsewhere. After being reduced in 2009 as a result of the world economic downturn, the contribution of migrant worker remittances abroad to GDP increased thereafter, as economic growth returned to Russia and other host countries. Despite Russia's expected poor economic growth in 2013, worker remittances to Georgia are not anticipated to greatly decline. Georgia is a member of the World Trade Organization (see below). In 2012, Georgia exported $3.5 billion in goods and imported $7.7 billion. Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine were among Georgia's main trade partners. Georgia's main exports during 2012 were automobiles (through reselling rather than production), ferrous metals, and fertilizer. U.S. exports to Georgia were $540.6 million during 2012 (a decrease from $579.3 million the previous year) and U.S. imports from Georgia were $226.2 million (an increase from $176.1 million the previous year). Georgia's State Statistics Department reported that total foreign direct investment (FDI) in Georgia was $1.1 billion in 2012, somewhat less than in 2011 and well below that of the pre-2008 conflict period. Besides FDI, the state-owned Georgian Railways and Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation issued $750 million in Eurobonds in 2012 to finance railway and hydropower projects. The lack of adequate growth in private-sector jobs and Saakashvili's downsizing of the public sector contributed to gradually rising unemployment in recent years (about 15% in 2011). Almost one-half of the working population engages in agriculture, which accounts for a decreasing portion of GDP and an increasing portion of those in poverty. In June 2013, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) commended the Ivanaishvili government for increasing social expenditures and agricultural support to address these problems, but also called for boosting the level of government spending, lowering the interest rate, reforming the tax code, and enacting other policies to increase business confidence and investment. The Ivanishvili government launched trade negotiations with Russia in December 2012 aimed at getting Russia to lift its de facto trade restrictions in place since 2006, particularly those involving mineral water, wine, and agricultural produce. Such trade restrictions are incompatible with Russia's WTO membership (see below), but Russia has appeared to extract maximal concessions and leverage in return for permitting some trade to resume, according to some observers. In late February 2012, representatives from Russia's Federal Service for Control in the Sphere of Consumers' Rights Protection and the Well-Being of Humans (Rospotrebnadzor) visited Georgia to inspect wine and mineral water production facilities. In May 2013, Rospotrebnadzor announced that it had deemed Georgian wines from seven producers and mineral waters from two producers as safe to import into Russia, and some Borzhomi water and wine began to be imported. Seemingly indicative of ongoing tensions, however, Rospotrebnadzor alleged that the Central Public Health Reference Laboratory near Tbilisi—which opened in 2011 as a collaboration between the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and the Georgian Defense Ministry —was involved in research on pathogens that endangered Russia, and stated that the laboratory should be closed in order for Russia-Georgia cooperation on sanitary and epidemic issues to proceed. Rospotrebnadzor's head Gennadiy Onishchenko also reiterated in early June 2013 that the persistence of African swine fever that caused some loss of animals in southern Russia was economic subversion carried out from Georgia, possibly alluding that the laboratory was involved. Russian sources have alleged that Georgia has agreed to sever U.S. collaboration with the laboratory. Georgia is a transit state for a pipeline completed in mid-2006 carrying 1 million barrels per day of Azerbaijani oil to the Turkish port of Ceyhan (the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan or BTC pipeline). Another pipeline completed in early 2007 initially carries 2.2 billion cubic meters of Azerbaijani natural gas to Georgia and Turkey, lessening their dependence on Russia as a supplier. In addition, a pipeline transits Georgia to Armenia that carries Russian gas. Georgia receives some gas through this pipeline, including some gas in lieu of transit fees. The United States has backed Georgian ownership of this pipeline and MCC has provided funds for upgrading the pipeline. Azerbaijan provides an increasing portion of the gas needed by Georgia, largely easing Tbilisi's dependence on Russia. Georgia has built and refurbished hydroelectric power plants and plans to increase its export of electricity. When Georgia became a member of the WTO in 2000, it joined an existing Working Party of interested WTO members—established in 1993—that has been considering Russia's WTO bid. Georgia added its main concerns to those of the other 60-odd members of the Working Party, that market access be upheld and that Georgia establish control over customs clearance at posts located along its borders with Russia (including between its breakaway regions and Russia), in accordance with its sovereign territorial rights and the provisions of a 1994 free trade agreement signed by Georgia and Russia (never ratified by Russia). This Georgian request for customs control did not fundamentally change after Russia recognized the independence of the breakaway regions in late August 2008. Although Russia held bilateral talks with all members of the Working Party and by late October 2011 had resolved most of their concerns, Russia long continued to refuse to resolve Georgia's concerns about customs control, arguing that the issue was political and hence irrelevant to WTO accession. Instead, Russia demanded that the United States put pressure on Georgia to drop its request or that the WTO use an unprecedented majority vote of the membership to admit Russia to get around Georgia's request. The Russia-Georgia dispute became the last major obstacle to Russia's WTO accession. According to some observers, powerful interests in Russia that remained opposed to WTO membership were using the dispute to convince others in the Russian leadership to cease efforts to join WTO. Trade monitoring talks moderated by Switzerland began in March 2011 between Russia and Georgia, which resulted in the signing of a trade monitoring agreement in Geneva in November 2011. This accord cleared one of the last major obstacles to Russia being invited to join the WTO at its Ministerial Conference in mid-December 2011 (on July 10, 2012, the Russian Duma approved accession, which was implemented by the WTO in August 2012). The trade monitoring agreement calls for customs observers at three "trade corridors" on the Georgia-Russia border, two running through the breakaway regions and the third running through the uncontested Zemo Larsi-Kazbegi border crossing. In regard to the breakaway regions, a terminal will be located at Russia's border with the region, and another at Georgia's border with the region. A private firm will be hired and managed by Switzerland to check statistics on customs clearance. Georgia and Russia will provide data to the firm, which will forward the data to the WTO. On December 26, 2011, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich appeared to boast that Georgia had been bested during the negotiations, asserting that since Georgia will provide customs clearance information for goods entering Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it effectively will be recognizing their independence, a claim Georgia disagreed with. He also asserted that Georgian customs officials would not be permitted at terminals located between Russia and the breakaway regions. However, at the first meeting in Geneva in December 2012 between Russia and Georgia on the normalization of relations (see below), the two sides reportedly agreed that Georgian customs officials would be permitted to monitor cargoes at these terminals. Among its neighbors, Georgia has developed close ties with Azerbaijan and maintains good relations with Armenia. Georgia has an ongoing interest in ties with about 1 million Georgians residing in Turkey and about 50,000 Georgians in Iran. Georgia is a member of the European Union's (EU's) Eastern Partnership program of enhanced economic ties, and hopes to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the EU. President Saakashvili and Prime Minister Ivanishvili have set a goal for Georgia to eventually become an EU member. Ties with Russia have sharply deteriorated during Saakashvili's presidency. After the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, Georgia broke off diplomatic relations with Russia and withdrew as a member of the Russia-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). During the 2012 legislative election campaign, GD called for improving relations with Russia while maintaining a Western orientation. New Prime Minister Ivanishvili appointed Zurab Abashidze to the post of Special Representative for Relations with Russia to work toward better ties. Talks between Abashidze and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigoriy Karasin have been held to normalize trade, transport, and cultural relations between the two countries. Foreign Minister Panjikidze has stressed, however, that diplomatic relations cannot be restored as long as Russia occupies Georgian territory. As one gesture, Georgia's Olympic Committee announced in early May that Georgian athletes would compete in the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. Georgia's military is the smallest among those of the South Caucasus states. Its ground forces, air force, and national guard reportedly numbered 20,650 at the beginning of 2013. There were also 5,400 border and coast guards and 6,300 Interior (police) Ministry troops. Most of the ground forces and air force personnel are on contracts, with the remainder conscripted. In 2009, remaining elements of the coast guard—largely decimated during the Russia-Georgia conflict—became part of the border guards, organizationally under the Interior Ministry. According to the Georgian defense ministry, 160 military personnel were killed during the Russia-Georgia conflict. A national security concept approved in late 2011 states that Russia's military "occupation of Georgia's territories ... and terrorist acts organized by Russia from the occupied territories," and "the risk of new military aggression from Russia" are the top national security threats faced by Georgia. The concept warns that Russia "aims to turn Georgia into a failed state, to hinder the realization of Georgia's European and Euro-Atlantic choice, and to forcibly return Georgia to the Russian political orbit." The concept avers that "international support for Georgia, as well as the presence of the European Union Monitoring Mission on the ground, are important deterrents to possible aggression" by Russia. Marking the shift toward more security ties with the West, Georgia withdrew from the CIS Collective Security Treaty in 1999. Georgia assumed full control from Russia over guarding its sea and land borders in 1999. Georgia joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in 1994 and has hosted PFP exercises annually since 2001. NATO signed an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with Georgia in October 2004 to deepen cooperation. Although the United States urged that Georgia be considered for a Membership Action Plan (MAP; preparatory to membership), NATO's Riga Summit in November 2006 reaffirmed support for an "intensified dialogue" to assist Georgia in implementing reforms. A MAP for Georgia was a matter of contention at the April 2008 NATO Summit. Although Georgia was not offered a MAP, the Alliance pledged that Georgia would eventually become a member of NATO, and stated that the issue of a MAP for Georgia would be revisited later in the year. After the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, several allies raised heightened concerns that Georgia was not ready to be granted a MAP because of the destruction of much of its military infrastructure by Russia, the uncertain status of the breakaway regions, and the uncertain quality of conflict decision-making by Georgia's political and military leadership. At a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in early December 2008, the allies agreed to step up work within the Georgia-NATO Council (established soon after the Russia-Georgia conflict) to facilitate Georgia's eventual NATO membership, and to prepare annual plans on Georgia's progress toward eventual membership. The first annual national plan was worked out during meetings of the Georgia-NATO Council and started to be implemented in May 2009. During the visit of the North Atlantic Council to Georgia in November 2011, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen praised Georgia for making progress in meeting conditions for NATO membership, including by increasing freedom of expression, economic growth, and military reforms, and by combating corruption. However, he also cautioned that the 2012-2013 legislative and presidential elections "will be an important indicator of ... how ready Georgia is for NATO membership." The NATO-Georgia Commission also met in Tbilisi, and NATO pledged to strengthen its NATO liaison office in Tbilisi (set up in 2010), enhance support to the National Defense Academy for education and training, bolster the capacity for civil democratic oversight of the defense sector, and increase support for Georgia's role in Afghanistan. After meeting with President Saakashvili at the White House in late January 2012, President Obama stated that he had "assured [Saakashvili] that the United States will continue to support Georgia's aspirations to ultimately become a member of NATO." At his confirmation hearing in March 2012, Ambassador-designate to Georgia Richard Norland reported that the Administration planned at the upcoming May 2012 NATO summit in Chicago "to signal acknowledgement for Georgia's progress ... and to work with the allies to develop a consensus on the next steps forward." The Chicago Summit Declaration issued at the meeting grouped Georgia with the other three NATO aspirants, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and announced that the Alliance ties with Georgia would be strengthened. The Declaration reaffirmed NATO support for Georgia's territorial integrity and called on Russia to make a pledge not to use force against Georgia and to rescind its recognition of the breakaway regions as independent. It also raised concerns about Russia's military buildup in the breakaway regions and called on Russia to permit international observers and humanitarian groups free access to the regions. At a mid-November 2012 meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels with Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, visiting Prime Minister Ivanishvili assured him that due process would be followed in the cases of former defense and interior minister Bacho Akhalaia, chief of the armed forces Georgy Kalandadze, and others arrested in Georgia, and invited NATO to set up a commission in Georgia to monitor the cases. At a meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission in Brussels, held a week after Ivanishvili's NATO visit, Georgian Defense Minister Alasania stated that post-election Georgia was now more stable and a stronger and more predictable NATO partner, and that Georgia would uphold the rule of law. At a follow-on meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission on December 5, 2012, during the NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels, Secretary General Rasmussen reiterated that the Alliance would continue to monitor judicial developments in Georgia, and stressed that NATO looked forward to a "still stronger and closer relationship [with Georgia] in 2013 and beyond." At a meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission on March 19, 2013, the Georgian side reported on its annual plan for 2013. NATO emissaries reportedly praised the annual plan and offered assistance for its fulfillment, and urged vying political interests in Georgia to work together to further the country's democratization. At a meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission on June 5, 2013, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that the Alliance "greatly appreciate[s] the active support that Georgia has made to our operations, past and present.... We are looking to the Georgian government to respect the rule of law, human rights and the rights of minorities. And we encourage Georgia to continue key reforms and to conduct free and fair presidential elections later this year.... I look forward to a future in which Georgia is in the Alliance." He also criticized Russia's fortification of borders, including the stringing of barbed wire, along the South Ossetian-Georgian border. The North Atlantic Council will visit Georgia on June 26-27, 2013. The U.S. Congress approved the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007, signed into law in April 2007 ( P.L. 110-17 ), to urge NATO to extend a MAP for Georgia and to designate Georgia as eligible to receive security assistance under the program established by the NATO Participation Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-447 ). The statement released by the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in October 2011 (mentioned above) called for NATO to extend a MAP for Georgia at the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago in May 2012. In March 2012, then-Senator Richard Lugar introduced S. 2177 , The NATO Enhancement Act, in the 112 th Congress, which reaffirms an "open door" policy with respect to the accession of additional countries to NATO, including NATO aspirant Georgia (a similar bill, H.R. 4243 , was introduced in the House by Rep. Michael Turner later in March 2012). The bills expressed the sense of Congress that the President should lead efforts at the Chicago NATO Summit to provide a clear roadmap for the granting of a MAP (or other equivalent plan) to Georgia and other aspirants. However, as mentioned above, Georgia was not offered a MAP at the Chicago NATO summit. Several of Georgia's ethnic minorities stepped up their dissidence, including separatism, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, resulting in the loss of central government control over the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Some observers argued that Russia's increasing controls over South Ossetia and Abkhazia over the years transformed the separatist conflicts into essentially Russia-Georgia disputes. Most residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia had been granted Russian citizenship before the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict and most had appeared to want their regions to become independent or parts of Russia. U.S. diplomacy long appeared to urge Georgia to work within existing peace settlement frameworks for Abkhazia and South Ossetia—which allowed for Russian "peacekeeping"—while criticizing some Russian actions in the regions. This stance appeared to change during 2008, when the United States and other governments increasingly came to support Georgia's calls for the creation of alternative peace settlement mechanisms, particularly since talks under existing formats had broken down. This U.S. policy shift was spurred by increasing Russian actions that appeared to threaten Georgia's territorial integrity. Among these, the Russian government in March 2008 formally withdrew from CIS economic sanctions on Abkhazia, permitting open Russian trade and investment. Of greater concern, President Putin issued a directive in April 2008 to step up government-to-government ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He also ordered stepped up consular services for the many "Russian citizens" in the two regions. He proclaimed that many documents issued by the separatist governments and businesses which had been established in the regions would be recognized as legitimate by the Russian government (For other Russian actions during 2008 specific to a breakaway region, see " Developments in Abkhazia before August 2008 ," " Developments in South Ossetia before August 2008 ," or " The August 2008 Conflict ," below.) In July 1992, Abkhazia's legislature declared the region's effective independence, prompting an attack by Georgian national guardsmen. In October 1992, the UNSC approved sending a U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), the first to a Eurasian state, to help the parties reach a settlement. Russian and North Caucasian "volunteers" (who reportedly made up the bulk of Abkhaz separatist forces) routed Georgian forces in 1993. Georgia and Abkhazia agreed in April-May 1994 on a framework for a political settlement and the return of refugees. Russian troops (acting as CIS "peacekeepers") were deployed in a zone between Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia. The conflict resulted in about 10,000 deaths and over 200,000 displaced persons, mostly ethnic Georgians. The U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State worked with the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary General and other "Friends of the Secretary General" (France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) to facilitate a settlement. Sticking points in talks included Georgia's demand that displaced persons be allowed to return to Abkhazia, after which an agreement on autonomy for Abkhazia would be negotiated. The Abkhazians insisted on recognition of their independence as a precondition to large-scale repatriation. In July 2006, a warlord in the Kodori Gorge area of northern Abkhazia, where many ethnic Svans reside, foreswore his nominal allegiance to the Georgian government. The Georgian government quickly sent forces to the area and defeated the warlord's militia. Georgia claimed that only police were deployed in the Gorge, but Abkhazia asserted that military troops were present, in violation of the cease-fire agreement. Regular Georgia-Abkhazia peace talks were suspended in October 2006. Abkhazia called for Georgia to remove the government representatives and alleged military forces. The United States and others in the international community raised concerns when the Russian foreign and defense ministries announced on April 29, 2008, that the number of "peacekeepers" in Abkhazia would be boosted up to the maximum permitted under ceasefire accords. The ministries claimed that the increases were necessary to counter a buildup of Georgian "military forces" and police in the Kodori Gorge, which they alleged were preparing to attack the de facto Abkhaz government. It was also troubling that 400 Russian paratroopers were deployed to Abkhazia that Russian officials reportedly stated would be fully armed in order to repulse possible Georgian attacks on Abkhazia. In late May 2008, Russia announced that about 400 railway construction troops were being sent to Abkhazia for "humanitarian" work. These troops—whose role is to facilitate military positioning—reportedly left Abkhazia at the end of July 2008 after repairing tracks and bridges. According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza, the railway was used in August by Russia when its troops moved into Georgia. In 1989, the region lobbied for joining its territory with North Ossetia in Russia or for independence. Repressive efforts by former Georgian President Gamsakhurdia triggered conflict in 1990, reportedly contributing to an estimated 2,000-4,000 deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands of people. In June 1992, Russia brokered a cease-fire, and Russian, Georgian, and Ossetian "peacekeeping" units set up base camps in a security zone around Tskhinvali, South Ossetia. Reportedly, the units totaled around 1,100 troops, including about 530 Russians, a 300-member North Ossetian brigade (which actually was composed of South Ossetians and headed by a North Ossetian), and about 300 Georgians. OSCE monitors did most of the patrolling. In 2004, President Saakashvili increased pressure on South Ossetia by tightening border controls and by breaking up a large-scale smuggling operation in the region that allegedly involved Russian organized crime and corrupt Georgian officials. He also reportedly sent several hundred police, military, and intelligence personnel into the region. Georgia maintained that it was only bolstering its peacekeeping contingent up to the limit of 500 troops, as permitted by the cease-fire agreement. Georgian guerrilla forces also reportedly entered the region. Allegedly, Russian officials likewise assisted several hundred paramilitary elements from Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Russia to enter. Following inconclusive clashes, both sides by late 2004 ostensibly had pulled back most undeclared forces. In November 2006, a popular referendum was held in South Ossetia to reaffirm its "independence" from Georgia. After October 2007, no more peace talks were held. Simmering long-time tensions erupted on the evening of August 7, 2008, when South Ossetia accused Georgia of launching a "massive" artillery barrage against its capital, Tskhinvali, while Georgia reported intense bombing of some Georgian villages in the conflict zone by South Ossetian forces. Georgia claims that South Ossetian forces did not respond to a ceasefire appeal but intensified their shelling, "forcing" Georgia to send in troops that reportedly soon controlled Tskhinvali and other areas. On August 8, Russia launched large-scale air attacks across Georgia and dispatched seasoned troops to South Ossetia that engaged Georgian forces in Tskhinvali later in the day. Reportedly, Russian troops had retaken Tskhinvali, occupied the bulk of South Ossetia, reached its border with the rest of Georgia, and were shelling areas across the border by the morning of August 10. Russian warplanes bombed the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi, as well as other sites. Russian ships landed troops in Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region and took up positions off Georgia's Black Sea coast. On August 12, Medvedev declared that "the aim of Russia's operation for coercing the Georgian side to peace had been achieved and it had been decided to conclude the operation.... The aggressor has been punished and suffered very heavy losses." Medvedev endorsed some elements of a European Union (EU) peace plan presented by visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy. On August 15, the Georgian government accepted the French-brokered six-point cease-fire that left Russian forces in control of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and "security zones" in undisputed Georgian territory. The six points included commitments not to use force, to halt hostilities, to provide full access for humanitarian aid, to withdraw Georgian forces to the places they were usually stationed prior to the conflict, to withdraw Russian forces to positions prior to the outbreak of hostilities (although they were permitted to implement security measures in the zone of the conflict until international monitors were in place), and to open international discussions on ensuring security and stability in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Much of the international community condemned President Medvedev's August 26 decree officially recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, and Tuvalu are the only countries that have followed suit in extending diplomatic relations to Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Vanuatu's prime minister reportedly stated to Saakashvili in May 2013 that the country does not recognize Abkhazia). On September 8, 2008, then-President Medvedev and visiting then-President Sarkozy signed a follow-on ceasefire accord that fleshed out the provisions of the six-point peace plan. Among its provisions, it stipulated that Russian forces would withdraw from areas adjacent to the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by October 11; that Georgian forces would return to their barracks by October 1; that international observers already in place from the U.N. and OSCE would remain; and that the number of international observers would be increased by October 1, to include at least 200 observers from the EU, and perhaps more later. The EU called for Russia to permit these observers to patrol in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia's position has been that these observers cannot patrol in the regions without the approval of the regions, and the regional leaders have refused to permit such patrols. Although Sarkozy strongly implied that the international conference would examine the legal status of Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Medvedev asserted that the regions had been recognized as independent by Russia on August 26, 2008, and that disputing this recognition was a "fantasy." Many observers have argued that Russia aimed both to consolidate control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and to depose Georgian President Saakashvili when it launched the August 2008 military incursion into Georgia. Russia hoped to achieve this latter goal either directly by occupying Georgia's capital of Tbilisi and killing or arresting Saakashvili, or indirectly by triggering his overthrow, according to these observers. They state that Saakashvili's survival as the popularly elected president was a major accomplishment of the diplomacy of the EU and the United States that ended Russia's offensive. Georgia, the United States, and others have maintained that in violation of the cease-fire accords, Russian troops remain in some areas instead of being removed, the number of its troops in the regions have not been reduced to pre-conflict levels, and the OSCE and U.N. observers have been forced out of the regions. Russia has established military bases in each of the regions and a naval base in Abkhazia. The British publication The Military Balance reports that as of early 2013 there were about 7,000 Russian motorized rifle brigade troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as some air force attack helicopters and S-300 surface-to-air missiles. In addition, up to several thousand Russian border guards and security personnel reportedly have been deployed and some Black Sea Fleet naval forces have docked at the port of Ochamchira, Abkhazia. The International Crisis Group (ICG), a non-governmental organization, estimated in June 2010 that there may be fewer than 30,000 people residing in South Ossetia, and that the population continues to decline (a 1989 census, taken before the beginning of conflict, reported a regional population of 98,500). The ICG suggests that the region is increasingly less able to govern or sustain itself economically, and so must rely on Russian aid and thousands of Russian construction and government workers, troops, and border guards that are deployed there. By October 1, 2008, the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) had deployed over 200 monitors and Russia announced on October 9 that its troops had withdrawn from buffer zones. Georgia has maintained that Russian troops have not pulled out of Akhalgori, a district that Russia asserts is within South Ossetia's Soviet-era borders, and the Kodori Gorge, and that no Russian military bases are permitted in the regions. In December 2008, Russia objected to continuing a mandate for about 200 OSCE observers in Georgia—including some observers authorized before the August 2008 conflict and some who were added after the August 2008 conflict—and they pulled out on June 30, 2009. Similarly, in June 2009 Russia vetoed a UNSC resolution that extended the UNOMIG mandate, and they pulled out of Abkhazia. The EUMM is now the sole international group of monitors. It reported in early 2013 that the number of staffers was 300 (of which 200 are monitors) and that the monitors are based in three field offices near the contested borders. According to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow and Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon, the EUMM has been effective at debunking several allegations made by Russia and the separatist regions that ceasefire violations have been committed by Georgia. The United States and the EU continue to call for unrestricted access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in order to monitor the ceasefire. Vershbow and Gordon have praised Georgia's cooperation with the EUMM, including Georgia's agreement with the EUMM at the beginning of 2009 to report all movements of its security forces near the administrative borders and to permit unannounced inspections of its military facilities. They contrast this cooperation to the refusal of Russia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia to permit patrols in the regions. In late April 2012, Abkhazia declared that the head of the EUMM was persona non grata , including because he advocated for the EUMM to patrol inside the breakaway regions. Abkhazia has refused to reconvene meetings of the incident prevention group (see below) since then, because the EUMM head normally would attend. An international conference to discuss security, repatriation, and status issues related to the conflict held its inaugural session in Geneva on October 15, 2008. Facilitators at the talks include the U.N., the EU, and the United States. Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia reject any challenges at the conference to the claimed independence of the breakaway regions. Russia has insisted at these meetings and elsewhere that the international community impose an arms embargo on Georgia. Russia also has insisted at these meetings that Georgia sign non-use-of-force agreements with the breakaway regions. In March 2010, Russia stated that, as a preliminary to the signing of such agreements, Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia could provide written pledges of the non-use of force to the United Nations (see below). Among significant Geneva conference meetings: In February 2009, the sides agreed to set up an "incident prevention and response mechanism" along the South Ossetian border with the rest of Georgia in order to defuse tensions before they escalate. On April 23, the first meeting of the Georgia-South Ossetia Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism was convened in the Georgian town of Ergneti, with the participation of the Georgian and South Ossetian sides, as well as representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the OSCE and the EU. At the July 2009 Geneva conference meeting, the sides discussed setting up an incident prevention group to resolve issues such as cross-border travel between Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia. A meeting in Gali, Abkhazia, to establish the group was held on July 14, 2009. At the October 14, 2010, meeting, Russia announced that it was pulling its troops out of the town of Perevi, Georgia, near the border with South Ossetia. The troops pulled out on October 18, 2010. Russia declared that this pullout marked its complete fulfillment of the ceasefire accords. South Ossetia refused to discuss problems of refugees and displaced persons after a Georgian-sponsored resolution on the return of displaced persons and refugees to South Ossetia was approved by the U.N. General Assembly in September 2010. At the June 7, 2011, meeting, Georgia raised concerns about alleged Russian terrorist attacks and plans (see below) and stated that it might reconsider participation in the Geneva conference if the terrorism persisted. At the December 14, 2011, meeting, the moderators, the United States, and Georgia argued that if binding nonuse-of-force agreements are signed, they logically should include provisions for international monitors to patrol in the breakaway regions, a stance rejected by Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Georgia and South Ossetia agreed to exchange over two dozen detainees who allegedly had illegally crossed disputed borders. The prisoner exchange—under the aegis of the incident prevention mechanism—took place at the end of December 2011. At the June 7-8, 2012, meeting, the Russian side criticized then-Secretary Clinton's announcement during her just-concluded visit to Georgia that U.S. embassies and consulates would recognize the validity of status-neutral travel documents issued by Georgia to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia who wished to travel or study in the United States. Russia claimed that the announcement set back the peace process. The new Ivanishvili government hoped for progress at the December 11-12, 2012, Geneva meeting, but voiced disappointment after the meeting and criticized Russia for failing to consider its proposals. Abkhaz authorities also rejected a conciliatory proposal by the Ivanishvili government to restore rail service from Georgia through Abkhazia to Russia, viewing it as a ploy to avoid extending recognition to the region. At the March 26-27, 2013, meeting, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister, Grigoriy Karasin, accused Georgia of hindering the talks and claimed that the only point of the talks was to convince Georgia to sign a non-use of force agreement with the breakaway regions. At the same time, Russia continued to refuse to pledge not to use force against Georgia. The EU and World Bank convened a donors' conference in Brussels on October 22, 2008, to garner international funds for Georgia's rebuilding. Thirty-eight countries and fifteen international organizations pledged approximately $4.5 billion in aid to Georgia for the 2008-2010 period. The amount pledged was higher than the basic needs outlined in a Joint Needs Assessment report presented to the conference, indicating the high level of international concern over Georgia's fate. The pledges were addressed to meet urgent social needs related to internally displaced people, as well as damaged infrastructure; budgetary shortfalls; loans, equity, and guarantees to the banking sector; and core investments in transportation, energy, and municipal infrastructure that will boost economic growth and employment. The United States pledged the largest amount—$1 billion—for these efforts (see below, " U.S. Humanitarian and Rebuilding Aid after the Russia-Georgia Conflict "). On September 30, 2009, a special EU fact-finding mission led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini released a report on the origins and outcome of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. On the one hand, the mission concluded that "open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia] and the surrounding areas, launched on the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack." The mission also argued that the artillery attack was not justifiable under international law. However, it also argued that the artillery attack "was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents" by the parties to the conflict. On the other hand, the mission suggested that "much of the Russian military action went far beyond the reasonable limits of defense," and that such "action outside South Ossetia was essentially conducted in violation of international law." In Abkhazia, actions by Russian-supported militias in the upper Kodori Valley "constituted an illegal use of force ... not justified under international law." The mission likewise asserted that actions by South Ossetian militias "against ethnic Georgians inside and outside South Ossetia, must be considered as having violated International humanitarian law and in many cases also human rights law." Commenting on the release of the report, a U.S. State Department spokesman stated that "we recognize that all sides made mistakes and miscalculations through the conflict last year. But our focus is on the future." In July 2010, Georgia unveiled an "action plan" to peacefully encourage the breakaway regions to reintegrate with Georgia. The action plan was praised by the United States and others in the international community as illustrating Georgia's "strategic patience" in peacefully engaging with the breakaway regions. The action plan called for a humanitarian commission to be established in Tbilisi and the breakaway region, for status-neutral travel documents to be issued to individuals in the breakaway regions that would facilitate international travel, and an economic zone and other subsidies. The breakaway regions have rejected the plan, and critics have questioned whether Georgia's and international donors' assistance could outmatch Russia's subsidies to the regions. Critics also raise concerns that the action plan appears to be contradicted by an earlier Law on Occupied Territories that restricts unauthorized contacts with the breakaway regions. In late 2010, President Saakashvili gave speeches at sessions of the European Parliament and the OSCE in Astana, Kazakhstan, pledging the non-use of force except in cases of self-defense. In an interview about the pledge, he stated that "we must display strategic patience, which can lead not only to the complete liberation of our territory but also to reconciliation with Russia." South Ossetia and Abkhazia followed suit with oral statements, but Russia refused to issue such a pledge on the grounds that it was not a party to the conflict. In March 2013, the Georgian legislature approved a resolution on foreign policy that reaffirmed the non-use of force pledge. In early March 2011, Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon reiterated the U.S. position that Georgia's territory is "occupied" by Russian troops. He explained that We don't know what else to call it.... We believe that Russia used disproportionate force and remains present in what we consider to be sovereign Georgia. So it's not meant to be a particular provocation, it's just a description of what we think the situation is and we've very active in the Geneva talks and bilaterally with Russia to try to bring about an end to what we consider to be a military occupation. On June 2 and June 6, 2011, Georgia announced that it had apprehended Russian terrorist infiltrators who were planning attacks in Georgia, including against the NATO Liaison Office in Tbilisi. Georgia alleged that Russian security agencies were behind the planned attacks. Russia termed these allegations "artificially fabricated arrays of data." In late July 2011, the Washington Times alleged that the U.S. intelligence community had backed up a Georgian claim that Russian intelligence operatives had orchestrated a bombing in September 2010 near the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi. In late August 2012, over two dozen alleged terrorists affiliated with the Caucasus Emirate supposedly entered Georgian territory from Russia's Dagestan or Chechnya republics and took hostages. Georgian police forces battled the terrorists, killing or apprehending most of them. President Saakashvili declared that he would not permit instability in Russia to spill over into Georgia. On April 1, 2013, the Georgian legislature's human rights ombudsman alleged that Georgian police had been assisting the terrorists to carry out operations in Russia, but that the terrorists had turned on the Georgians. In late May 2013, Russia began stringing up barbed wire and otherwise upgrading border security along parts of South Ossetia's border with the rest of Georgia. Some observers speculated that the Russian move was in response to the easing of entry requirements for South Ossetians by the Ivanishvili government, which Russia viewed as a threat to its control over the region. Signed in January 2009, the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership reflects strong U.S. support for Georgia's continued sovereignty and independence. In the security realm, "the United States and Georgia intend to expand the scope of their ongoing defense and security cooperation programs to defeat [threats to global peace and stability] and to promote peace and stability." Such cooperation will "increase Georgian capabilities and ... strengthen Georgia's candidacy for NATO membership." In the economic realm, the two countries "intend to pursue an Enhanced Bilateral Investment Treaty, to expand Georgian access to the General System of Preferences, and to explore the possibility of a Free-Trade Agreement." Energy security goals include "increasing Georgia's energy production, enhanc[ing] energy efficiency, and increas[ing] the physical security of energy transit through Georgia to European markets." In the realm of democratization, the two countries "pledge cooperation to bolster independent media, freedom of expression, and access to objective news and information," and to further strengthen the rule of law. The United States pledged to train judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and police officers. Three annual meetings have been held: The first meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission was held on June 22, 2009, in Washington, DC, led by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze. The Security Working Group also met, co-headed on the U.S. side by Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon and Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow, and headed on the Georgian side by Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria. Other working groups on the economy, democracy, and people-to-people exchanges held initial meetings over the next few months. The second plenary meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission was held on October 6, 2010, in Washington, DC. Meeting with then-Prime Minister Nikoloz Gilauri, then-Secretary Clinton stated that "the United States will not waver in its support for Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That support is a core principle of our Charter on Strategic Partnership, and it is fundamental to our bilateral relationship. The United States remains committed to Georgia's aspirations for membership in NATO…. We continue to call on Russia to end its occupation of Georgian territory…. As part of our commitment to enhancing Georgia's future as a prosperous and secure member of the Western family of nations, we will continue to work with you to strengthen Georgian democracy." Gilauri indicated that Georgia was requesting more educational, security, and economic assistance, including to bolster energy infrastructure. The third plenary meeting of the Strategic Partnership Commission was held on June 5, 2012, in Batumi, Georgia. Then-Secretary Clinton and then-Prime Minister Gilauri apparently mainly held discussions with the four working groups, according to the State Department. The defense and security working group discussed options to assist Georgia to improve air surveillance and air and coastal defense, combat engineer capabilities, and non-combatant officer training, and to upgrade the utility helicopter fleet. The State Department reported that the United States planned to move to implement such programs in coming months, and would also consider requests for "defensive articles." In the democracy working group, the U.S. participants stressed the importance of holding free and fair elections in order to further Euro-Atlantic integration, and called for reforms to the criminal justice system and the administrative code. The economic, energy, and trade working group discussed the talks on a possible free trade agreement and measures to improve Georgia's business climate. The people-to-people working group discussed then-Secretary Clinton's announcement that the United States would accept the Status Neutral Travel Document from residents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia for travel to the United States. At a press conference after meeting with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev on July 6, 2009—part of the U.S. "reset" of relations with Russia—President Obama reported that he had "reiterated my firm belief that Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected." In Georgia, many officials and others viewed the meeting positively as lessening the chances of renewed Russia-Georgia conflict and as a reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to Georgia. Perhaps to further reassure Georgians, Vice President Joseph Biden visited Georgia in late July 2009 to emphasize the continued U.S. commitment to its sovereignty and independence. President Obama reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to uphold Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity when he met with President Saakashvili at the nuclear summit in Washington, DC, in April 2010 and on January 14, 2011 (with Vice President Biden), but President Obama reportedly did not meet with President Saakashvili during the latter's week-long mid-March 2011 U.S. visit (President Saakashvili did meet with Members of Congress; see below). Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid a six-hour visit to Georgia on July 5, 2010, during her regional tour. She urged Georgians not to focus on the past, possibly referring to the Russia-Georgia conflict, but to be "focused on what you can do today and tomorrow to improve your lives and the lives of your family and the lives of your fellow citizens by building your democracy and opening your economy and providing more justice and social inclusion, that, to me, is the great mission of Georgia." While stating that the United States continued to call for Russia to pull back its troops to their positions on August 6, 2008 (in line with the 6-point cease-fire agreement), she also "strongly urged" Georgia to "not be baited or provoked into any action that would give any excuse to the Russians to take any further aggressive movements." Vice President Biden revisited Georgia on July 23, 2010—as in 2009, just after a U.S.-Russia summit—to reassure Georgia of U.S. interest in its fate. He urged Georgia to continue to develop democratic institutions and free markets, including as the best means to attract the people of the breakaway areas to reintegrate with the rest of Georgia. He called for further democratization, including constitutional changes to create a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. In 2011-2012, there were further high-level U.S.-Georgia bilateral visits. In January 2011, President Saakashvili met with President Obama during a U.S. visit, and reportedly gave the U.S. President a report detailing Georgia's defense needs. In August 2011, the U.S. Commander of the European Command and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Admiral James Stavridis, visited Georgia to discuss Georgia-NATO cooperation and Georgia's participation in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. According to some reports, Presidents Obama and Saakashvili briefly met on the sidelines of the opening of the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September 2011. Some congressional delegations also visited. During his state visit to the United States in January 2012, President Saakashvili met with President Obama, who praised efforts in Georgia to increase the honesty of police, the rule of law, and free market reforms, and called for free elections in the future. He stated that these democratic and free market reforms could serve as examples for other Eurasian countries. He reiterated the call in the Charter for exploring a free trade agreement, and thanked Saakashvili for Georgia's troop contributions in Afghanistan. He mentioned in a press conference that the two presidents had discussed "strengthen[ing] our defense cooperation," and he voiced continuing support for Georgia's NATO aspirations. In response at the press conference, President Saakashvili stated that "we are grateful for elevating our defense cooperation further and talking about Georgia's self-defense capabilities and developing it." Russia's then-Prime Minister Putin and others in Russia denounced what they inferred was a change in U.S.-Georgia defense ties, although the Administration claimed that its defense cooperation policy toward Georgia had not changed. At his confirmation hearing in March 2012, Ambassador-designate to Georgia Richard Norland stated that the United States would continue to call for the pull-back and reduction of Russian troops in the occupied regions to pre-conflict numbers. U.S. priorities in Georgia included support for its democratization, and he acknowledged that there were "deep concerns" about the harassment of prospective opposition candidates and parties in the run-up to the autumn legislative election. He also stressed that the conduct of the elections would be a "litmus test" of Georgia's readiness for NATO membership. He stated that at the January 2012 U.S.-Georgia summit, the two presidents had agreed to enhance [defense cooperation] programs, to advance Georgian military modernization reform and self-defense capabilities.... Sustaining robust bilateral security and defense cooperation with Georgia will also remain a high priority.... Our plans for security assistance and military engagement with Georgia are to support Georgia's defense reforms, to train and equip Georgian troops for participation in the ISAF mission and to advance Georgia's NATO interoperability. Then-Secretary Clinton announced at her meeting with Saakashvili on June 5, 2012, that U.S. consular officials would recognize so-called status-neutral travel documents issued by the Georgian government to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia who wished to visit the United States. She stated that by recognizing such travel documents, the United States was facilitating reconciliation in Georgia. She called for Georgia to hold a democratic legislative election in October 2012, and met with some opposition party officials (she declined to meet separately with Ivanishvili, but some of his representatives attended the meeting). She stated that the two sides had agreed on new areas of defense cooperation, including training and support for monitoring the seacoast and skies, upgrades for the utility helicopter fleet, and enhanced officer training. She reported that an inaugural High-Level Trade and Investment Dialogue meeting had been held the previous week in Washington, D.C., which had included discussion of a prospective free trade agreement. In his annual worldwide threat assessment, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in March 2013 that the Administration hoped that the victory of Georgia Dream in Georgia's legislative election would contribute to improved Georgia-Russia relations. He also raised concerns that Georgia faces a "challenging political transition and an increased risk of domestic political instability," presumably referring to the run-up and aftermath of the prospective October 2013 Georgian presidential election. Meeting with visiting Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on April 25, 2013, Vice President Joe Biden stressed the United States' enduring and strong commitment to partnership with Georgia, and called on the country's president, government, and legislature to cooperate to maintain democratic and economic reforms. Saakashvili met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 1. Kerry urged continued democratization in Georgia, and the two sides indicated that they would discuss Georgia's progress in meeting requirements for membership in NATO. Some observers have called for a reevaluation of some aspects of U.S. support for Georgia. These critics have argued that many U.S. policymakers had been captivated by Saakashvili's charismatic personality and pledges to democratize and tended to overlook his bellicosity. They have warned that U.S. acceptance of Georgian troops for coalition operations in Afghanistan must not lead to U.S. defense commitments to Georgia, and a few have suggested that the United States should not unquestionably back Georgia's territorial integrity, but should rather encourage reconciliation and the consideration of options short of the near-term reintegration of the regions into Georgia. At the same time, most observers advise against extending diplomatic recognition to breakaway regions without an international consensus. Other observers have called for a more robust U.S. and NATO effort to resupply Georgia with defensive weaponry so that it might deter or resist Russian aggression. However, recent arrests of former government officials and other problematic human rights developments in Georgia have led some to re-evaluate such stepped-up defense cooperation. The United States has been Georgia's largest bilateral aid donor, budgeting cumulative aid of $3.37 billion in FY1992-FY2010 (all agencies and programs). See Table 1 and Table 2 . Georgia has regularly ranked among the top world states in terms of per capita U.S. aid. U.S.-budgeted aid for Georgia in FY2012 was $85.5 million. Requested foreign assistance for FY2014 is $62.0 million (data for FY2012 and FY2014 include "Function 150" programs and exclude Defense and Energy Department funds; estimates for FY2013 are not yet available). The Administration budget request for FY2014 calls for slightly over one-third of funding to be spent on security programs, about one-third on democratization, and about one-third on economic growth programs. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) closed out a 2006-2011 $395 million agreement (termed a "compact") with Georgia that the MCC regarded as highly successful in resurfacing roads, rehabilitating the north-south gas pipeline, rebuilding water supplies, and providing agricultural assistance (much of the MCC spending was in addition to above-mentioned aid). In January 2011, MCC announced that Georgia was eligible for a second compact. Georgia suggested efforts to bolster education, and MCC notified Congress in 2012 that it planned to provide some preliminary funding to assist Georgia in working out details of such a program. On April 9, 2013, MCC notified Congress that it intended to open negotiations with Georgia on a compact worth $140 million for projects in general education, technical and vocational education and training, and higher education, with an emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math education. To address Georgia's urgent humanitarian needs in the wake of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Defense and State Departments provided Georgia with urgent humanitarian assistance, with the Defense Department quickly beginning naval and air deliveries. Reportedly, the Bush Administration had authorized these Defense Department deliveries to demonstrate U.S. backing for Georgia's continued independence. On September 3, 2008, then-Secretary of State Rice announced a multi-year $1 billion aid plan for Georgia. The Administration envisaged that the proposed $1 billion aid package would be in addition to existing aid and requests for Georgia, such as FREEDOM Support Act assistance. The added aid was planned for humanitarian needs, particularly for internally displaced persons, for the reconstruction of infrastructure and facilities that were damaged or destroyed during the Russian invasion, and for safeguarding Georgia's continued economic growth. Congress acted quickly to flesh out the Administration's aid proposals for Georgia. The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 ( H.R. 2638 / P.L. 110-329 ), signed into law on September 30, 2008, appropriated an additional $365 million in aid for Georgia and the region (beyond that provided under continuing appropriations based on FY2008 funding) for humanitarian and economic relief, reconstruction, energy-related programs, and democracy activities. Of that amount, $315 million was actually budgeted for Georgia. The Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2009 ( P.L. 111-32 ; signed into law on June 24, 2009) provided an additional $242 million in Freedom Support Act assistance to Georgia, "the final portion of the $1 billion pledge." A State Department contractor later concluded that the $1 billion had greatly assisted Georgia in easing economic distress and in recovering from the conflict. See Table 3. Among U.S. security programs in Georgia, a $64 million Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) began in 2002. U.S. troops provided training to 200 officers, some 2,000 soldiers, and a small number of Interior (police) Ministry troops and border guards. According to the U.S. Defense Department, the GTEP aimed to help Georgia "to resist pressure to allow the Russian military to pursue Chechen rebels" into Georgia, help it combat terrorists inside the country, and block those trying to infiltrate Georgia. Small arms, communications and medical gear, and uniforms were provided. The program ended in 2004 but a follow-on Sustainment and Stability Operations Program (SSOP) was launched in FY2006. SSOP provided training for 7,800 troops, in part to support U.S.-led coalition operations in Iraq, along with advisory assistance for defense reforms and maintenance for previously supplied helicopters. Georgia pulled most of its troops out of Iraq in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict and the rest by the end of 2008. About $124.2 million in Coalition Support Funds were used for SSOP. Congress provided $50 million in FY2008 and $50 million in FY2009 under the (now expired) authority of Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ( P.L. 109-163 ) for reconstruction and stabilization activities in Georgia, of which only a small portion was defense-related (the restoration of Coast Guard infrastructure; none was weapons-related, see below). Under Section 1206 of the Act, Congress provided $8.8 million to Georgia in FY2008 for special forces training. The Georgia Deployment Program-ISAF, begun in late 2009, is supported by Marine Forces Europe to deploy Georgian forces alongside U.S. Marines to Afghanistan. As capabilities improve, the Georgian forces will operate independently, and a Georgian training group will be created that can largely take over from the Marine trainers. Coalition Readiness Support Program funds are used to train and equip the Georgian troops, amounting to $23.6 million in FY2010, $23.5 million in FY2011, and $81.8 million in FY2012. Under Section 1206, 40 Highly Mobile Multi-Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), night vision devices, radios, rifle scopes, and other equipment amounting to $19.07 million were provided in FY2010. In FY 2011, $21.7 million in Section 1206 funds were used to provide vehicles, communication equipment, and night vision devices, and in FY2012, $3.7 million is being used for communications and electronics equipment, weapons sights, and other equipment. Also in FY2012, 48 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles are being loaned for training in Georgia, under the authority of Section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 ( P.L. 109-364 ). Assistant Secretary Vershbow testified in August 2009 that the Obama Administration was "focusing on building defense institutions, assisting defense sector reform, and building the strategic and educational foundations that will facilitate necessary training, education, and rational force structure design and procurement. We are assisting Georgia to move along the path to having modern, western-oriented, NATO-interoperable armed forces capable of territorial defense and coalition contributions." He stressed, however, that "the United States has not 'rearmed' Georgia as some have claimed. There has been no lethal military assistance to Georgia since the August [2008] conflict." Although President Saakashvili seemed to indicate during then-Secretary Clinton's July 2010 visit that U.S. security cooperation with Georgia was adequate, he stated in September 2010 that "leaving Georgia defenseless doesn't help the situation. Georgia cannot attack Russia, while a defenseless Georgia is a big temptation for Russia to change our government through military means…. As part of ongoing security cooperation, we hope that the U.S. will help us with defense-weapons capabilities." Some in Congress and elsewhere have criticized this dearth of lethal security assistance to bolster Georgia's territorial defense capabilities. Although President Saakashvili seemed to indicate during then-Secretary Clinton's July 2010 visit that U.S. security cooperation with Georgia was adequate, he stated in September 2010 that "leaving Georgia defenseless doesn't help the situation. Georgia cannot attack Russia, while a defenseless Georgia is a big temptation for Russia to change our government through military means…. As part of ongoing security cooperation, we hope that the U.S. will help us with defense-weapons capabilities." On December 12, 2010, U.S. Senator John McCain called for the Obama Administration to resume some defensive arms transfers to Georgia, including early warning radars. Three days later, Giorgiy Baramidze, Georgia's then-deputy prime minister and state minister for Euro-Atlantic integration, also called for the United States to resume the transfer of defensive weapons to Georgia. During his March 10-17, 2011, visit to the United States, President Saakashvili reportedly requested U.S. transfers of defensive weapons. In late March 2011, he reportedly stated that while some U.S. small arms transfers were "in the pipeline," Georgia needed anti-air and anti-tank weapons from the United States. During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 29, 2011, Senator McCain asked whether the United States was providing defensive weapons to Georgia, and EUCOM Commander Stavridis stated that "at this moment we are not providing them [with] what I would term high-end military defensive weapons." Senator McCain responded that "it is hard for me to understand, since the Russians still occupy territory that is clearly Georgian territory and continue to threaten Georgia, and yet we're not even giving them weapons with which to defend themselves. It is not comprehensible." After a meeting between U.S. Members of Congress and Georgian legislators on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Bucharest, Romania, in mid-October 2011, the U.S. delegation head, Representative Mike Turner, released a statement of support for Georgia. According to the statement, "the United States recently approved a commercial arms sale to Georgia; all NATO states should look to arms sales with Georgia that can add to the collective defense…. A stronger Georgia is clearly in the interest of all NATO members." A report issued in October 2011 by a team led by Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham urged that U.S. policy be changed to "normalize ... defense relations with Georgia, including allowing sales of defensive military equipment [which] will encourage other allies to follow suit, enabling Georgia to resume purchasing armaments from Central European allies." On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2012 ( P.L. 112-81 ). Section 1242 calls for the Defense Secretary to submit a plan to Congress for the normalization of U.S. defense cooperation with Georgia, including the sale of defensive weapons. In a signing statement, the President stated that if the provisions of the section conflict with his constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations (presumably, in this case, including his "reset" policy with Russia), they would be considered non-binding. At a press conference after he met with President Obama in late January 2012, President Saakashvili stated that "we are very grateful for elevating our defense cooperation further, and talking about [developing] Georgia's self-defense capabilities," while President Obama appeared more reticent in stating only that "we will continue to strengthen our defense cooperation." Russian then-Prime Minister (and current president) Vladimir Putin denounced the reported closer U.S.-Georgia defense cooperation as encouraging Georgia to carry out aggressive military actions. The report required by the NDAA for FY2012 was transmitted to Congress on April 30, 2012. The report states that results of bilateral security collaboration since the 2008 conflict have included the revision of Georgia's national security strategy and defense plan, institutionalizing Afghan training and deployment methods, implementing a military personnel management system, reorganizing the armed forces. The latter has included the creation of a National Defense Academy to train officers who can operate with U.S. and NATO forces and who share Western values. The report stressed that there were two pillars of U.S.-Georgia defense cooperation: U.S. support for modernizing Georgia's armed forces; and U.S. support for Georgia's contributions to ISAF. For the first pillar, there were 63 cooperative training, education, and operational contacts in FY2011, and 23 in FY 2012 through April 2012. According to the report, all of Georgia's 19 requests since May 2010 for foreign military sales equipment and services have resulted in transfers or are in the process of being fulfilled. Six of these requests were to support ISAF deployments, but the rest were to support defense modernization, mostly involving training. Only two transfers seemed to involve military equipment for defense capabilities, in order to enhance communications (the report did not list the sale of carbines, mentioned above). The report stated that Presidents Obama and Saakashvili had agreed in January 2012 on enhanced defense cooperation in the areas of air and coastal surveillance and defense training, train-the-trainer instruction for non-commissioned officers, brigade command and staff training, combat engineer training, and utility helicopter training. The report stated that discussions are underway for Georgia to purchase air and coastal surveillance radar and acoustic systems and small arms ammunition. The report announced that the "enhanced defense cooperation" program would begin in FY2013. During her June 5-6, 2012, visit to Georgia, former Secretary Clinton hailed this planned enhanced defense cooperation. While there, she also highlighted other security cooperation. She helped formally commission a patrol boat that had been modernized with funds from the Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Account of the State Department. She stated that since the 2008 conflict, the United States had supplied $10 million to rebuild Georgia's Coast Guard, including three patrol boats, construction of a ship repair facility, installation of new communications and observation equipment, and a maritime information center. She also hailed other EXBS assistance to Georgia in recent years. In his March 2013 testimony to Congress, EUCOM Commander Stavridis stated that EUCOM had expanded the Georgia Deployment Program to train and deploy two battalions every six months to ISAF's Regional Command Southwest, had supported Armenian-Georgian training on cross-border Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response, had led an assessment of junior officer and non-commissioned officer professional development programs as well as combat engineer training and education, and had coordinated brigade command and staff development. He stated that Georgian troops had taken advantage of training at U.S. Army Europe's Joint Multinational Training Center for mission rehearsal exercises prior to ISAF deployment, and had participated in Agile Spirit, a training workup for troops in the Georgia Deployment Program. He also reported that U.S. Naval Forces Europe continued to lead Eurasia Partnership Capstone, which included training with Georgian naval forces, and provided training for non-commissioned officer development, maritime interdiction operations, visit/board/search/ seizure, search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, and environmental protection. U.S. Naval Forces Europe also co-hosted the annual Sea Breeze naval exercise in the Black Sea, which included participation by Georgian forces. Admiral Stavridis did not report on any weapons transfers to Georgia. In his April 11, 2013, nomination hearing to be EUCOM Commander, General Philip Breedlove stated that the United States "has a vigorous defense cooperation program with Georgia," involving hundreds of events annually, including cyber defense, border security, professional military education development, and counterinsurgency operations training. He stated that FMF funding is "robust," amounting to approximately $14 million (presumably referring to FY2012; see below). He reiterated the areas of engagement that President Obama had offered to President Saakashvili in January 2012, and stated that EUCOM "has already conducted or has planned initial engagements with Georgia in all these areas," including through the use of IMET funds. He repeated the language of the April 2012 NDAA Report (discussed above) that the Obama Administration would look favorably on the sale of air surveillance radars, coastal surveillance acoustic systems, and small arms ammunition to Georgia. The Executive Budget Summary: Function 150 and Other International Programs for FY2014 , released on April 10, 2013, calls for $1.8 million in IMET and $12 million in FMF for Georgia, about a $2.5 million reduction from such aid in FY2012. On June 13, 2013, Amendment Number 130 (Turner) to the NDAA for FY2014 ( H.R. 1960 ) to Section 1244 was approved that stated that it is the sense of Congress that the United States should enhance defense cooperation with Georgia. The amendment added findings that the new Georgian government elected in October 2012 charged over 100 former government officials and UNM members with crimes that appear to be motivated by political considerations. The amendment stated that the arrest of the UNM party leader Vano Merabishvili was "especially troubling," because of its "chilling effect" on political contestation in the run-up to the presidential election, and that such actions call into question the Georgian government's continued democratization. The amendment declares that these actions may have a negative impact on U.S.-Georgia relations and on integrating Georgia into international organizations. The House approved H.R. 1960 on June 14, 2014, for further action in the Senate. The former president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, immediately condemned the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and offered "airspace and territory" for U.S. coalition operations in Afghanistan. Georgia was among the countries in 2003 that openly pledged to support the U.S.-led Operation Iraqi Freedom. In August 2003, Georgia dispatched 69 troops to Iraq, boosted them to over 850 in March 2005, and increased them to 2,000 by September 2007, making it among the top contributors of troops. Georgian troops served under U.S. command. Many provided security in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, the town of Baqubah northeast of Baghdad, and in Wasit Governorate, along the Iranian border. Most of the troops pulled out in August 2008 in connection with the Russia-Georgia conflict, and the rest pulled out by the end of November 2008. On November 16, 2009, Georgia sent 173 troops for training in Germany before their scheduled deployment at the end of March 2010 to support ISAF. These troops were boosted to 925 in mid-2010. On December 20, 2011, the Georgian legislature approved sending an added Georgian battalion of up to 749 troops to Afghanistan. The troops were deployed in October 2012, boosting the size of the Georgian contingent, reportedly to 1,561 troops as of June 2013. The added deployment made Georgia the largest contributor to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) among non-NATO member countries (surpassing Australia with 1,550 troops). The U.S. European Command's Georgia Deployment Program supports Georgian troop training and rotations. Defense Minister Alasania has stated that the Georgian troops will remain beyond 2014 to assist the Afghan National Security Forces. The Labor Party in Georgia is one of the few parties that opposes troop deployments to Afghanistan and calls for the troops to be recalled. On May 13, 2013, a truck bomb was set off near a Georgian base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, followed by a terrorist attack. Three Georgian troops were killed and 27 wounded. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. On June 6, 2013, another truck bomb was set off near another Georgian base in Helmand Province, killing seven soldiers and wounding nine. The troop contingent reportedly had just been deployed in Helmand in April 2013. An Internet video posted that same day and subsequent statements by the Taliban warned Georgia that its troops in Afghanistan and even its homeland would suffer if all troops were not withdrawn. The new casualties brought the Georgian death toll in Afghanistan to 29 troops. The Georgian president and prime minister stated that Georgia would "not retreat" in the face of such threats and actions. | The small Black Sea-bordering country of Georgia gained its independence at the end of 1991 with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. The United States had an early interest in its fate, since the well-known former Soviet foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, soon became its leader. Democratic and economic reforms faltered during his rule, however. New prospects for the country emerged after Shevardnadze was ousted in 2003 and the U.S.-educated Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president. Then-U.S. President George W. Bush visited Georgia in 2005, and praised the democratic and economic aims of the Saakashvili government while calling on it to deepen reforms. The August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict caused much damage to Georgia's economy and military, as well as contributing to hundreds of casualties and tens of thousands of displaced persons in Georgia. The United States quickly pledged $1 billion in humanitarian and recovery assistance for Georgia. In early 2009, the United States and Georgia signed a Strategic Partnership Charter, which pledged U.S. support for democratization, economic development, and security reforms in Georgia. The Obama Administration has provided ongoing support for Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States has been Georgia's largest bilateral aid donor, budgeting cumulative aid of $3.37 billion in FY1992-FY2010 (all agencies and programs). Georgia has regularly ranked among the top world states in terms of per capita U.S. aid. U.S.-budgeted aid for Georgia in FY2012 was $85.5 million. The Administration has requested $62.0 million for foreign assistance for Georgia for FY2014 (data for FY2012 and FY2014 include "Function 150" programs and exclude Defense and Energy Department funds; estimates for FY2013 are not yet available). |
McDonald's scraps controversial beef process
Cholesterol drugs may not lower heart attack risk, study says
Cholesterol drugs may not lower heart attack risk, study says
Severe weather: Texas flooding and snow in New York
Severe weather: Texas flooding and snow in New York
Celebrity chef and food activist Jamie Oliver is a man on a mission: to stop the use of what he calls "pink slime," beef scraps no one would choose to eat, reprocessed and repurposed for use in hamburger patties.
It is, he asserts, "not fit for human consumption."
"We're taking a product that would be sold in its cheaper form for dogs and," he says, "after this process, we can give it to humans."
The first salvo in his high-profile food fight was an April 2011 stomach-turning demonstration on his TV show, "Food Revolution," nine months ago.
He washed bits of beef in a solution of ammonia and water -- ammonium hydroxide -- to kill off bacteria, a technique approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
"This is a practice," Oliver says, "that's openly admitted to being in 70 percent of ground beef. That kind of puts it everywhere."
But last week, McDonald's announced it's no longer using the controversial beef. In a statement, the chain said the decision "was not related to any particular event."
Still, Oliver said he's "thrilled."
But, if he considers McDonalds a victory, he'd have to call Los Angeles a loss. City schools rejected his offer for a healthy menu makeover and decided to go it alone.
And student Kevin Albrecht says, "The healthier it gets, the more disgusting it is."
Some can barely describe what "it" is.
Fellow student Marina Sangit said one item is "called a barbecue sandwich, but it looks like an imitation Sloppy Joe."
So, the district keeps trying, testing healthy, "tastier" foods on kids and parents.
But, observes student Cameron Michaels, "Any food (adults say) is good for me, I think I'm not going to like it."
Yet - one student says he likes "the pesoli, the hummus and the water."
Parent Amu Narin agreed, noting, "He's shoveling it in. And I've never seen him eat salad at home."
Like Jamie Oliver, the schools want healthy foods, but they're learning kids will only eat what's good for them, if it tastes good.
To see Bill Whitaker's full report, click on the video in the player above. ||||| In July, school lunch officials temporarily banned their hamburger makers from using meat from a Beef Products facility in Kansas because of salmonella — the third suspension in three years, records show. Yet the facility remained approved by the U.S.D.A. for other customers.
Presented by The Times with the school lunch test results, top department officials said they were not aware of what their colleagues in the lunch program had been finding for years.
In response, the agriculture department said it was revoking Beef Products’ exemption from routine testing and conducting a review of the company’s operations and research. The department said it was also reversing its policy for handling Beef Products during pathogen outbreaks. Since it was seen as pathogen-free, the processed beef was excluded from recalls, even when it was an ingredient in hamburgers found to be contaminated.
The Beef Products case reveals a schism between the main Department of Agriculture and its division that oversees the school lunch program, a divide that underscores the government’s faltering effort to make hamburger safe. The U.S.D.A. banned the sale of meat found to be contaminated with the O157:H7 strain of E. coli 15 years ago, after a deadly outbreak was traced to Jack in the Box restaurants. Meat tainted with salmonella is also a hazard. But while the school lunch program will not buy meat contaminated with salmonella, the agriculture department does not ban its sale to the general public.
Even so, E. coli outbreaks nationwide have increased in recent years. And this summer, two outbreaks of particularly virulent strains of salmonella in hamburger prompted large recalls of ground beef across several states.
Although no outbreak has been tied to Beef Products, officials said they would thoroughly scrutinize any future industry innovations for fighting contamination “to ensure that they are scientifically sound and protect public health,” and that they were examining the government’s overall meat safety policies.
The founder and owner of Beef Products, Eldon N. Roth, declined requests for interviews or access to the company’s production facilities. Responding to written questions, Beef Products said it had a deep commitment to hamburger safety and was continually refining its operation to provide the safest product possible. “B.P.I.’s track record demonstrates the progress B.P.I. has made compared to the industry norm,” the company said. “Like any responsible member of the meat industry, we are not perfect.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Beef Products maintains that its ammonia process remains effective. It said it tests samples of each batch it ships to customers and has found E. coli in only 0.06 percent of the samples this year.
Photo
The company says its processed beef, a mashlike substance frozen into blocks or chips, is used in a majority of the hamburger sold nationwide. But it has remained little known outside industry and government circles. Federal officials agreed to the company’s request that the ammonia be classified as a “processing agent” and not an ingredient that would be listed on labels.
Within the U.S.D.A., the treated beef has been a source of friction for years. The department accepted the company’s own study as evidence that the treatment was effective. School lunch officials, who had some doubts about its effectiveness, required that Beef Products meat be tested, as they do all beef used by the program.
School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than many of the program’s two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to 2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program. Beef Products said its testing regime was more likely to detect contamination.
Despite some misgivings, school lunch officials say they use Beef Products because its price is substantially lower than ordinary meat trimmings, saving about $1 million a year.
Another snapshot of processed beef’s performance emerges from confidential records of tests in 2007 by the food giant Cargill. In the preceding year and a half, Cargill, which used more than 50 vendors, suspended three facilities for excessive salmonella; two were Beef Products plants, records show.
Since introducing the treated meat, Beef Products has faced the challenge of balancing safety with taste, records and interviews show.
Pathogens died when enough ammonia was used to raise the alkalinity of the beef to a high level, company research found. But early on, school lunch officials and other customers complained about the taste and smell of the beef. Samples of the processed beef obtained by The Times revealed lower levels of alkalinity, suggesting less ammonia was used.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Beef Products acknowledged lowering the alkalinity, and the U.S.D.A. said it had determined that “at least some of B.P.I.’s product was no longer receiving the full lethality treatment.”
Beef Products said it had submitted new research to the agriculture department showing that its treatment remained effective with lower alkalinity. Agriculture officials said Beef Products’ latest study is under review.
A Safety Solution
Headstrong and self-assured, Eldon N. Roth had the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time.
Mr. Roth spent the 1990s looking to give Beef Products a competitive edge by turning fatty slaughterhouse trimmings into usable lean beef.
Mr. Roth and others in the industry had discovered that liquefying the fat and extracting the protein from the trimmings in a centrifuge resulted in a lean product that was desirable to hamburger-makers.
The greater challenge was eliminating E. coli and salmonella, which are more prevalent in fatty trimmings than in higher grades of beef. According to a 2003 study financed by Beef Products, the trimmings “typically includes most of the material from the outer surfaces of the carcass” and contains “larger microbiological populations.” Beef Products said it also used trimmings from inside cuts of meat.
Photo
Mr. Roth was well suited to tackle the problem, friends say. Though lacking a science background, he had a knack for machinery and obtained patents for over two dozen pieces of equipment and methods used in processing beef.
“He looked and looked at stuff and always wondered, why can’t it be done this way?” said Dr. David M. Theno, a food safety consultant and friend of Mr. Roth. “He is like a lot of inventors. Not everyone sees Eldon’s vision.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
One of Mr. Roth’s early trials involved running electricity through the trimmings to kill bacteria, Dr. Theno and others said. Mr. Roth eventually settled on ammonia, which had been shown to suppress spoilage. Meat is sent through pipes where it is exposed to ammonia gas, and then flash frozen and compressed — all steps that help kill pathogens, company research found.
The treated beef landed in Washington in 2001, when federal officials were searching for ways to eliminate E. coli. Beef Products already had one study showing its treatment would do that; another company-sponsored study by an Iowa State University professor that was published in a professional journal seconded that finding.
Mr. Roth asserted that his product would kill pathogens in untreated meat when it was used as an ingredient in ground beef — raising the prospect of a risk-free burger. “Given the technology, we firmly believe that the two pathogens of major concern in raw ground beef — E. coli O157:H7 and salmonella — are on the verge of elimination,” Mr. Roth wrote to the department.
The Food and Drug Administration signed off on the use of ammonia, concluding it was safe when used as a processing agent in foods. This year, a top official with the U.S.D.A.’s Food Safety and Inspection Service said, “It eliminates E. coli to the same degree as if you cooked the product.”
Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef "pink slime" in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”
One of the toughest hurdles for Beef Products was the Agricultural Marketing Service, the U.S.D.A. division that buys food for school lunches. Officials cited complaints about the odor, and wrote in a 2002 memorandum that they had “to determine if the addition of ammonia to the product is in the best interest to A.M.S. from a quality standpoint.”
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.
“It is our contention,” the memo added, “that product should be labeled accordingly.”
Represented by Dennis R. Johnson, a top lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry, Beef Products prevailed on the question of whether ammonia should be listed as an ingredient, arguing that the government had just decided against requiring another company to list a chemical used in treating poultry.
School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the treated meat because it shaved about 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.“Several packers have unofficially raised concern regarding the use of the product since the perception of quality is inferior,” the 2002 memo said. “But will use product to obtain lower bid.”
In 2004, lunch officials increased the amount of Beef Products meat allowed in its hamburgers to 15 percent, from 10 percent, to increase savings. In a taste test at the time, some school children favored burgers with higher amounts of processed beef.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Beef Products does not disclose its earnings, but its reported production of seven million pounds a week would generate about $440 million in annual revenue, according to industry records.
Dr. Theno, the food safety consultant, applauds Mr. Roth for figuring out how to convert high-fat trimmings “with no functional value.”
Photo
“There were some issues with that,” Dr. Theno said. “But he, and God bless him, amassed a tidy fortune for it.”
As sales took off, Mr. Roth started offering a buy-back guarantee: If any of the most virulent E. coli was found in ground beef containing Beef Products meat, the company would buy the tainted meat.
This was based on Mr. Roth’s initial prediction that his treated beef could kill E. coli in any meat it was mixed with. The company acknowledges that its subsequent study found no evidence to back that up, although it says it is now trying with an enhanced treatment. The guarantee remains on the company Web site: “Contact a B.P.I. sales representative today to take the challenge!”
Odor and Alkalinity
As suppliers of national restaurant chains and government-financed programs were buying Beef Product meat to use in ground beef, complaints about its pungent odor began to emerge.
In early 2003, officials in Georgia returned nearly 7,000 pounds to Beef Products after cooks who were making meatloaf for state prisoners detected a “very strong odor of ammonia” in 60-pound blocks of the trimmings, state records show.
“It was frozen, but you could still smell ammonia,” said Dr. Charles Tant, a Georgia agriculture department official. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Unaware that the meat was treated with ammonia — since it was not on the label — Georgia officials assumed it was accidentally contaminated and alerted the agriculture department. In their complaint, the officials noted that the level of ammonia in the beef was similar to levels found in contamination incidents involving chicken and milk that had sickened schoolchildren.
Beef Products said the ammonia did not pose a danger and would be diluted when its beef was mixed with other meat. The U.S.D.A. accepted Beef Product’s conclusion, but other customers had also complained about the smell.
Untreated beef naturally contains ammonia and is typically about 6 on the pH scale, near that of rain water and milk. The Beef Products’ study that won U.S.D.A. approval used an ammonia treatment that raised the pH of the meat to as high as 10, an alkalinity well beyond the range of most foods. The company’s 2003 study cited the “potential issues surrounding the palatability of a pH-9.5 product.”
Soon after getting initial approval from the agriculture department, the company devised a plan to make a less alkaline version of the beef, internal company documents show. Beef Products acknowledged in an e-mail exchange that it was making a lower pH version, but did not specify the level or when it began selling it.
In 2008, after the school lunch program temporarily suspended a Beef Products plant for salmonella contamination, the company wrote in a letter that its effort to combat ammonia “aroma” might have reduced the alkalinity below the initial target levels. It said it was taking steps to ensure that the alkalinity remained elevated.
Samples of the treated beef obtained by The Times this month showed a pH as low as 7.75, according to an analysis by two laboratories. Dr. Michael P. Doyle, a food industry consultant and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, said one point on the exponential pH scale was a considerable difference, and “could have a significant effect on the antimicrobial effectiveness of the ammonia.”
This month, Beef Products provided The Times with new research that the company said showed that E. coli and salmonella were undetectable at a pH level of 8.5. The agriculture department said it did not learn that Beef Products was using lower levels until October, after inquiries by The Times, and that it was studying the company’s research.
Photo
McDonald’s, whose hamburgers have contained Beef Products meat since 2004, declined to say if it monitored it for pH. But Danya Proud, a chain spokeswoman, said, “We expect the pH level to meet the specifications that are approved by the U.S.D.A.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Contamination and Notification
At 6:36 a.m. on Aug. 10, the Beef Products plant in South Sioux City, Neb., started up its production line for the school lunch program. In 60 minutes, the plant produced a batch of 26,880 pounds of processed beef that tested positive for E. coli.
Six days later at the same plant, another 26,880-pound lot was found to have salmonella, government records and interviews show.
Within hours of confirming the contamination, the school lunch division of the Agriculture Department in Washington began investigating.
Just down the hall at department headquarters, the division that oversees meat for the general public did not conduct its own inquiry for another month and half, after receiving questions from The Times.
The problems in South Sioux City came shortly after school lunch officials had suspended a Beef Products plant in Holcomb, Kan., for excessive salmonella. The main U.S.D.A. was not notified of the suspension by school lunch officials, and the plant continued to supply other customers.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since directed school lunch officials to share information about their suspensions with the department’s meat safety division.
In addressing the latest contamination cases in Nebraska , Beef Products said it suspected a glitch in its treatment operations, referring to ammonia gas by its chemical name, NH3, according to an e-mail message to school lunch officials.
“The system was stopped for two minutes in order to install a new valve,” the company said. “When the system was restarted, there was product flow for approximately one minute without NH3 flow.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
After the school lunch officials replied that the glitch might explain only one of the two episodes, Beef Products shifted focus to its suppliers, saying it would more closely scrutinize them for contamination.
Under the U.S.D.A.’s new policy for Beef Products, the company itself is also likely to get more scrutiny.
Cargill, one of the nation’s largest hamburger makers, is a big buyer of Beef Products’ ammoniated trimmings for its patties. Company records show that Beef Products, like other suppliers, has periodically exceeded Cargill’s limits on acceptable bacteria levels. That led Cargill to stop buying meat from two Beef Products plants for several months in 2006 after company tests showed excessive levels of salmonella.
But the following year, when Cargill faced an E. coli outbreak, it ruled out Beef Products as a possible culprit, citing the U.S.D.A.’s view that the ammonia treatment provided a “lethality step” for the pathogen. In addition, Cargill officials said recently, they suspect that another supplier, not Beef Products, was the problem. As a result, Beef Products did not face as wide a recall as other Cargill suppliers.
Recently, another E. coli outbreak was traced to a hamburger maker in upstate New York that also used multiple suppliers, including Beef Products. This time, the agriculture department said Beef Products was being recalled with other suppliers, although a source of the contamination had not been identified.
“This will continue to be our approach going forward,” the department said. ||||| McDonald's said this week that it was no longer using the controversial ground beef additive known as "pink slime" in its hamburger recipe. Taco Bell and Burger King have also reportedly repudiated the "slime," which consists of spare beef trimmings that have been treated with ammonium hydroxide to make them safe and at least semi-palatable.
The move came after "Food Revolution" and "Naked Chef" star Jamie Oliver made public calls for chains to abandon the "slime," which has been manufactured by Beef Products Inc since 2001. Some are pointing to his advocacy as a central factor behind McDonald's decision.
Even if Oliver was the most prominent critic of "pink slime," though, he wasn't alone. The New York Times raised serious doubts about "pink slime" in a 2009 investigation of the product. It was also criticized in the 2010 documentary "Food Inc."
Part of the criticism stems from a general sense of disgust. People don't like hearing that they're eating spare trimmings of beef from strange parts of a cow. Nor, for that matter, do people like to hear that they're eating ammonia.
The USDA, for its part, approved of the ammoniated beef trimmings. In 2007, when it mandated increased testing for most ground beef, it specifically exempted "pink slime," even though the ammoniated beef comes from the parts of the cow most likely to harbor pathogens. The USDA argued that the beef's ammonia treatment would kill any bacteria lingering in the beef.
And there's some evidence that the USDA wasn't wrong to call "pink slime" safe. Indeed, a Jan. 9 editorial in Food Safety News argued that the public backlash against pink slime had more to do with fear-mongering on the part of figures like Oliver than with any rational assessment of the product itself.
That said, the Times found evidence that linked Beef Products' ammoniated beef to dozens of cases of salmonella and E. coli, so there's at least a fighting chance that it's less safe than conventional beef. Moreover, using "pink slime" only cuts the price of ground beef by about three cents a pound. Aren't you willing to pay less than a penny more for your quarter-pounder to avoid gambling with your health? | Jamie Oliver's gastric juices must be bubbling with joy. The food activist and celebrity chef has fought for months against so-called "pink slime," and lo and behold, McDonald's announced last week it has stopped using the controversial beef, CBS News reports. The chain was "taking a product that would be sold in its cheaper form for dogs" and gave "it to humans," Oliver said; he's "thrilled" by McD's decision. What is "pink slime"? Used in 70% of ground beef, it's beef trimmings from strange parts of a cow that are treated with ammonium hydroxide to make them relatively safe and edible, Huffington Post reports. The USDA approved "pink slime" in 2007, but the New York Times and the documentary Food Inc. have raised doubts about its safety. Food Safety News says the public backlash was unfair, but the Times linked "pink slime" to dozens of cases of E. coli and salmonella. (Read about a deadly bacteria found in supermarket meats.) |
my body tells no lies
Candace Faber Blocked Unblock Follow Following Jun 29, 2018
Content Warning: Sexual assault/rape
Note: I’ve spent some time deciding whether to share this story — whether to keep talking about my own experience when there are so many others, whether to focus on sexual assault in a moment when there is so much else going on in the world. But I found it healing to write this story directly from the memories in my body, and I am sharing it in the hope that it can be a point of connection for other survivors of sexual assault who were trapped into believing that their experience “didn’t count,” as well as for people who have committed sexual assault but do not yet recognize it as such.
I think a lot of people are so used to overriding the information they receive from women’s bodies that they’ve convinced themselves that they’re innocent, when in fact, I would venture that many, if not most, men, who are used to owning narratives about women’s bodies, have committed sexual assault, whether they have allowed themselves to realize it or not. For this reason, when writing from the truth of my individual body and not my social mind, I use the loaded term “rape” sparingly, but I want to be absolutely clear that that is what happened to me and to anyone has had a similar response in their body to a sexual experience.
Our bodies tell the truths in ways that no system or narrative framing can erase. They are stamped forever. But they are often hidden under layers of culture, narrative, and dominance that serve to gaslight us, making us question our reality or feel so ashamed of it that we push it away. I cut myself off from my body at a very young age. I do not know whether this is due to being gay in an Evangelical family, being a woman in a strict patriarchy and extremely father-dominant home, or other reasons beyond my current comprehension. I do know that it has taken me eleven years of work to be able to access fully the memories of this event in my own body, and even so I notice strange gaps, information I didn’t take in at the time. I am honest about them here. I get angry reading narratives about sexual assault that deny the truth of what it feels like, creating an expectation that “real” victims behave in a way I didn’t, couldn’t, and did not want to at the time. Not everyone reacts in the same way, and that doesn’t make what happens to us any less real.
I believe that our bodies can heal, but that this takes the other parties taking responsibility. I hope we can, as a culture, choose that path forward over the current approach of “leaving it to the courts,” which only serve to create more harm. Also, while I intentionally do not name my assailant, I will note that he continues to serve in the Washington State legislature. I do not know whether he has assaulted other women as he did me. If you read this, and my story sounds similar to yours, please reach out. I do not aim to take legal action — I believe we need a collective reckoning, not imprisonment of individuals, to achieve justice — but I have found that validation and solidarity with other survivors matters.
I don’t know if you would call it rape
you drank too much, and so did I
I walked you to your hotel like you demanded
I told my friends I’d be right back
they urged me not to go
but I was afraid you wouldn’t leave
unless I did what you told me to
I made those choices
to call you
to dance
to make out with everyone watching
precisely because everyone was watching
because I had something to prove:
that I could have it all,
everything I was supposed to want.
after we met you at the Capitol,
my father asked if I had reached out
I knew it would satisfy him
if I brought home a man like you
and that it would satisfy me
to show that I could if I wanted to.
every choice that night was mine
a triumph of mind over matter
until you opened the door to your room
and the man too weak to walk the hall alone
whose whole weight I’d carried up the stairs
on my shoulders, limping in my heels
was suddenly strong enough to sweep me off my feet
and pin me to a hotel bed
I remember no space between the bed and the door
there’s no logic in that
that’s not how hotels arrange things
but it’s all my memory can find
you pulling my dress down so hard the straps tore
so you could grab my breasts
then pulling up the bottom
to put your mouth on me
so that only my soft belly was still encased in black
so that I didn’t know how to feel
I’d been taught to want this: to be wanted
your tongue between my legs should have felt good
and it did
but I still hated it
and anyway I was offended
that you didn’t even take my clothes all the way off
like I was too fat for you
and you couldn’t help yourself nonetheless
while you were down
I put my foot to your head and pushed you away
“stop, stop, stop”
you panted back
“that’s so hot”
I kicked
you moaned
and I realized
you liked it better when I fought
and I didn’t want to give you that
if I wasn’t going to win anyway.
I felt so tired
my voice began to disappear
whether you knew what you were doing
or really thought I was just trying to make it sexy for you
I’ll never know
and it doesn’t fucking matter
I stared past your shoulder
at the door
it seemed so close
I’d just been on the other side
and couldn’t figure out how I got here
“do you have a condom?” you asked
of course not. this wasn’t my plan.
“fuck it,” you said.
and then you did.
fucked. it.
my body.
I left it. I swiveled my head to the right
and stared out the window at my city,
let my spirit wander the streets
in the warm humid dark
wondering
what will I do next?
and
what time is it?
and
maybe this isn’t happening
maybe I can go back
and tell everyone his drunk obnoxious ass got to the hotel safe
and I’m so sorry for his behavior
and where is the afterparty
because I wasn’t done yet
it had felt so good
to finally become somebody
and now this.
I don’t know how long he took
I don’t remember what it felt like when he came
or what noises he made
I wasn’t there.
I remember his shadow moving toward the bathroom.
I rolled to my side and looked out the window
I held my belly with both hands
and wondered about my dress
I’d liked it, I thought it looked so good on me
hid my stomach fat
the right length
tasteful cleavage
nice material
professional but still sex material
and therefore wife material
living-my-father’s-dreams-for-me material
a compromise
he could decide my body
give it to this “nice young man”
or another like him
but I could keep my brain
and my master’s degree,
conferred just that day,
irrevocable evidence
that I had made it.
on the floor was a green jacket
with white athletic stripes down the arms
and “Georgetown” tastefully written over the heart
in easy cursive
a gift from my father earlier that week in the bookstore
another compromise
unfeminine, like the jackets I’d always loved
but acceptable when tossed over a dress with a frill hem,
my dress.
a miracle dress that required no bra
tight enough that when I pulled it over my stupid breasts
everything hung in place
straps or no.
you emerged from the bathroom, wiping his mouth.
you smelled like vomit.
“I’m so fucked for tomorrow,” you said.
“you really fucked me up”
with that, it was my fault.
“you have to pack for me,” you ordered.
silently, I found your bag
and all the things in your armoire.
I pulled my dress
back over my breasts
let the straps hang
I hung your garments
and left out your toothbrush
because you’d probably need it soon
“I left my jacket at the club,” you said.
“you have to get it for me.”
the club was closed.
“you have to FedEx it to me, then.”
I finished packing.
I stood up to leave.
I put my green jacket on.
I stood by the door.
I wanted something.
“aren’t you going to kiss me goodbye?”
I asked.
(shut up for just one fucking second about that’s not how girls act when they’ve been raped
or whatever
you don’t fucking know.)
you groaned, stood up, walked to the door.
I was back on the other side by then.
we kissed, gently.
I said, “I’m a good girl.”
“what?”
“I’m a good girl.”
“I know you are.”
I walked out the lobby, trying to project to the staff that nothing had happened
like hoo boy, another drunk dude some girl had to take home
(if there had been emojis then, I’d have been the one with shoulders shrugged,
both hands facing the sky at shoulder level,
one half of my face tilting upward)
I walked into the night.
it was warm but I wore the jacket anyway.
I clutched it around my body
I took the long way.
I wanted the sun to come up
I got home, laid in bed, stared at the ceiling.
didn’t know who to call.
words floated into my mind.
I didn’t think I could call it rape, for these reasons:
- I’d invited you out
- I’d walked you home
- I wasn’t a virgin
so I waited for someone else to give me words
I called a friend.
should I go to the hospital.
it’s a Catholic hospital.
they don’t even give you birth control.
they won’t believe me.
anyway what would be the point,
if that’s all there is left: to be believed.
I want to shower but if I shower I remove my right to tell anyone
because they’re going to demand proof
but it’s not proof of anything
except that he was inside me
they’ll say I wanted it
everyone saw me kissing him
I’d made sure of that
“that’s a possibility,” she said.
“I don’t want to ruin my parents’ trip. we’re going to Mt. Vernon.”
“can you go later?”
“they’ll be here soon.”
“don’t you think they’d understand?”
I was 14 again, in bed, with an infection in my vagina
that the doctors all swore could come only from the sex I’d never had
my father sat next to me, telling me he didn’t know me, didn’t believe me, didn’t want to call me his anymore.
I was 16 again, crying in the principal’s office as she said,
“but he’s a football player.”
I played it out: the cost of the taxi.
the wait.
the heat of the day.
the cold tools going inside me.
the unkind women I’d met at that hospital before.
the conversation with my parents.
the questions they would ask.
were you a virgin?
knowing the answer would change how they felt
I could survive this, but not that
in the end, I settled on: the cost of the taxi.
the disruption to my parents’ plans for something that would make no difference.
they didn’t come here for this.
my dad had been excited about Mt. Vernon.
so I showered.
it erased nothing.
I cried behind my sunglasses
as we walked the perimeter
of the first president’s home
slaves’ quarters, as if that were no big deal
the kitchen, far from the house in those days
I hadn’t thought of that before
I was sweating in my green jacket
inside, Washington’s dentures, the story of his spy network
a handful of references to Martha
some paintings
I remember only these things and the gift shop
which displayed oversized flat lollipops
in bright swirling colors
I kept running to the bathroom to sob
wash my face, hide it
I kept looking at my face in the mirror
like I’d never seen it before
I couldn’t stop
I couldn’t stop
I couldn’t stop
I wasn’t here anymore
I wasn’t here for a very long time
later that night
when I sat my parents down
to try to explain that it wasn’t their fault
all I could say was
“I’m not who you thought I was
and if you knew you wouldn’t be proud of me anymore
so I can’t tell you why I’m crying”
I don’t blame them
for not being able to see
I was already trying to smother the feeling
from the flame I wasn’t allowed to carry
to a smoke that signaled nothing in particular
I told myself what my father told me
every other time I got hurt
“get back on the horse”
so I called a friend
wore a zebra print wrap dress
took him out to an early fancy dinner
like a boss with money I didn’t really have
took him home
my roommate was out
I kissed him on the island in my apartment
wrapped my legs around him
“are you still running?” he asked
in that moment, I don’t know why
I thought my answer could change
how much fat he felt on my belly
for some reason I yawned
“why do you keep yawning?” he asked
I didn’t know
I enjoyed the kiss
it felt good to kiss
I felt powerful
I could make him want me
with nothing more than my breasts
and my quick mind
and the fact that I’d been working out
he was a good friend
and a handsome one
I knew that because all the others wanted him
his desire proved something
but still I didn’t tell him why now suddenly
I wanted what I hadn’t for two years
it could pass for graduation vibes
we moved to my bed
he climbed on top of me
he inserted himself
I yelped
I stared
I said
“you’re hurting me”
he pulled out
he tried again
I said “stop”
he was exasperated
“I’m just trying to get your g-spot!”
I started crying
he didn’t see me either
I was invisible except for my hole
which he thought was like every other
he is the same friend who said
the undergrads he fucked knew what they were getting into
because he’d told them ahead of time
it would only be once
even though they always tried to make him their boyfriend after
he didn’t think he was responsible for that
I wasn’t so sure
and he was also the one
who told me that all women fantasize
about being raped
they like it
he knows because they ask him to pretend
I don’t know what they really want
or if that’s true
but we are friends
so when I started to cry
he stopped
asked what he did wrong
I couldn’t explain
he went home
I rolled over onto my side
held my belly in my zebra print dress
the window was far above my head
in our half-basement
that was all.
the next day was a Sunday
I woke up and put on a Garth Brooks song
“wrapped up in you”
about a certain kind of love
wishing wells and lyrics and melodies
a morning lullaby
a sweetness
I sang it all the way to church
I kept leaving service for the bathroom
to sob and wash my face
once again it was me and the mirror
I asked for the pastor’s wife
I tried to explain
but I kept choking
and drinking from the water fountain
I didn’t know any words applied to me
except “sin”
so that’s the word I told her
my Brazilian friend had his jacket
in her office at the World Bank
I walked in to get it and froze
I stared at it
I said, “I don’t want to FedEx it to him”
she asked why
I couldn’t look at her
she said you walked him to his hotel
she said you never came back
she asked what happened
I said I didn’t know
she said “you said no”
I nodded and held my lips together
“and he said yes”
and I was comforted
that she knew the words to use
she said “you don’t have to FedEx it to him”
and I exhaled for the first time since.
I drowned my anger in an ocean
that I tried never to stir
but then he ran for office
just a few months later
I know because I was at my desk
in my bedroom
and a picture of him with his fiance
asked for my money on Facebook
and I called a friend in outrage
he told me, “it’s your word against his
and no offense but you left with him”
he won the seat
and still holds it
and everybody talks about
what a nice guy he is
how he’s not that kind of Republican
he’s on all the right committees
and passed a law he says will protect women
and he sometimes advises my students
and the fiance from his profile picture
is now the mother of his children
and I wonder if it’s true what my other friend said
that I probably wasn’t the first or the last
and I wonder if he cares whether we’re okay
I don’t think he stays up at night
wondering what will happen
if he meets me at a reception
and extends his hand
if he’ll pretend it’s the first time
or if he’ll smile and recall our meeting
if he’ll brag about how he banged me
when I was younger and hotter
or if he’ll act like I’m an evil woman
who fucked him up once upon a time
and still had the audacity
to ask for a kiss goodbye
it took me five years to find the word
you haven’t granted me permission to use
until he agrees that’s what happened
or some court somewhere decides
and everyone knows
that’s not what men do
and that’s not what courts are for
well I guess not everyone knows
and that’s why in 2011
when I went to hear Jonathan Franzen
read aloud from Freedom
I wept in the auditorium at George Washington U
like I’d never been seen before
it’s taken me this long to see myself.
I tell you
wishing it weren’t true:
to this day
if someone touches me inside
in the same place he did
I disappear
my soul slips out through a portal
shaped like a hotel window
roams steamy city streets
and takes days to find its way back.
I tell myself it’s no big deal.
it was once.
I was twenty-four.
some girls get it from their own fathers
or strangers who break into their homes
and murder their wives
and sometimes it happens to little boys
when they aren’t old enough to ride their bikes
and my mom told me
about an infant in her daycare
whose hole was red and raw
and stretched out larger than her months-old mouth
from a father who thought her being a her
made her body an it
and that his contribution to it
made it his
as far as monsters go, this one’s not the ugliest
and yet it’s taken me more than a decade to look it in the face
to remember his face
eyes closed in a pleasure I wasn’t part of
I find it hideous, hideous, hideous.
and that’s all I want you to know.
you can call it rape, or not.
you can use only his words,
and claim I fucked him up.
this is the truth
that lives in my body.
and it’s just really important to me
for you to know
that this isn’t why I’m gay
that I don’t know why I’m gay
or even what that word means
except that it applies to me
and I like it
that I was drawing pictures of Eve at 11
from the toilet in our laundry room
and hiding them in the bathroom at school
hoping someone would talk about them
with words I didn’t yet know existed
and that when I was 13 and my parents were gone
I snuck into their room with the tv
and masturbated to Mariah Carey
and mastered the art of making it look like
the last two channels that had been visited
were the two they’d been watching before
and since we’re truth-telling
I covered my trails on the internet, too
and damn near lost my mind at 17
when I couldn’t find those pictures
of Ivanka Trump’s nipples
in a chain-mail shirt
and the kind of person I am
is one whose favorite show was Naked News
where I watched the women strip
while reading weather reports
but even with my hand outside my jeans
(the only way I knew how to touch it then,
through thick layers)
a part of me was disappointed
that it wasn’t the real news
because it would have been cool
to learn about the world at the same time.
the first people I told, at 21,
are either dead already or don’t remember
and I can count on one hand
all the girls I’ve ever kissed
and recount every detail
of how their lips felt
and somewhere there’s a sheet of butcher paper
from my dorm room wall freshman year
that we called the quote board
where Mr. Sketch documented me in my sleep
saying “I’m afraid of penises.”
I don’t know what it all means.
I wish I didn’t have to explain.
words are slippery
and I have learned
that my body has its own language. ||||| In this Jan. 27, 2017 photo, Senate Republican floor leader Joe Fain, R-Auburn, sits at his desk on the Senate floor in Olympia, Wash. A woman has accused Fain of raping her 11 years ago, saying she was... (Associated Press)
In this Jan. 27, 2017 photo, Senate Republican floor leader Joe Fain, R-Auburn, sits at his desk on the Senate floor in Olympia, Wash. A woman has accused Fain of raping her 11 years ago, saying she was inspired to speak out following the televised allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.... (Associated Press)
In this Jan. 27, 2017 photo, Senate Republican floor leader Joe Fain, R-Auburn, sits at his desk on the Senate floor in Olympia, Wash. A woman has accused Fain of raping her 11 years ago, saying she was inspired to speak out following the televised allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.... (Associated Press) In this Jan. 27, 2017 photo, Senate Republican floor leader Joe Fain, R-Auburn, sits at his desk on the Senate floor in Olympia, Wash. A woman has accused Fain of raping her 11 years ago, saying she was... (Associated Press)
SEATTLE (AP) — A woman has accused a Washington state lawmaker of raping her 11 years ago, saying she was inspired to speak out as she watched the televised allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The lawmaker denied the claim.
In a tweet Thursday afternoon, Candace Faber said Republican state Sen. Joe Fain sexually assaulted her in 2007 the night she graduated from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He was not in office at the time at the time of the alleged assault.
"I'm done being silent," she wrote.
Fain said he "absolutely" denies the allegation and called for an investigation.
In a text message to The Associated Press, he said: "Any allegation of this serious nature deserves to be heard and investigated for all parties involved. I invite and will cooperate with any inquiry."
Fain, 37, was first elected to the Washington state Senate in 2010, three years after the alleged incident. He is a moderate Republican from the Seattle suburb of Auburn and currently the state Senate minority floor leader.
Faber explained later in a statement that she was inspired by Christine Blasey Ford, a California psychology professor who told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when the two were teenagers. Kavanaugh fiercely denied Ford's claims.
"Like Dr. Ford, I can no longer remain silent knowing that the man who raped me is in a position to influence the laws that govern my state and impact every woman who lives here," Faber wrote.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Jay Inslee said he "believes this is a very serious allegation that unquestionably deserves a full investigation by law enforcement officials."
State Sen. Ann Rivers, a Republican, also supported an investigation, saying how it proceeds will be up to authorities.
"But my fellow Republican senators and I agree that any allegation of this nature must be looked into as thoroughly as possible, no matter who is involved and no matter how many years have passed," Rivers said in a statement.
Faber, 35, in June published an online essay accusing an unnamed Washington state lawmaker of assaulting her in 2007. She wrote how they met "at the Capitol" after she graduated from Georgetown in Washington, D.C., spent the night dancing and kissing, and that both "drank too much."
She wrote in the essay she walked the man back to his hotel, went to his room and that he pinned her to a bed and pulled down her dress. She wrote that she told him to stop and put her foot on his head to push him away. After the man raped her, she wrote, she asked him for a kiss goodbye before leaving the room.
In her essay, she rejected that the kiss request was "not how girls act when they've been raped." She wrote that she later called a friend, wondering if she should go to a hospital.
Faber said in her statement Thursday said she did not make the man's name public earlier because she thought she "could change the culture of sexual assault without needing to say his name" but no longer believes that to be the case.
The AP does not typically name alleged victims of sexual assault, but Faber chose to identify herself. She declined a request to be interviewed and did not respond when asked by email whether she had filed a police report.
The statute of limitations for most serious sex crimes in Washington, D.C., is 15 years.
In interviews with KUOW-AM in Seattle, Faber's mother and a former colleague at the University of Washington said Faber previously told them that Fain raped her. The co-worker, Frank Martinez, told the public radio station that he knew Faber was struggling with her mental health at the time but he believed her allegation to be credible.
In his text message, Fain asked people to "show respect to Ms. Faber and to the process." He did not respond to a message Friday seeking additional comment.
The lawmaker served as majority floor leader 2013 through 2017 when the Republicans controlled the chamber. He is up for re-election next month.
Faber's website says she worked from 2015 to 2017 with the city of Seattle's information technology department.
____
Associated Press Writer Rachel La Corte in Baltimore, Maryland, contributed to this report. ||||| 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 | A woman has accused a Washington state lawmaker of raping her 11 years ago, saying she was inspired to speak out as she watched the televised allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the AP reports. The lawmaker denied the claim. In a tweet Thursday afternoon, Candace Faber said Republican state Sen. Joe Fain sexually assaulted her in 2007 the night she graduated from Georgetown University in Washington, DC. "I'm done being silent," she writes. Fain says he "absolutely" denies the allegation and called for an investigation. "Any allegation of this serious nature deserves to be heard and investigated for all parties involved," he tells the AP. "I invite and will cooperate with any inquiry." Fain, 37, was first elected to the Washington state Senate in 2010, three years after the alleged incident. He is a moderate Republican from the Seattle suburb of Auburn and currently the state Senate minority floor leader. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jay Inslee says he supports "a full investigation by law enforcement officials." Faber, 35, in June published an online essay accusing an unnamed Washington state lawmaker of assaulting her in 2007. She wrote that they spent the night dancing and kissing, and that both "drank too much," and when she went back with him to his hotel room, he raped her despite her protests. She asked him for a kiss afterward, and in her essay, she rejected that the kiss request was "not how girls act when they've been raped." |
On Aug. 3, 2001, a McDonald’s film crew arrived in the bustling beach town of Westerly, Rhode Island. They carried their cameras and a giant cashier’s check to a row of townhouses, and knocked on the door of Michael Hoover. The 56-year-old bachelor had called a McDonald’s hotline to say he’d won their Monopoly competition. Since 1987, McDonald’s customers had feverishly collected Monopoly game pieces attached to drink cups, french fry packets, and advertising inserts in magazines. By completing groups of properties like Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues, players won cash or a Sega Game Gear, while “Instant Win” game pieces scored a free Filet-O-Fish or a Jamaican vacation. But Hoover, a casino pit boss who had recently filed for bankruptcy, claimed he’d won the grand prize–$1 million.
Like winning the Powerball, the odds of Hoover’s win were 1 in 250 million. There were two ways to win the Monopoly grand prize: Find the “Instant Win” game piece like Hoover, or match Park Place with the elusive Boardwalk to choose between a heavily taxed lump sum or a $50,000 check every year for 20 years. Just like the Monopoly board game, which was invented as a warning about the destructive nature of greed, players traded game pieces to win, or outbid each other on eBay. Armed robbers even held up restaurants demanding Monopoly tickets. “Don’t go to jail! Go to McDonald’s and play Monopoly for real!” cried Rich Uncle Pennybags, the game’s mustachioed mascot, on TV commercials that sent customers flocking to buy more food. Monopoly quickly became the company’s most lucrative marketing device since the Happy Meal.
Inside Hoover’s home, Amy Murray, a loyal McDonald’s spokesperson, encouraged him to tell the camera about the luckiest moment of his life. Nervously clutching his massive check, Hoover said he’d fallen asleep on the beach. When he bent over to wash off the sand, his People magazine fell into the sea. He bought another copy from a grocery store, he said, and inside was an advertising insert with the “Instant Win” game piece. The camera crew listened patiently to his rambling story, silently recognizing the inconsequential details found in stories told by liars. They suspected that Hoover was not a lucky winner, but part of a major criminal conspiracy to defraud the fast-food chain of millions of dollars. The two men behind the camera were not from McDonald’s. They were undercover agents from the FBI.
This was a McSting.
At the FBI’s Jacksonville Field Office in Florida, Special Agent Richard Dent added the Hoover videotape to his growing pile of evidence. Sandy-haired and highly organized, Dent was a 13-year veteran of the Bureau, who spent his days investigating public corruption and bank fraud. But in the last 12 months his desk had filled with fast-food paraphernalia. Leaflets for “Pick Your Prize Monopoly” and “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” described McDonald’s games played in 14 countries. He read small print that revealed how the odds were stacked against the customer: McDonald’s makes one piece from each set of properties extremely rare, so while thousands have three of the four railroads, the odds of pulling the Short Line Railroad—and winning a PT Cruiser—were 1 in 150 million.
Dent’s investigation had started in 2000, when a mysterious informant called the FBI and claimed that McDonald’s games had been rigged by an insider known as “Uncle Jerry.” The person revealed that “winners” paid Uncle Jerry for stolen game pieces in various ways. The $1 million winners, for example, passed the first $50,000 installment to Uncle Jerry in cash. Sometimes Uncle Jerry would demand cash up front, requiring winners to mortgage their homes to come up with the money. According to the informant, members of one close-knit family in Jacksonville had claimed three $1 million prizes and a Dodge Viper.
When Dent alerted McDonald’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois, executives were deeply concerned. The company’s top lawyers pledged to help the FBI, and faxed Dent a list of past winners. They explained that their game pieces were produced by a Los Angeles company, Simon Marketing, and printed by Dittler Brothers in Oakwood, Georgia, a firm trusted with printing U.S. mail stamps and lotto scratch-offs. The person in charge of the game pieces was Simon’s director of security, Jerry Jacobson.
Dent thought he had found his man. But after installing a wiretap on Jacobson’s phone, he realized that his tip had led to a super-sized conspiracy. Jacobson was the head of a sprawling network of mobsters, psychics, strip-club owners, convicts, drug traffickers, and even a family of Mormons, who had falsely claimed more than $24 million in cash and prizes. But who among them had betrayed Jacobson, and why? Dent knew agents had to move carefully. If they apprehended a “winner” too soon, he or she might alert other members of the conspiracy who would destroy evidence, or flee. With the scheme still in full swing, the FBI needed to team up with McDonald’s to catch Uncle Jerry and his crew red-handed.
JEROME PAUL JACOBSON always dreamed of becoming a police officer. He was born in 1943, in Youngstown, Ohio, and moved to Miami as a teenager. Chronic allergies and a series of unlucky injuries always seemed to ruin his ambitions, like when he applied for the Marines, but was discharged from basic training with high arches. In 1976 he was sworn in to Florida’s Hollywood Police Department, but just a year later he injured his wrist in an altercation. During a prolonged medical leave, in 1980, Jacobson collapsed with a severe paralysis in his arms, legs, eyes and respiratory system. Doctors diagnosed a rare neurological disorder, and Jacobson’s police officer wife, Marsha, took a leave of absence to care for him. “I became his private nurse, I bathed him… massaged his muscles, fed him,” she recalled. With Jacobson unfit to return to work, the city terminated him. By 1981 the couple had moved to Atlanta, Georgia, where Jacobson recovered enough to work as a mechanic, building alternators for cars he couldn’t afford.
Luckily, Marsha was offered a job as a security auditor for the accounting firm Arthur Young, and was assigned to one of their clients, Dittler Brothers. In 1981, she recommended her husband for a job there too, but the couple constantly argued at work, and by 1983 they had divorced. Finding his feet in private security, Jacobson started to climb the ranks until he oversaw all production for Dittler’s client, Simon Marketing, and their $500 million McDonald’s account.
When Jacobson marched through the printing works, with his slicked-back hair and a little paunch that overhung his belt, he looked every part the ex-cop. He was quick with a joke, but commanded respect for his hard work and obsession with loss-prevention. “He inspected workers’ shoes to check they weren’t stealing McDonald’s game pieces,” one colleague told me, while a truck driver who transported game pieces recalled: “I couldn’t even go to the bathroom without someone going with me.” Impressed by Jacobson’s attention to detail and police credentials, in 1988 Simon Marketing poached him.
“It was my responsibility to keep the integrity of the game and get those winners to the public,” Jacobson would later tell investigators.
Before each bi-annual game, Jacobson arrived at the drab Dittler Brothers’ office at 5 a.m to observe their Omega III supercomputer making the McDonald’s prize draw. He watched the printing presses that roared for 24 hours a day for three months, using 100 railroad cars of paper to print half a billion game pieces. Laid end-to-end, the paper tickets would stretch from New York to Sydney—nearly two tickets for every American. Jacobson observed technicians applying the “INSTANT WINNER!” stamp to blank game pieces, and pioneered random watermarks that deterred counterfeiters. He locked the winning pieces in a vault behind coded keypads and dual-entry combination locks. It was Jacobson who personally scissored out the high-value game pieces and slipped them into envelopes, before sealing each corner with a tamper-proof metallic sticker. In a secret vest, of his invention, Jacobson transported the winning pieces to McDonald’s packaging factories across the country.
Everything he did was overseen by an independent auditor. On flights she sat in coach, while Jacobson flew first class, where he tried to impress other passengers by flashing his old police badge. On one flight, Jacobson and another security manager sent an air steward back to show the accountant the empty liquor bottles they’d guzzled. When they arrived at the factory, Jacobson would summon a forklift of french fry containers, hide the winning game piece, and send it into the wild. Then he liked to hit a Ruth’s Chris steakhouse and order “everything”—more than he could eat, and charge it to his expense account.
The 1980s was America’s “decade of greed,” and it was Jacobson’s job to create instant millionaires. Playing God was intoxicating, as was holding a stranger’s fate in the palm of his hands. Female employees among the 30 staff he controlled complained that he criticized how they dressed, and he often wrote up workers for mistakes. Jacobson’s $70,000 salary was six times his police officer’s pay, and he was obsessed with achieving the gold-medallion airline status, sometimes flying to factories via several cities to accrue airline points, to the irritation of those who had to shadow him.
Jacobson was also deep into his own get-rich-quick scheme. He boasted to colleagues that he was waiting to collect his “riches” from a mysterious “investment.” All he needed was to find 10 more people to sign up and invest. “A psychic had told him to invest money and he would be richly rewarded,” one former colleague told me. But they believed he’d invested in a Ponzi scheme. One colleague told me Jacobson swore by the advice of a local fortune teller, and often excused himself from work, saying: “I think she needs to tell me something.”
“ In a secret vest, of his invention, Jacobson transported the winning pieces to McDonald’s packaging factories across the country. ”
This was the man entrusted with creating a theft-proof system for one of America’s largest corporations. It was a thrill to protect the Monopoly promotion, and only a natural part of his job to consider the system’s flaws. But soon the temptation to steal had become irresistible.
One day in 1989, at a family gathering in Miami, Jacobson slipped his step-brother, Marvin Braun, a game piece worth $25,000. “I don’t know if I just wanted to show him I could do something, or bragging,” Jacobson later admitted, but he just needed “to see if I could do it.” When his local butcher in Atlanta heard that Jacobson was in charge of the McDonald’s Monopoly prizes, he said he’d like to win a prize. Jacobson boasted that he could make it happen, but it would look too suspicious because they were friends and neighbors. The butcher offered to find a distant friend to claim a $10,000 prize, and gave Jacobson $2,000 for the stolen ticket. It was easy money.
McDonald’s was already overwhelmed with employee theft. In Sheboygan, Wisconsin, a 17-year-old restaurant employee was arrested for stealing 3,000 Monopoly game pieces. In response, McDonald’s started handing out game pieces from a secure roll at the counter. As a result, Jacobson was removed from the “seeding” process for several years. But in 1995, as McDonald’s ramped up the scale of the promotion, game pieces were ‘blown’ onto soft-drink cups and hash-brown wrappers. That year, Ronald McDonald and Monopoly’s Rich Uncle Pennybags rang the opening bell on Wall Street, and Jacobson found himself back in charge of distributing the game pieces.
During that 1995 prize draw, something happened that would change the game. According to Jacobson, when the computerized prize draw selected a factory location in Canada, Simon Marketing executives re-ran the program until it chose an area in the USA. Jacobson claimed he was ordered to ensure that no high-level prizes ever reached the Great White North. “I knew what we were doing in Canada was wrong,” Jacobson recalled. “Sooner or later, somebody was going to be asking questions about why there were no winners in Canada.” Believing the game was rigged, he decided to cash in, too.
Not long afterward, Jacobson opened a package sent to him by mistake from a supplier in Hong Kong. Inside he found a set of the anti-tamper seals for the game-piece envelopes—the only thing he needed to steal game pieces en route to the factory. “I would go into the men’s room of the airport,” he later admitted, the only place the female auditor couldn’t follow him. “I would go into a stall. I would take the seal off.” Then he’d pour the winning game pieces into his hand, replace them with “commons,” and re-seal the envelope. First, he stole a $1 million “Instant Win” game piece and locked it in a safety deposit box. Then he stole documents that he claimed proved the Canada conspiracy. “I thought I would need that to protect myself,” Jacobson recalled. If his employer ever fired him, he had a “get out of jail free” card. But when he stole another $1 million game piece, Jacobson did something awesome.
“ Sooner or later somebody was going to be asking questions about why there were no winners in Canada. ” — Jerome Jacobson
On Nov. 12, 1995, a donations clerk at the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Tennessee ripped open the morning’s mail, and discovered a brightly colored card. At first, Tammie Murphy assumed it was junk mail, until she noticed the tiny Monopoly game piece inside. McDonald’s officials descended on the hospital and examined the game piece under a jeweler’s eyepiece. Ronald McDonald himself attended a press conference, where the hospital was announced the $1 million winner. Despite an investigation, The New York Times could not uncover the identity of the generous donor.
Back in Atlanta, Jacobson’s butcher was ready for another win. This time, he proposed that he’d travel with his sister to Maryland, where she would “find” the lucky game piece on a box of fries. Jacobson gave the butcher a stolen game piece worth $200,000 in exchange for $45,000 of the winnings. “I figured I could trust him because he paid me the first time,” Jacobson recalled. But the butcher double-crossed him in Maryland and claimed the prize himself. All Jacobson got was $4,000, and a big surprise. One evening, Jacobson was watching television when he saw a commercial for the McDonald’s Monopoly game. To his complete disbelief, he watched his butcher celebrating his big win. He reached for the phone.
“You live here,” Jacobson protested. “You know me.”
LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES have been mired in corruption since biblical times, when lots were drawn to read the will of God. But it was the medieval Italians who first used prize drawings as a sales promotion. In 1522, a Venetian man was condemned to death after tampering with the prize draw for 1,500 golden ducats, a parcel of silk, and a live wild cat. Allegations of fraud and abuse shuttered an English lottery in 1621 that funded America’s earliest colonies. In the New World, centuries of sweepstakes chicanery followed, until 1890, when lotteries were banned in every state except Delaware and Louisiana. This ushered in an era of promotional “contests” in which marketers could avoid prosecution by making no purchase necessary. Today, you can enter a McDonald’s contest without buying a burger—just write in for a free ticket and take your chances.
It was by chance that Jacobson met the man who would industrialize his Monopoly scam. Jacobson was sitting in Atlanta’s airport one day in 1995, when a giant gentleman folded himself into the next seat. Gennaro Colombo, 32, looked like Al Capone, and when Jacobson inquired where he was headed, Colombo unzipped a bulging purse full of $100 bills, and said: “Atlantic City.” Colombo said he was born in Sicily and raised in Brooklyn before moving to South Carolina, where he operated adult nightclubs, underground casinos, and a sports-betting ring. He claimed he was a member of New York’s infamous Colombo crime family.
When Jacobson revealed that he worked in promotional gaming, Colombo was intrigued. He enjoyed finding new ways to cheat a system. When Charleston County, Georgia, passed new laws restricting where strip clubs could be operated, Colombo opened a house of worship named The Church of Fuzzy Bunnies. “I want them to read the Bible for two hours every night, and then we’ll drink and let the girls dance,” said Colombo, who claimed that God came to him in a dream with the idea. By November 1995, Jacobson had slipped Colombo a game piece for a brand new Dodge Viper. The Italian, who was obsessed with The Godfather and had ambitions of becoming an actor, agreed to wave a giant car key in a McDonald’s commercial. Instead of the sports car, he took the money, his wife, Robin Colombo, told me. “He was a big guy. A Viper? No.”
With a mop of black curly hair and a contagious laugh, Robin, 34, had become engaged to Colombo after a two-week romance. She was thrilled with the trappings of a Mafia wife: bodyguards, chauffeurs, two rottweilers and a last name that commanded fear and respect. By now, Colombo was traveling with friends from Atlanta to Boston, where they’d “win” $1 million prizes, thanks to stolen tickets from Jacobson. Soon Colombo introduced Robin to Jacobson, calling him “Uncle Jerry,” and in 1996, her father, William Fisher, received a stolen $1 million winning ticket. Fisher traveled from his home in Jacksonville, Florida, to Litchfield, New Hampshire, to claim his prize, before Robin’s brother-in-law in Virginia became a millionaire, too. Every winner sent a kickback in cash via the Colombos to Jacobson.
In 1997, Robin introduced Colombo to her friend Gloria Brown, 37, at an Applebee’s in Jacksonville. “He asked... how much money I could come up with... in order to be eligible,” Brown recalled. A few weeks later, on the side of Interstate 95, Brown handed Colombo $40,000 in cash. He showed her a tiny bottle containing the $1 million game piece, dwarfed by his giant hand. “I’ll let you know the rest later,” he mumbled.
Brown traveled to South Carolina to “find” her prize, because too many recent winners now lived in Jacksonville. “It was so secretive,” she recalled. Colombo and a cousin drove Brown to a McDonald’s and parked a safe distance away. They coached Brown what to tell McDonald’s staff, but doubts suddenly consumed her. “I had to just tell, you know, outright lies,” she realized. She thought about running. Do I lose it all or do I keep going? But she did the deed, and afterward found the two Italians sweating. “They were a little nervous because it took so long,” Brown recalled. They helped her fill out the prize form, writing her name along with the cousin’s South Carolina address. To make it appear like she lived with the cousin, Brown recorded the message on his answering machine, and later told reporters a long-winded story about finding the winning ticket while cleaning out her car.
Robin told me that Uncle Jerry’s money soon funded certain Colombo-run businesses, including a private members’ club in Hilton Head. She thought he was sophisticated and liked the way he dressed. In return, Jacobson sent other “opportunities” to the Colombos, Robin told me. Late one night, she was stoned and rifling through the kitchen for a snack, when she found in their freezer a mysterious plastic bag. Inside was a single gray-colored M&M candy, which was part of a promotional contest, she said. In 1997, the Mars candy company launched a competition to find an “impostor” M&M, along with a game piece that made the winner an instant millionaire. (Mars did not respond to inquiries, but records show that Cyrk, a company that produced promotional materials for Mars, merged with Simon Marketing in 1997.) Colombo suddenly appeared behind her, grabbed the bag, and yelled:
“Do not eat this!”
Meanwhile, Jacobson was now living with a huge secret—he had not even told his new wife, Linda, what he was doing. By now he had given his step-brother, Marvin Braun, three more game pieces, including one for $1 million. Braun, who owned a chain of maternity clothing stores, claimed he didn’t need the money. “I dropped tickets into Salvation Army tins,” he told me, “Jerry would give me a million-dollar ticket... I would give it away… I’ve flushed million-dollar tickets down toilets.” By 1998, Jacobson’s nephew, Mark Schwartz, had taken a $200,000 game piece after a meeting in Miami. “I told him what I wanted and the rest was his,” Jacobson recalled. “I wanted $45,000.” At Schwartz’s wedding that year, Jacobson was discussing the Monopoly game when a distant cousin fell into the conversation and also agreed to win a prize. Uncle Jerry’s family tree was sprouting money.
“ To make it appear like she lived with the cousin, Brown recorded the message on his answering machine, and later told reporters a long-winded story about finding the winning ticket while cleaning out her car. ”
By the end of 1998, Jacobson had become Rich Uncle Pennybags, and America was his game board. He tooled around the United States stealing almost all the big-ticket game pieces, acquiring new properties on a whim, and collecting kickbacks from other players. Now he was hanging out with powerful Italians, he dressed in sharp suits and sometimes used the name “Geraldo Constantino.” He and his wife moved into a fine red-brick home in Lawrenceville, Georgia, where he tended to its perfect lawn. He purchased a plot of land on Lake Hartwell, a recreation lake on the Georgia border, and paid for expensive cruises, and joined a classic-car club. There, he sold one member four game pieces and used the $65,000 to buy a handsome Oldsmobile. Bill LaFoy, who lived opposite Jacobson, lost count of the new cars appearing on the driveway: “I used to kid him about where the winning tickets were,” he said.
After three years married to Colombo, Robin had tired of life as a mobster’s wife. Since the birth of their son, Frankie, her husband seemed to spend all his time at his gentleman’s clubs and casinos. Meanwhile, Robin felt that the Colombos had cut her off from her friends. “They were the type of people who don’t like outsiders,” she said. Lonely and bored, she began confiding in Jacobson during late-night phone calls. One night, she told him that Colombo was sleeping with her personal trainer. “I was upset about my husband,” she said, “and he goes, ‘Well, you could marry me.’”
“No, I can’t. I’m married,” she said quickly. “I love my husband.”
Robin tried to make her marriage to Colombo work. “He had done some things in Charleston that I freaked out about,” she said, “I told him I needed to get out of South Carolina.” On May 7, 1998, they drove to the Georgia state line to look for land on which to build their dream home. Colombo’s pager had been beeping all morning, but he ignored it. Robin was behind the wheel of their Ford Explorer as they approached the entrance to the expressway. At the on-ramp, a tractor trailer blocked Robin’s view. When she swung onto the freeway, a speeding F-150 truck smashed into them, dragging their car 250 feet and into a concrete wall. Colombo crawled from the wreckage, but emergency crews had to use the Jaws of Life to cut Robin and her son free.
“The policeman told me he thought I was gonna be the one to die because I was the one covered in blood,” Robin told me. But at the hospital, Colombo’s blood pressure dropped so low they wrapped his body in refrigerated blankets. “My mother-in-law ran over to me and told me she knew this was going to happen,” Robin recalled. “She had a vision in a dream the night before. That’s why she was trying to page him all day.” At his bedside, Robin shook Colombo’s giant arm, and begged him to wake up. “He was my soulmate,” Robin said. But two weeks later, the doctors turned off his life support.
The secret of Jacobson’s success was that he recruited his co-conspirators at random, and soon he was looking for a replacement for Colombo. Jacobson was in London with his step-brother Marvin and their wives, waiting to board a Royal Caribbean cruise ship, when he met Don Hart and his wife. “The six of us were talking, and we found out that Mr. Hart and his wife were from the Atlanta area,” Jacobson recalled. “And they wound up changing tables to eat with us on the cruise.” Hart had sold his trucking company for a small fortune, and still had a network of contacts all over the United States. When Jacobson revealed his scam, Hart, an honest businessman, found it too good to be true. But he agreed to try it, to “see if it worked,” recalled Jacobson. In 1998, one of Hart’s accomplices redeemed a $200,000 game piece. “After that Mr. Hart told me he didn’t want to be involved in handling any game piece tickets or handling any money,” Jacobson said. Instead, he introduced Jacobson to two friends who could find the needy and the greedy.
The first was Richard Couturier, who owned a chain of fried-chicken joints. He was fooled into believing he was helping McDonald’s find real winners, because most people threw away their game pieces. “Mr. Jacobson said every time they ran the game and had winners, the sales were up 38 percent,” Couturier said. He mostly recruited random people he met at parties. At Mardi Gras in 1999, Couturier was riding on a float through the streets of New Orleans, tossing beads into the crowd, when he shouted to another reveler: “Would you be interested in being a McDonald’s winner!” Jacobson gave Couturier “around 10” winning pieces, including several for sports cars and two $1 million prizes. “If I bought a piece of property, I would borrow from my home equity and then Mr. Couturier would write a check to my home-equity loan,” Jacobson explained.
Then, at a dinner party in Atlanta, Hart introduced Jacobson to Andrew Glomb, a gregarious gambler who lived in a luxury Spanish-style home in Fort Lauderdale. Glomb spent his days partying, or walking his dog through the lime trees that bordered his property, where neighbors all knew of his checkered past. In 1983, Glomb had been convicted of shipping pure cocaine on a Pan American flight from Miami to Dallas. He’d jumped bond and escaped to Europe for 16 months, before completing his 12-year sentence. Glomb mostly gave his winning tickets to old pals from his drug-trafficking days. “It was just the excitement, to have the power,” he told me. “Because I like you, I can make you a millionaire.” But Glomb’s winners introduced less salubrious characters to the scheme. In 1999, a million-dollar winner was a man who had pleaded guilty to distributing 400 pounds of cocaine in Pittsburgh, while running a numbers racket from an Italian restaurant.
Glomb said his winners were all destitute: “They were on their ass... they had nothing. I mean, if you could imagine flying across country, giving somebody a million dollars, and I had to pick up the dinner check.” One day, Glomb arrived in Pennsylvania to visit his family, where his cousin picked him up at the airport. The cousin said: “I got to stop at McDonald’s because my kids wanna play this Monopoly game.”
Glomb smiled, and said: “You know, don’t waste your time.”
Across America, McDonald’s customers were becoming frustrated by the Monopoly game. “Are McDonald’s employees keeping game cards to themselves?” asked a concerned citizen in a letter to The Atlanta Constitution. “We’re talking money here,” said another player in North Miami who paid for a classified advert for the game pieces he couldn’t find. Instead of sticking those game pieces to customer’s soft drink cups and french fry packets, Jacobson sent them all to Andrew Glomb, including eight $1 million winners. “He told me, ‘Don’t talk about this, don’t talk about that,’” Glomb recalled. Paranoid Jacobson now had dozens of prize winners out there, appearing in TV commercials, and arguing with their spouses about the loot. His black hair had turned gray, and he was bothering his psychics about his future. One received a $50,000 game piece in exchange for chiropractic services and fortune telling (“he did both,” Jacobson said). But the psychic didn’t see how Jacobson’s fate had already been sealed.
Ever since her husband died, Robin Colombo felt uneasy around her in-laws. The Colombos investigated the car crash, she said, suspecting that she might have killed her husband. “My mother-in-law, Ma, she told me, ‘Do you think if we didn’t know it was an accident you’d be sitting here today?’” At her husband’s funeral, Robin said her father-in-law promised to keep the New York side of the family at bay. “In my mind I was thinking, ‘Papa, I’m really not worried about them, I’m worried about you sniping me down, because I was the driver.’” (Speaking in a thick Sicilian accent, Colombo’s mother denied the family were in the Mafia but confirmed they are related to the late Joseph Colombo, former boss of the Colombo crime family.)
Robin had tried to keep up the “good life” but had turned to forgery, and insurance and credit-card fraud. During one of her brief spells in prison, Robin felt the Colombos were “brainwashing” her own son, and said she didn’t want Frankie to grow up in the mob. She tried to cut herself off from “the family,” which she said infuriated them. “Frankie [was] their first grandson, and, you know how Sicilians are,” she said. Robin believes it was the Colombos who told the FBI that her father, William Fisher, her cousin, and best friend Gloria Brown had all illegally won McDonald’s prizes. They wanted her in jail, she said, to avenge the death of their son.
“That was their retaliation,” she added.
The tip to the FBI came in March 2000. Special Agent Dent called Amy Murray, the McDonald’s spokesperson, to say he believed that William Fisher, the $1 million winner of the 1996 “Deluxe Monopoly Game,” was a fraud. Murray was a quick-thinking Midwesterner who had risen through the ranks at McDonald’s, and was often the public face of the company during any drama. She was the “McQueen” of McDonald’s, said Joe Maggard, a disgraced Ronald McDonald actor who was convicted of making harassing phone calls while posing as the clown.
Murray telephoned Fisher at his home in Jacksonville. “[Fisher] told Ms. Murray that he won the prize in Litchfield, New Hampshire, where he was living for a year,” Dent wrote in an affidavit. However, property and electricity records showed that Fisher had lived in Jacksonville all along. “I believe [Fisher] provided false and misleading information to Amy Murray,” wrote Dent. When he asked about Gloria Brown, Murray revealed that she, like Fisher, had re-routed her annual $50,000 checks to Jacksonville.
Dent opened an official investigation, naming it Operation “Final Answer,” after the “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” McDonald’s game. The operation would involve 25 agents across the country who tracked 20,000 phone numbers, and recorded 235 cassette tapes of telephone calls. “You work from the outside in,” explained John Hanson, a former FBI Special Agent who specializes in complex fraud schemes. “But you really want the people who devised the idea.” Hanson said the FBI would have investigated the McDonald’s scam just like any boiler-room stock fraud or pyramid scheme: by gathering evidence without anyone finding out. Jacobson made this hard by recruiting co-conspirators in person, in remote locations.
On April 29, 2000, Jacobson was driving through the South Carolina countryside, with the peaks of the Appalachians in his windshield. In the passenger seat was his friend Dwight Baker, a real-estate developer who had sold Jacobson his lakeside plot. Baker was a well-respected member of the local Mormon church, and a devoted father-of-five who lived in a split-level house next to hay fields and farmland. He was a charismatic man with big dreams, who’d tried to build a championship golf course and a five-star resort, but couldn’t attract enough investors. The two men were equally ambitious, and they each had a wife named Linda.
That spring, Baker was recovering from a terrible accident. The brakes had failed on his tractor and after rolling helplessly backward down a hill, Baker had damaged his spinal column in a crash. On hearing of Baker’s misfortune, Jacobson arrived and offered to get him out of the house. Baker feared he would never walk again, but Jacobson was insistent. He helped his friend into the car, and they drove up into the mountains.
When Baker first found out that Jacobson controlled the McDonald’s Monopoly promotion, he had mixed feelings. “Well, in 1985 we lost our home,” he explained. “Our family had five children, and... for the last several years we’d been, as a family, chasing these game pieces to... have a little hope of winning one of them.” Baker’s companies owed nearly $30,000 in back taxes, and county tax officials had started to sell parcels of his land at auction.
“Let me give you a hypothetical,” Jacobson said suddenly. “If I were able get a game piece, do you know someone who you trust that would cash it?”
“Are you serious about this?” asked Baker.
He said he’d need to think about it. But Baker soon realized a windfall would ease his financial woes. Soon, Jacobson handed him a $1 million game piece. Whoever redeemed it, he instructed, would have to say they pulled it from a hash-brown bag. This time, Jacobson wanted $100,000, the biggest kickback he’d ever demanded. “He was a friend,” Jacobson recalled. “I thought I could trust him.”
“George, you’re not going to believe this,” whispered Baker, leaning over a Waffle House table in Seneca, South Carolina. “But I was at breakfast with a friend of mine and he pulled off this winning game piece.” George Chandler, 30, was the owner of a successful plastic-injection company, and Baker’s foster child. Chandler was a teenager when Baker took him in. “One day he showed up on our doorstep with tears in his eyes,” Baker recalled. “His momma had just thrown his clothes out in the middle of the yard because he helped his sister go to Georgia get married.”
Baker showed Chandler the winning game piece in a tiny Ziploc bag, and offered to sell it to him for $100,000. Baker explained that the winner was going through a divorce and didn’t want to split his McDonald’s winnings with his wife. (Or that was his story.) Chandler could only come up with $50,000, but on June 6, 2000, Baker helped him fill out the McDonald’s claim form. They photocopied the game piece and mailed it off to the redemption center. Baker warned him four times not to participate in any promotions, but on June 26, his telephone rang.
“You need to be up here at South Union McDonald’s at 11 0’clock,” Chandler said casually. McDonald’s was presenting him with a giant check, he said. Baker was incensed. “There’s more to this than you know,” he hissed. But it was too late. When Baker arrived at the McDonald’s restaurant, two TV news crews were filming Ronald McDonald showering Chandler with confetti. That footage found its way to the FBI Field Office in Jacksonville.
In March of 2001, the McDonald’s promotion started again, with a “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” promotional game. “That’s where the real greed on my part came,” Baker admitted. He asked Jacobson if he’d accept a plot of land in Edgewater Hills for a couple of game pieces. Baker gave a $1 million winner to a friend, Ronnie Hughey, and a $500,000 winner to his wife’s sister, Brenda Phenis. He gave them strict instructions on how to set up fake lives in other states, claim their prizes, and keep their mouths shut.
On April 27, 2001, Dent received a call from McDonald’s, informing him that a Mr. Ronald E. Hughey, a lifelong resident of Germantown, Tennessee, had claimed the $1 million prize. When Amy Murray called Hughey’s phone, she asked him to appear in a TV commercial, but Hughey said he’d prefer to remain anonymous, because he was suffering from depression. Technical agents soon discovered that Hughey’s Tennessee telephone number was just a call-forwarding device. He actually lived in Anderson, South Carolina, just miles from the home of George Chandler, the latest winner.
To conceal his sister-in-law’s South Carolina address, Baker took Brenda Phenis on a road trip to North Carolina, he recalled. “She had located an apartment, had rented it, obtained a phone, a mailing address, bank account, and I think a North Carolina drivers’ license.” On May 16, 2001, Baker stood over Phenis’ shoulder as she dialed the McDonald’s hotline and claimed the $500,000 winning ticket. Phenis had agreed to pay the taxes, give Baker $90,000 and Jacobson $70,000, and keep $90,000 for herself. “She had made commitments to other people that she was going to buy them a car, build a house, and she overcommitted,” recalled Baker. Phenis also told her son about the scheme, and his wife, and her other sister.
On May 30, 2001, McDonald’s notified Dent of Phenis’ $500,000 win. He checked the credit bureaus and quickly discovered that she too lived in South Carolina, in a town called Westminster. Dent found a map of the state, and pinned the addresses of Hughey, Chandler, and Phenis. He had uncovered a 25-mile golden triangle of suspicious McDonald’s winners, and at its center was the lakefront home of Jacobson.
Dent requested that McDonald’s delay sending checks to Hughey and Phenis while he applied for wiretaps. “This intentional delay... proved very fruitful,” he recalled, because three weeks later everyone was panicking. On recorded calls, Jacobson told Baker that Phenis needed to insist on “something in writing” from McDonald’s so Baker could make a “legal issue” about the delay. “I’d say… ‘do we need an attorney or do I need to call the home office’” Jacobson suggested, “or do I need to call Burger King?”
“That’s right,” agreed Baker. But deep down, he had a “gut feeling” that they’d been caught. “I felt the eyes,” he told me.
Phenis, too, was feeling the pressure. She confessed to her pastor and stopped answering Baker’s calls. He feared she was going to keep the entire check for herself. Dent listened to Baker’s tense phone calls with his wife. Baker said that if Jacobson knew that Brenda had gone rogue, he’d report the ticket stolen and say he was threatened to hand over the game pieces. Baker decided that Phenis should give him the money, otherwise he’d have to “raise his hand” himself, and have the U.S. Marshals arrest her. “I want it all,” Baker told his wife. “No if, ands, or buts about it.” He raced to Phenis’ fake apartment where the check was due to arrive. When he opened the door he found the light on and the air conditioner humming, but no one was in. On the floor, he found a tear-off strip from a FedEx envelope.
Baker called his wife, and gasped: “Brenda’s running with the money.”
Time was now ticking for Dent and the FBI. On July 11, they would launch their second and last promotional game of 2001. Knowing that the game was compromised, Golden Arches executives considered canceling the whole thing. But Dent insisted he needed one more game to gather enough evidence. Jack Greenberg, the McDonald’s CEO, had a big decision to make. To run the game knowing it was corrupt could invite lawsuits and damage McDonald’s reputation. His company had endured a rough year, with a scare over mad cow disease diminishing European sales, and the brand’s domestic business was in a funk. “I had to do what was right,” Greenberg later told the Chicago Tribune. “If you’re sitting in my chair, I think you’d do the same thing.”
Backed by a massive promotional campaign, in July McDonald’s launched the “Pick Your Prize Monopoly” game. Restaurants nationwide were decorated with Monopoly rooftop banners and drive-thru decals. Diners couldn’t escape Rich Uncle Pennybags, who peered out from tray liners and even garbage cans, urging them to play. McDonald’s distributed 57 million paper game boards in Time, People, and Sports Illustrated, while radio commercials whipped up interest in the two $1 million prizes, payable in “cash, gold, or diamonds.”
But the two winning game pieces were already in the hands of Jerry Jacobson.
He gave one to his trusted recruiter Glomb, putting the former drug trafficker on the FBI’s radar for the first time, and the other to Baker.
“I got to have some kind of deposit,” Jacobson told Baker, in a phone call recorded by the FBI.
“My word’s not good enough, huh?” said Baker.
“Your word is good,” Jacobson said. “Are you willing to back it up, though?”
“Yeah, I'll back it up.”
Baker had other problems. His sister-in-law Phenis had flown to California to receive her $500,000 prize directly from Simon Marketing. Baker and his wife had spent days staking out the Indianapolis International Airport, watching every incoming flight for her return. On July 20, when Phenis finally strolled into arrivals, the Bakers accosted her and found she had $20,ooo in cash and a cashier’s check for $480,000. Their tense confrontation was filmed by an undercover team of local FBI agents.
Driving to a quiet corner of Corbin, Kentucky, Baker handed Jacobson a McDonald’s paper bag containing $70,000 in cash, as payment for the next winning ticket. Baker planned to pass the ticket to his last winner, Ronnie Hughey, who had recruited “his man in Texas” to win. Listening in to their call, Dent ran his finger down a list of numbers recently dialed by Hughey. The only Texas number belonged to Hughey’s brother-in-law, a construction manager in Granbury named John Davis.
On Sunday, July 22, at 10 a.m., two FBI surveillance teams tailed Baker and Jacobson to a secluded area in a South Carolina town, named Fair Play, ironically. But the dense, woodland area prevented them from witnessing the transfer. Agents then followed Baker to Hughey’s home in Anderson, where they believed he passed him the $1 million winning game piece. Eight days later, Dent received a call from Amy Murray. Someone had claimed the $1 million, she said. Dent interrupted her. He asked if the winner’s name was John Davis.
Yes, she said.
“From Granbury, Texas?”
By giving the go-ahead to run the game, McDonald’s CEO Jack Greenberg had allowed the feds to discover Glomb and his network of million-dollar winners. “I would do it again,” Greenberg said. “What we found out allowed the FBI to complete its investigation.” Knowing that juries are convinced by splashy stings, the FBI asked McDonald’s to help them trap the suspects. Together with Amy Murray, they cooked up a plan to invite every corrupt winner to Las Vegas for a “winner reunion,” where the FBI would bust them all at once. But they decided against the idea. It was just as effective to shoot fake McDonald’s commercials, trapping Glomb’s final winner, Michael Hoover, at his home in Rhode Island.
Nineteen days later, on Aug. 22, 2001, the FBI fanned out and made eight arrests, including Dwight and Linda Baker, John Davis, Andrew Glomb, Michael Hoover, Ronald Hughey, and Brenda Phenis. In a pre-dawn raid, FBI agents surrounded Jacobson’s red-brick home, crept up the garden path, and knocked on his door. A shocked Jacobson was taken away in handcuffs and charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, his bond set at a staggering $1 million. Staffers at Simon Marketing were left in disbelief. How could the man who searched their shoes be guilty of theft?
The arrests created a media sensation, and Attorney General John Ashcroft told the press: “Those involved in this type of corruption will find out that breaking the law is no game.” Americans were shocked that McDonald’s customers had been duped for so long. Jeffrey Harris, a former deputy attorney general, complained to CNN: “People that were buying the hamburgers, all they were getting at this point was cholesterol.” Meanwhile, Jacobson became the butt of the media’s jokes: “Are you worried the police are going to take him down the station and give him a grilling?” one newscaster asked. “I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist.”
During his six-hour interrogation, Agent Dent presented Jacobson with their evidence. For over 12 years, Jacobson’s scheme had existed only in his mind. Now his crooked plan was a chart on FBI stationery. But Jacobson still thought he had his “ace in the hole.” In the weeks that followed, he provided the FBI with documents he claimed proved that Simon Marketing rigged McDonald’s contests to bilk Canadian customers. A source close to Jacobson told CNN that he also hoped to use his St. Jude’s million-dollar donation to try and score a reduced prison sentence. But investigators believed he mailed the game piece to the hospital as “a lark,” after failing to recruit a winner in time for the contest deadline. (Jacobson declined to be interviewed for this article. Most of his story comes from court documents.)
With each of Jacobson’s nine charges carrying a five-year penalty, investigators warned him he’d be 104 on his release date. “I wouldn’t be getting out,” he told them, because he had multiple sclerosis. In exchange for a signed confession and his testimony in court, Jacobson pleaded guilty to three counts for a total of 15 years. The government also took everything he owned. Back in Lawrenceville, his neighbors watched as agents drove away in his brand new Honda S2000 sports car and other vehicles, including a luxury Acura, a minivan, and an ’86 Chevy El Camino.
McDonald’s CEO Jack Greenberg told the country in a television address that the company had immediately terminated its relationship with Simon Marketing. In Los Angeles, staff silently packed up their desks as the company dissolved. “McDonald’s is committed to giving our customers a chance to win every dollar that has been stolen by this criminal ring,” Greenberg said later, in a somber TV commercial in which McDonald’s unveiled a special $10 million instant giveaway, and asked for a “second chance.” To ensure winners were truly chosen at random, there were no game pieces or prize boards. Instead, a prize patrol tapped random customers on the shoulder. McDonald’s, which declined to comment for this article, also quietly honored the $1 million prize sent to the hospital, which was spent on treatment for kids battling cancer and terminal diseases.
The colorful court case, held in Jacksonville, Florida, started Sept. 10, 2001, the day before terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. The stunned news media quickly forgot about the McDonald’s trial, which explains why so few Americans remember the scandal, or how it ended. During the trial, jurors watched defendants celebrating in McDonald’s commercials, including the fake winner filmed by the FBI. Glomb recalled that the victim of the McSting, Michael Hoover, told him that he thought Amy Murray “kind of liked me,” before learning she was part of an FBI operation.
“ For over 12 years, Jacobson’s scheme had existed only in his mind. Now his crooked plan was a chart on FBI stationery. ”
More than 50 defendants were convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy. Jacobson’s “super-recruiters”—Schwartz, Hart, Couturier, and Glomb—were sentenced to a year and one day in prison, and handed huge fines. Baker recalled that one of the FBI’s top agents, known as the “human lie-detector,” interrogated him, and added that if the FBI had focused on surveilling terrorists and not McDonald’s winners, 9/11 might never have happened. Baker, who was excommunicated from the Mormon church, his wife Linda, her sister Brenda Phenis, and the dozens of other “winners” received only probation and are still paying back their prize money at $50 a month. Four winners, including Baker’s foster son Chandler, had their convictions overturned by an appeals court, which agreed they were duped by recruiters.
Richard Couturier, who was sleeping in his car at the time of the trial, told the court that a man he believed was in the Mafia warned him not to mention Don Hart’s name to investigators. He said he feared getting “whacked.” Then, just before the judge announced her sentence, Robin Colombo caught a glimpse of her lawyer’s paperwork, and saw she was going back to prison. She screamed and made a desperate dash for the exit, and reached an outer corridor before marshals overpowered her. She was sentenced to 18 months. Behind bars, she discovered the Bible and wrote her life story, From a Mafia Widow to Child of God. She was later reunited with her son Frankie, who did not join the mob.
Jacobson took the stand dressed in a blue golf shirt, looking tired and gray. One attorney described him as “a gigantic master criminal,” before he admitted to stealing as many as 60 game pieces over a dozen years, totaling over $24 million in prizes. “All I can tell you is I made the biggest mistake of my life,” he said quietly, before agreeing to pay $12.5 million in restitution. The judge sent him to jail for 37 months. He did not pass go. But before leaving the court he shook hands with the man who brought him to justice. Perhaps Jacobson saw in Richard Dent the man he could have been, a steely-minded detective. Dent, who declined to be interviewed for this article because he does not speak to the media, quietly returned to his work on white-collar crime, and is now retired.
McDonald’s sued Simon Marketing, which counter-sued. A group of Burger King restaurants tried to get a class-action lawsuit together, so did a group of unhappy McDonald’s customers in Canada. The Monopoly game had demonstrated the evils of chasing riches at the expense of others, but the saga also proved that strange things happen when people conspire to cheat fate. Gennaro Colombo won a car using a stolen prize ticket and died in a car wreck. And when lady luck regained control of the McDonald’s competitions, she handed winning tickets to a man wearing a full Pizza Hut uniform; a Taco Bell owner; and a former homeless man who was later charged with beating up his fiancée—a PR nightmare.
An audit of newspaper archives from Jacobson’s reign turned up some other interesting “wins.” In 1988 a cop in Florida struggling with unpaid bills told reporters how he found a winning McDonald’s game piece in his squad car. A year later, a family living just 43 miles from Jacobson’s home won $250,000. Then there’s the “impostor” M&M candy, like the one in Robin Colombo’s freezer. In 1997, a newspaper reported that a college student in Florida won the $1 million prize, somehow finding the gray-colored M&M before Mars even announced the contest. The boy’s father, a Baptist, said that if his son had spent his money on a lottery ticket, he would have been sinning. “The Lord doesn’t approve of gambling,” he said. “But a candy contest is something different.” The winner and his family did not answer inquiries sent to their home in the Carolinas, not far from the golden triangle of Jacobson’s phony winners.
Not long ago, I spoke to Glomb, one of Jacobson’s “super recruiters.” He was philosophical about his conviction. “I’m not one of those people who are mad at [the FBI],” he said. “It was a game, and I lost.” Glomb says he still speaks with Jacobson, who is 76 and in poor health, but living a quiet life in Georgia. “I hate to say it but I’d probably do it again for the same reason,” Glomb said, rakishly. “Every time I talk to Jacobson, I always tease him, I say, ‘You got any tickets?’” ||||| EXCLUSIVE: Fox is poised to win the hot lit property in the marketplace at the moment, a giant Happy Meal that everyone wanted. Ben Affleck is attached to direct and Matt Damon to star in a true-crime story written by Jeff Maysh and published in The Daily Beast several days ago about an ex-cop who rigged the McDonald’s Monopoly game, allegedly stealing over $24 million and sharing it with an unsavory group of co-conspirators who offered kickbacks to the mastermind. The Pearl Street partners will produce with David Klawans, latter of whom got rights to the article and was exec veep on the Affleck-directed Best Picture Oscar winner Argo. Deadpool scribes Paul Wernick & Rhett Reese will write the script. Deal was a $350,000 option against $1 million if the film gets made. Affleck, Damon and the screenwriters get paid a lot more than that.
Sources said that bidding was ferocious for Maysh’s How An Ex-Cop Rigged McDonald’s Monopoly Game And Stole Millions. Lining up to bid were Universal for Kevin Hart, Warner Bros for John Requa & Glenn Ficarra and Steve Carell and producer Andrew Lazar, and Netflix, which bid for producing partners Eric Newman & Bryan Unkeless, Robert Downey Jr & Susan Downey, and Todd Phillips. The auction was handled by IPG’s Joel Gotler, who repped Maysh.
The article opens in 2001 in Rhode Island, as a million-dollar check is delivered to a man who said he’d won the $1 million grand prize after collecting Monopoly pieces attached to food products, defying the 1-in-250 million odds and modeled after the venerable board game that the piece says was invented as a warning about the destructive nature of greed. A camera crew was dispatched to hear how the man won, and they chronicled his series of lies. They were FBI agents closing in on a sting that began with a tip about an “Uncle Jerry,” who’d sell stolen game pieces. Solid detective work unearthed Jerry Jacobson, a head of security for a Los Angeles company responsible for generating the game pieces. It led to a wide conspiracy that involved mobsters, psychics, strip-club owners, drug traffickers and a family of Mormons who falsely claimed to have won more than $24 million in cash and prizes.
Pearl Street veep Madison Ainley brought in the project and will shepherd it for Pearl Street. Matt Reilly will steer it for Fox. Reilly worked with Affleck on The Town when he was an exec at Warner Bros before moving to Fox.
IPG brokered the sale, and WME reps Affleck and Damon, and Reese & Wernick. ||||| Ben Affleck, Matt Damon Team Up for McDonald's Monopoly Fraud Movie at Fox
'Deadpool' scribes Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese will write.
Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are partnering for a movie about how a former cop rigged the McDonald's Monopoly game to steal millions.
Based on a recently published Daily Beast report by Jeff Maysh, the movie will follow the FBI operation to uncover the underground criminal ring, run by someone named "Uncle Jerry," who used his job as a security officer at the firm that printed the game pieces to defraud the fast food's annual promotion of $24 million in prize money over several years.
Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese, the writers behind Fox's Deadpool series, will adapt the story for the screen.
Damon will star with Affleck attached to direct, while both will produce via their Pearl Street banner. Jeff Maysh and David Klawans will exec produce.
Fox outbid several other studios, including Universal, Warner Bros. and Netflix, to land the rights to the story.
Affleck was last in the director's chair for the 2016 crime drama Live by Night for Warner Bros. Since exiting the Batman stand-alone project as a director, Affleck has been in talks to direct a number of projects, including Sony's Afghanistan War movie Red Platoon.
Damon is attached to star in Fox's Ford v. Ferrari movie from James Mangold. | Jeff Maysh's deep dive in the Daily Beast about McDonald's rigged Monopoly prize contest is what everyone's been buzzing about the past few days—and which Fox now hopes will translate to Hollywood gold. Deadline reports the film studio nabbed the rights to Maysh's story over Warner Bros., Universal, and Netflix, and two big names are tied to the project: Ben Affleck in the director's chair and Matt Damon in a starring role. Deadpool writers Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese are set to put together the screenplay. Maysh's article details the eventually uncovered scandal of how a former cop stole game pieces in the well-known McDonald's contest and, with the help of a laundry list of seedy accomplices, swindled $24 million. The Hollywood Reporter notes the last film under Affleck's directorial domain was the crime drama Live by Night in 2016. While headlines are already being generated at this newest Affleck-Damon matchup, Chris Evangelista notes for the /Film blog he's feeling "conflicted" about the news. "I'm not so sure this is the team to make it happen," he writes. "I couldn't help but think this was the type of narrative tailor-made for Martin Scorsese. It basically reads like The Wolf of Wall Street set in the world of McDonald's Monopoly. … The Coen brothers also could've done something amazing with this material." |
Pugnacious and ever confident, Rahm Emanuel never has been one to back away from a political fight. But on Tuesday, he did just that, abruptly dropping a bid for a third term as Chicago’s mayor to instead write an undetermined “next chapter” of his life. After 23 years in politics, Emanuel said he had asked many sacrifices of his wife, Amy Rule, and their three children. In an interview, the mayor described his personal and professional lives as two planes preparing to land on separate runways, making the timing right to step away from public life. So after months of discussions with his family and a long holiday weekend spent dropping off his third child at college, Emanuel summoned reporters to his City Hall office on short notice and dropped a surprise that shook Chicago’s political landscape. “I’ve decided not to seek re-election,” said Emanuel, who took office as Chicago’s first Jewish mayor in 2011. “This has been the job of a lifetime, but it is not a job for a lifetime.” Sources close to Emanuel said the family considerations were key, but so, too, was the reality that he would spend the next eight months in a bruising campaign that would feature him getting attacked from all sides. And while Emanuel and his top aides said they were confident he could win, the mayor increasingly acknowledged the need to muster up the energy for a third term that still would be filled with challenges, from needing to find even more money for the city’s financially beleaguered pensions to having a federal court enforce changes to the city’s Police Department, the sources said. Emanuel will step aside next May after two tumultuous terms in office that have included the largest round of school closings in the city’s history, a teachers strike, the corruption conviction of his onetime schools chief, rampant gun violence that has surged in recent years, a sex abuse scandal at Chicago Public Schools, record tax increases to shore up the city’s pensions and the Laquan McDonald police shooting that led to a federal investigation of the Police Department and sagging support among African-American voters. The mayor, though, also has had his transformative moments. He has expanded full-day kindergarten and pre-K, lengthened the school day, improved graduation rates, increased the minimum wage, attracted scores of corporate headquarters, overseen a boom in downtown construction, laid the groundwork for a major expansion of O’Hare International Airport, bolstered the downtown riverwalk and managed to stabilize — although not fully fix — the city’s shaky finances. Even as he decided to walk away from the job, Emanuel displayed his typical bravado. He noted several times in the interview that he was “6-for-6” in winning campaigns and insisted he could have made it 7-for-7. “I had the option to run,” the mayor said. “I knew I would win.” There will be no run, however, and someone else will enjoy the victory next year. Moments after Emanuel’s news conference, the political scramble ensued. ANALYSIS: What does Rahm Emanuel's decision mean for the Chicago mayor's race? Who's in so far, and who's out. » READ: Emanuel's prepared remarks announcing he will not seek re-election » Many of the 12 challengers already in the race, including former police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, onetime Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas and former Police Board President Lori Lightfoot, rushed to call news conferences in an effort to wedge their candidacies into the coverage of Emanuel’s decision. Behind the scenes, many other potential candidates were making phone calls to big-dollar donors and political operatives to gauge support for a run, various political sources confirmed. That list includes: Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza, former White House chief of staff Bill Daley, Chicago Treasurer Kurt Summers, city Clerk Anna Valencia, 2011 mayoral candidate and lobbyist Gery Chico, Lakeview Ald. Tom Tunney and Michael Sacks, Emanuel’s close friend, confidant and top campaign donor who is the wealthy CEO of the investment firm GCM Grosvenor. Other names being floated by Chicago’s political class: former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, former White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley, but there was no confirmation those three were seeking support. The mayoral election is Feb. 26. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote — a strong likelihood with such a large field — then a runoff election between the top two finishers would be held April 2. Emanuel’s decision to step away from City Hall next spring drew expected praise from establishment Democrats across the country, including former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and Preckwinkle, who at times has been a political foe. But in other corners of Chicago — from the headquarters of the Chicago Teachers Union to the Twitter accounts of the city’s anti-violence activists, there was an unbridled joy unleashed in response to the surprise Emanuel delivered Tuesday. Eve Ewing, a poet, sociologist and a Chicago Twitter celebrity of sorts who goes by “Wikipedia Brown,” summed up the exuberance among those who long advocated against Emanuel’s policies and dubbed him “Mayor 1 Percent” for his close association with the city’s business interests and for the millionaires who have filled his campaign coffers. “I believe we will replace him w/someone better. But I also believe firmly that this is a victory NOW. He looked at the writing on the wall & it was a bad scene. And that’s because of the hard work, sacrifice and powerful organizing of a LOT of people. I’m proud of that,” Ewing tweeted about Emanuel. “If I could choose between winning the lottery and this, this is what I would have chosen.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced Sept. 4, 2018, that he will not seek a third term in office. (Chicago Tribune) (Chicago Tribune) The decision Emanuel’s decision not to run marks a dramatic political reversal, as for the better part of the last year he had said he would seek a third term. The mayor, long a prolific fundraiser, had already reeled in more than $10 million toward a re-election bid, with more than $7 million in cash left on hand at last check. Over the Labor Day holiday weekend, though, whispers began to emerge that Emanuel might not embark on a third campaign. The mayor’s closest aides privately dismissed the talk as “bull” and “BS.” Emanuel even told some close friends who called to inquire about the rumors that they weren’t true.
On Tuesday, Emanuel put the speculation to an end, saying he decided to step away after months of discussions this summer with Rule and his three children, Zach, Ilana and Leah. In an interview, he described the sacrifices he’s asked of his family as he’s pursued his political ambitions — from his early days as a senior adviser in the Clinton administration and his tenure in Congress to his time as Obama’s first chief of staff and his run for Chicago mayor. When he moved to Washington to work for Obama, the family stayed behind to finish the school year. The same happened a year and a half later, when Emanuel left Washington and returned to Chicago to run for mayor. As an example of the personal tolls, Emanuel described rushing from his son’s bar mitzvah to the White House to make phone calls to secure the final votes needed to secure passage of Obama’s signature legislation — the Affordable Care Act. “It’s literally this: We’re still young enough to write another chapter on this journey. … Marriage is not a destination. It’s a journey, and I have asked a lot of her,” Emanuel, 58, said of Rule. “In our conversation, the things that we wanted to do and postponed as a couple, through a whole host of 23 years because of my career, we had the option not to postpone them anymore, if I chose. Amy loves the city and loves being first lady and all of that, but we have other things we want to do, and we’re young enough to put our energy into those.” TIMELINE: Highs, lows and dead fish: Rahm Emanuel's political journey » READ MORE: 6 quick facts about Rahm Emanuel » Emanuel said the decision was made over the course of discussions with Rule throughout the summer, including a trip to Arizona to visit ailing U.S. Sen. John McCain and while walking on the beach and sitting around a fire pit at their Michigan cottage. “We had optionality. I’ve run six races and won six. Nobody has gotten within 10 points of me. I know where I was financially, idea-wise and organizationally, and I know where everybody else is. We could do this again,” Emanuel said. “At the end of the day … when we were coming to the finer points of the discussion, we just decided we still wanted to do the other things that we want to do when we’re young enough to do it.” As for what’s next for the two, Emanuel wouldn’t specify. Asked if he was done with politics, the mayor didn’t hesitate. “Well, no,” he said. “I’m not done, because I don’t think running for office is the only way you get involved in politics. I just won’t be mayor. I’ll be a citizen. I care about this city.” Emanuel, though, also said “it’s too early” to rule out ever running for public office again. Asked if he might get more involved in national politics, he was noncommittal. “I haven’t thought about it. I care about my party. I care about the country,” Emanuel said. “I care about those things, but I don’t care about them right now in the way that I used to.” As for the millions of dollars in his campaign war chest, the mayor said he would return it to donors. Emanuel said he’d stay out of the political race to succeed him but would be a “keen observer.” Although he has embraced some progressive policies, such as a higher minimum wage, Emanuel’s national profile remains emblematic of the centrist Democratic establishment as a longtime Clinton protege. Facing a race in which many of the candidates are rooted to his left, Emanuel would have joined a national trend of centrist Democrats trying to fight off a challenge from the party’s liberal and even socialist wing. Tom Bowen, the mayor’s former political director, said the current political environment is unlike anything Emanuel has faced before. He said the mayor doesn’t like entering fights he might not win. “If you look at his political career, he has had an advantage in most of the races he has taken on. I just don’t think with (President Donald) Trump in the White House and (Gov. Bruce) Rauner in the statehouse and the aggravation that’s coursing through the Democratic electorate, I don’t think you can say he has the advantages he (once) had,” Bowen said. “I just don’t know him to be a guy who gets into a race where he has a tremendous number of disadvantages.” Ald. Scott Waguespack, a frequent Emanuel critic, agreed. He said the mayor’s path to re-election was plagued by a “pretty consistent downward trend in his likability” over recent months, paired with a surge of enthusiasm from the progressive left. “I thought he would probably get into the runoff, but there were a number of people who could beat him. I thought he could potentially pull it off if he spent another $20, $30 million,” Waguespack said. “I thought he would have to do the same thing to avoid another narrow election.” The Laquan McDonald factor Emanuel made his decision as the murder trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke is scheduled to begin this week. That high-profile case is sure to bring about fresh scrutiny of Emanuel’s handling of the McDonald police shooting, in which Van Dyke shot the teen 16 times in October 2014 as McDonald walked down a Southwest Side street holding a small folding knife. For most of 2015, Emanuel fought in court not to release police video of the shooting, arguing the matter was still under investigation. When a judge ordered Emanuel to release the video in November 2015, then-Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez filed murder charges against Van Dyke on the same day Emanuel made the video public. The controversy led to a federal civil rights investigation of the Police Department, accusations of a City Hall cover-up and weeks of street protests that called for Emanuel’s resignation. It also left Emanuel saddled with deep unpopularity among African-American voters, a demographic that he performed strongly with in his previous campaigns for mayor. A 2016 Chicago Tribune poll amid the McDonald aftermath found Emanuel’s approval rating at a record-low 27 percent, with 4 in 10 voters wanting him to resign. A vast majority of Chicagoans didn’t consider Emanuel to be honest and trustworthy, didn’t think he was justified in withholding the McDonald video and didn’t believe his statements about the controversial case. READ MORE: Rahm Emanuel's announcement comes on eve of trial over police shooting that plagued his second term » ||||| Rahm Emanuel not seeking re-election as mayor of Chicago
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, joined by his wife, Amy Rule, announced he will not seek re-election. | Rahul Parikh/Sun-Times
Saying “this has been the job of a lifetime, but it is not a job for a lifetime,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced Tuesday morning he will not seek re-election to a third term.
Having just returned from dropping off his youngest child at college — she’s a freshman at Princeton — Emanuel and his wife, Amy Rule, apparently returned home with his mind made up.
“Amy and I have decided it is time to write another chapter together,” added Emanuel, who told staffers of his decision at a private meeting just before his public announcement at City Hall. “Amy and I are still young — and Amy still looks it.”
Married 27 years, the two are now officially empty-nesters, he said.
“What matters most is four more years for our children, not four more years for me,” he added. When they first got married, he said, he had told her he would never run for office — “and I’m about six elections behind the eight-ball.”
Emanuel, a former congressman who also held positions in two Democratic presidential administrations, was elected in 2011 and survived a run-off to win a second term in 2015. But he faced in increasingly crowded field for next year’s municipal election.
He also was looking at some turbulent weeks ahead, during the trial of Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke, charged with murder in the October 2014 shooting death of Laquan McDonald.
In an event that has come to define his second term, Van Dyke was caught on video fatally shooting McDonald 16 times — but the video was not released for more than a year.
Van Dyke’s trial, which starts this week, is certain to dredge up ugly memories of Emanuel’s decision to withhold the McDonald shooting video until after the 2015 election and release it only after a judge ordered the city to do so.
That release sparked street protests and, eventually, a Department of Justice investigation into the Chicago Police Department. The DOJ probe produced a scathing report that faulted the department for what it called widespread constitutional abuses.
The report also offered stark anecdotes of deadly force, including officers firing shots in residential neighborhoods, and “dangerous practices” like taking people into gang-rival territories to “display” them.
Emanuel and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan are nearing the end of negotiations over a court-enforced consent decree outlining department reforms recommended by that report.
RELATED
• Rahm Emanuel not seeking re-election as mayor of Chicago
• READ: Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s statement
• Elected officials, public figures react to Emanuel’s decision not to seek re-election
• How Rahm Emanuel’s surprise might shake-up Chicago’s mayoral race
• CTU takes credit for decision by ‘Mayor 1 Percent’ not to seek third term
• Former Gov. Pat Quinn won’t run for mayor, will keep pursuing term limits
• David Axelrod on Rahm Emanuel not running: ‘I wasn’t shocked by his decision’
• Outlook for Emanuel’s third-term run looked bleak last week: Spielman
• A timeline of Rahm Emanuel’s tenure as mayor of Chicago
Kofi Ademola, with the Chicago chapter of Black Lives Matter, called Emanuel’s announcement a “great victory” for grassroots organizers who, in the wake of the McDonald video’s release, had worked to defeat Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez (who lost a re-election bid in 2016) and also demanded the firing of CPD Supt. Garry McCarthy.
Emanuel did fire McCarthy, in December 2015, and McCarthy now is running for mayor.
Ademola said the closure of a record 50 schools, mental health clinics and the lack of police accountability and an elected school board brought people from all over the city together against the mayor. Now, he added, the hope is to get “somebody in there who will be progressive. We have a lot of educating to do with the public on who is in the field.”
Activists who had repeatedly called for Emanuel’s resignation planned a celebratory rally for Tuesday afternoon on Daley Plaza.
Another challenge that had been on Emanuel’s radar was a term-limit measure being pushed by former Gov. Pat Quinn.
Quinn had submitted petitions for a ballot measure that that limit Chicago mayors to two terms. But he said his efforts to get such a referendum on the ballot in November weren’t aimed personally at Emanuel — and he said Tuesday he won’t run for mayor.
But if Quinn still isn’t interested, many others are. Besides McCarthy, the field now includes former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas, Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown, former Police Board President Lori Lightfoot, community activist Ja’Mal Green, former CPS principal Troy LaRaviere, businessman Willie Wilson and tech entrepreneur Neal Sales-Griffin.
Another oft-cited potential challenger, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, had taken herself out of the race. Her initial statement issued in reaction to Emanuel’s announcement did not hint at any change in those plans.
“I was surprised by Mayor Emanuel’s announcement this morning that he has decided not to seek re-election. I want to thank him for leading our city for the past eight years and also for his service to the nation – his time in Congress and as Chief of Staff to President Obama. Being mayor of the nation’s third-largest city is extraordinarily difficult and all-consuming. I wish him and Amy well in their future endeavors.”
Others also sang his praises.
“Chicago is better and stronger for his leadership, and I was a better president for his wise counsel at a particularly perilous time for our country,” former President Barack Obama said in response to the announcement. Emanuel had been his White House chief of staff.
“I’ve been blessed to call Rahm my friend. Whatever he chooses to do next, I know he’ll continue to make a positive difference, just as he has throughout his career in public service.”
Emanuel also served in the White House under President Bill Clinton.
“From the earliest days of my presidential campaign over a quarter-century ago, through my time in the White House; his service in Congress; as Chief of Staff to President Obama; and for eight vital years as Mayor, Rahm Emanuel has served with vision, purpose, principle, and impact,” Clinton said in a statement.
“I believe he succeeded because he cares about people, policy, and politics. Even people who disagree with him strongly on some issues understand that.”
Not everyone was sending Emanuel off with a pat on the back, however.
Emanuel had famously tussled with Karen Lewis, then the president of the Chicago Teachers Union, during a 2012 strike. That battle raised Lewis’ stature to the point that she pondered her own run for mayor — until a brain tumor put her on the sidelines.
Lewis’ successor, Jesse Sharkey, declared victory with Emanuel’s departure.
“Rahm came in like a wrecking ball, but he couldn’t wreck our love for the schools,” Sharkey said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.
“He couldn’t make us budge from our defense for the schools and the city. This union, the CTU, followed Karen Lewis into battle, and today we’ve won,” Sharkey said.
“Maybe it’s different down in Emerald City, in the gleaming downtown, but out in the neighborhoods this is not a popular mayor. In the working class parts of this city, this is not a popular mayor.”
Just last week, Emanuel, along with other candidates for mayor, had begun circulating nominating petitions to gather the 12,500 signatures he would have needed to get on the ballot.
Emanuel had 1,400 volunteers — including Democratic ward committeemen, labor and community leaders — passing his petitions.
But even though he had been raising money, gathering signatures and putting a campaign infrastructure in place, Emanuel never formally declared his candidacy for a third term.
“For the last seven and a half years, I’ve given my all every day and left it all on the field,” Emanuel said Tuesday. “I’ve approached public service the only way I know how — giving 100 percent, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”
Last week, the Emanuel campaign chose to release results of a $153,500 poll bankrolled by Michael Sacks, the mayor’s close friend, business adviser and largest campaign contributor.
Despite an avalanche of tax increases, persistent violence and deep distrust among black voters tied to his handling of the McDonald shooting video, it showed the embattled incumbent strongly positioned to win a third term — contradicting recent polls done for competitors that showed otherwise.
The timing of the poll’s release was curious.
“They’re either trying to pump him up to run or make the case that he could have won, even if he doesn’t run,” one political operative had said at the time.
Contributing: Rachel Hinton, Michael Sneed, Fran Spielman, Lauren FitzPatrick, Tina Sfondeles, Jane Recker ||||| FILE - In this Aug. 6, 2018, file photo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a news conference in Chicago. Emanuel announced Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018, that he will not seek a third term in 2019. AP Photo/Teresa... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Aug. 6, 2018, file photo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a news conference in Chicago. Emanuel announced Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018, that he will not seek a third term in 2019. AP Photo/Teresa Crawford, File) (Associated Press)
FILE - In this Aug. 6, 2018, file photo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a news conference in Chicago. Emanuel announced Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018, that he will not seek a third term in 2019. AP Photo/Teresa Crawford, File) (Associated Press) FILE - In this Aug. 6, 2018, file photo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel speaks at a news conference in Chicago. Emanuel announced Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018, that he will not seek a third term in 2019. AP Photo/Teresa... (Associated Press)
CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced Tuesday that he won't seek a third term in 2019.
Emanuel said in a statement released by his office that being mayor "has been the job of a lifetime, but it is not a job for a lifetime." The Chicago Tribune says he had already raised more than $10 million for another run for a four-year term.
Emanuel, 58, was a Democratic congressman and chief of staff to President Barack Obama before becoming mayor in 2011. He followed Richard M. Daley, who was mayor for more than 20 years. His won a second term in a 2015 runoff.
His surprise announcement comes the day before the start of one of the biggest police-shooting trials in the history of Chicago — the murder trial of police officer Jason Van Dyke. The release of a dashcam video two years ago of the white officer shooting black teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times in 2014 drew the sharpest criticism of Emanuel in his two terms as mayor.
Many questioned whether his office delayed releasing the video to lessen political damage on Emanuel. The trial is expected to bring added scrutiny of how the city, and Emanuel, dealt with the case. | Rahm Emanuel will not seek re-election to a third term as mayor of Chicago in 2019, he announced Tuesday. "This has been the job of a lifetime, but it is not the job for a lifetime," said Emanuel, who just returned to the city after dropping his youngest child off for her freshman year at Princeton, reports the Chicago Sun-Times. The Chicago Tribune reports the 58-year-old had already amassed $10 million to fund a third-term run. Emanuel said he and his wife of 27 years decided it was "time to write another chapter together," noting he once promised her he would never run for office—"and I'm about six elections behind the eight-ball." The former congressman, who also served as Barack Obama's chief of staff, told staffers of his decision shortly before his City Hall press conference. The AP points to the timing of his surprise announcement: one day before "one of the biggest police-shooting trials in the history of Chicago" is to begin. Police officer Jason Van Dyke goes on trial Wednesday for the 2014 shooting death of Laquan McDonald. Emanuel had fought the release of the dashcam video. If that goes down as a low point, the Tribune also outlines some high points, including Emanuel's expansion of free pre-K and full-day kindergarten and financial moves he made to address four "grossly underfunded" public employee pension funds. |
We initially designated HUD’s organizational structure a management deficiency in 1994 because the overlapping roles of field offices and headquarters reduced the organization’s effectiveness and prevented management from being accountable for HUD’s programs. At the time of our 1995 report, HUD was reorganizing its field office structure to clarify the lines of programmatic and administrative authority, enhance communications between headquarters and the field, eliminate unnecessary management layers, and improve customer service. In September 1995, HUD completed the field reorganization, eliminating 10 regional offices, transferring authority for field staff and resources to Assistant Secretaries in HUD headquarters, and restructuring the Department’s 81 field offices. To date, HUD has not evaluated the impact that these changes have had on the Department’s effectiveness. HUD is in the process of further reorganization to reduce the size of the headquarters staff and redeploy and train staff. Also, HUD is currently making a study of closing additional field offices. HUD has historically had difficulty maintaining a workforce capable of effectively delivering and monitoring its myriad of programs. In 1995, we reported that the number and qualifications of HUD staff were inadequate to perform essential functions—particularly in light of the Department’s inadequate information systems. In 1997, we reported on HUD’s continued efforts to improve the skills of its staff, noting that in the past 2 years, HUD had increased the amount of training available to staff, encouraged employees to formulate individual development plans, forged partnerships with colleges and universities, and begun a needs assessment process to identify future training needs. In 1995, we also reported that after a decade of problems, HUD’s information systems continued to be poorly integrated, ineffective, and generally unreliable. However, we noted that the Department was committed to correcting its long-standing problems and making its information resources management program more responsive to HUD’s mission. In 1997, we reported that HUD had subsequently taken numerous actions to create a network of flexible, integrated computer systems that will enable program staff to oversee the financial and programmatic integrity of their operations. However, we also noted that some major financial and information systems will not be completed before the year 2001 and that some systems currently cannot be relied on to provide timely, accurate, and reliable information and reports to management. In 1995, we reported that HUD still needed to complete its efforts to address internal control weaknesses. At that time, the Department was developing a new method of integrating management controls into program delivery and budget development by requiring each division to annually identify and rank the risks in each of its programs and to devise a strategy for abating those risks. Our 1997 High-Risk Series report noted that HUD had fully implemented its management planning and control program in fiscal year 1995, but serious problems remain. In addition, we, HUD’s Inspector General, and independent auditors have identified a lack of monitoring in certain programs as a continuing problem. The majority of field directors we surveyed considered the September 1995 field office reorganization successful and believed that it achieved most of HUD’s intended goals. These goals included clarifying the lines of programmatic and administrative authority and accountability, improving communication with HUD’s customers, empowering field managers and staff, and improving communication between headquarters and the field. (See figs. 1 and 2.) Three-quarters of the directors said that, overall, HUD has made excellent or good progress toward the goals of the reorganization. However, the directors from community planning and development (CPD) programs generally had more negative views: They were almost evenly divided between those who said the reorganization’s success was excellent or good and those who said it was only fair or poor. (See app. II, questions 7-9, for the directors’ views on HUD’s progress toward each goal, summarized by type of director.) When asked to rate HUD’s success in terms of each individual goal of the reorganization, the directors indicated that the Department has been most successful in clarifying the lines of programmatic authority and improving communication with HUD’s customers and least successful in clarifying the lines of administrative authority. As noted in figure 2, opinions differed by program area. For example, most multifamily housing directors believed that HUD’s progress toward the goal of empowering staff was excellent or good, whereas the majority of CPD directors said that HUD’s progress toward that goal was only fair or poor. There was a similar variation in the directors’ views on how successful HUD has been in improving communication between headquarters and field offices. Again, most multifamily housing directors said that HUD’s progress toward this goal was excellent or good, whereas almost half of the CPD directors thought that HUD’s progress was only fair (24 percent) or poor (24 percent). Overall success To gauge the effect of HUD’s reorganization and new management approach on the activities conducted in the field, we asked directors whether headquarters placed appropriate emphasis on nine specific activities. (See table 1.) A majority of the directors said that the emphasis that headquarters placed on most activities was about right, although most said that HUD does not place enough emphasis on learning technical skills (67 percent) or cross-training (59 percent). The only objective that was overemphasized was reaching numeric performance goals, according to a significant number of the directors. Forty percent of the directors (and 64 percent of single-family housing directors) said that HUD headquarters placed too much emphasis on this objective. Most directors said they were satisfied with the skills of their staffs. Four out of five directors said they were very satisfied or generally satisfied with their staffs’ skills, and most said that the skills of their staffs had improved greatly or somewhat in the past 2 years. (See app. II, questions 10-14, for the directors’ views on staffs’ skills and training.) As shown on figure 3, for the five types of skills we asked about, they rated their staffs’ technical skills highest, but they had similarly favorable views of their staffs’ interpersonal skills, knowledge of new programs, knowledge of new regulations, and knowledge of information systems. Nonetheless, a significant number of directors said the skills of their staffs were weak in specific areas. The weaknesses they identified varied somewhat by program area. For example, 40 percent of the public housing directors rated their staffs’ interpersonal skills as only fair. More than half of all multifamily housing directors rated their staffs’ knowledge of information systems as fair (39 percent) or poor (17 percent). In addition, a third of the single-family housing directors said their staffs’ knowledge of new regulations was fair. Most directors believed that the quality of training at HUD has improved over the past 2 years; however, many indicated that the quality and quantity of training need additional improvement. Overall, more than a third of the directors said they consider the quality of HUD’s current training only fair. The single-family housing directors were most critical—a majority said HUD’s training was fair or poor. Moreover, while the directors’ responses indicated that the efforts to improve HUD’s training curriculum may have produced some benefits, most directors indicated that their staffs need more training in information systems (88 percent), technical job skills (73 percent), program regulations and changes (67 percent), and interpersonal skills (52 percent). Most directors also believed that maintaining adequate staffing levels is a continuing problem. Seventy-seven percent said that they have fewer staff than they need to effectively carry out essential program activities. This opinion held across program areas, although the directors in some areas were more likely to say that they were short-staffed. For example, 89 percent of the multifamily housing directors reported that they were short-staffed, whereas 61 percent of the single-family housing directors said that they had fewer staff members than they needed. Consistent with the fact that most directors said that they had fewer staff members than they needed, most also reported that their workloads had increased over the last 2 years. Seventy-three percent said that the workloads of the individuals in their areas of responsibility had increased. Again, the responses varied somewhat by program area. Almost every CPD director indicated that workloads had increased, whereas only half of the single-family housing directors reported increased workloads. Overall, the directors who reported increased workloads most frequently attributed the increases to reductions in staff (77 percent), new regulations and initiatives in existing programs (76 percent), the creation of new programs (73 percent), and new Department-wide management initiatives (71 percent). On the other hand, more than a third of the single-family housing directors reported that the elimination of some programs had actually reduced their workloads to some extent. Each program area uses several different systems, and each system is in various stages of development, integration, and implementation. The directors’ overall satisfaction with HUD’s information systems varied by program area. The CPD and public housing directors were most satisfied with the systems in their areas of responsibility. More than 70 percent of the directors from those program areas were generally satisfied. In contrast, the single-family and multifamily housing directors were least satisfied with their systems. (See app. II, questions 15 and 16, for the directors’ views on information systems.) The directors’ responses also varied by program area when they were asked to rate the information systems in their areas of responsibility against five specific criteria: accuracy, usefulness for monitoring, usefulness for other duties, ease of reporting, and ability to share data with other systems within HUD. The multifamily housing directors were consistently least satisfied with their systems; the public housing directors generally reported the highest levels of satisfaction. (See fig. 4.) Directors in all program areas tended to be most satisfied with the accuracy of the data in the reports generated by HUD’s information systems and least satisfied with the ability of the systems they use to share data or to interact. In fact, half of the directors, across program areas, rated the ability of their systems to share data as poor, while a third of the directors rated this category as fair. The ease of generating reports from their information systems was also an area of concern for directors in all program areas—the majority rated their systems as fair or poor in this category as well. satisfaction Despite the fact that many directors were dissatisfied with their current systems, most said those systems were at least as good or better than they were 2 years ago. When asked whether or not their systems had changed over the past 2 years, most directors said that the accuracy of the data had improved, while about one-half said that the ease of reporting, the usefulness of information systems for monitoring and other job duties, and the ability to share data with other HUD systems had stayed about the same. The public housing directors were consistently the most likely to report that their systems had improved over the past 2 years, and the single-family directors were the least likely to do so. Although most directors believed HUD’s overall system of internal controls was good or excellent, a significant percentage said some specific internal controls were only fair or poor. For example, many directors characterized as fair or poor HUD’s internal controls for ensuring data reliability (50 percent) and compliance with laws and regulations (44 percent); also characterized as fair or poor were the controls for ensuring that resources are protected from fraud (38 percent) and that resources are used efficiently and effectively (31 percent). (See app. II, question 17, for the directors’ views on internal controls.) Overall, the directors in all program areas reported similar levels of satisfaction with internal controls in their areas of responsibility (see fig. 5). However, their responses varied by program area and type of control. The directors were most satisfied with the internal controls to ensure that program goals and objectives are met. Ninety-two percent of the single-family housing and 89 percent of the multifamily housing directors rated these activities as good or excellent. The public housing directors were somewhat less satisfied than the other directors with the internal controls in place to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. The multifamily directors reported the least satisfaction with the internal controls to ensure that reported data are reliable—about 64 percent rated those controls as fair or poor. effectiveness HUD’s Department Management Control Program Handbook recognizes that monitoring program participants is a critical management control. Despite its importance, monitoring continues to be a problem area for HUD. Many directors said HUD’s management needs to place greater emphasis on activities that reduce the risk of fraud and waste (44 percent), particularly conducting essential program monitoring (42 percent). The vast majority of the directors who considered current monitoring inadequate said that insufficient staff was a major reason (66 percent) or minor reason (23 percent) that adequate monitoring is not being carried out. A smaller percentage of the directors also cited lack of travel funds, headquarters’ emphasis, and staffs’ skills as reasons for inadequate monitoring. The directors most frequently identified the on-site monitoring of HUD’s clients (71 percent) and monitoring of HUD’s contractors (57 percent) as specific types of monitoring that should be increased. The single-family housing directors were least satisfied with the levels of monitoring being done in these areas; 83 percent reported a need to increase on-site monitoring, and 69 percent said that more monitoring of HUD contractors should be done. In addition, the multifamily housing directors (72 percent) and the public housing directors (51 percent) frequently said that HUD needs to increase its reviews of the audit reports submitted by independent public accountants on behalf of those who receive and spend HUD’s funds. We obtained information for this report from a telephone survey of directors of HUD’s major programs in the field. Our survey, conducted during August 1996, asked the directors for their views on HUD’s 1995 field office reorganization and other corrective actions the Department has taken in the past 2 years. It included 155 persons serving as the directors of single-family housing, multifamily housing, CPD, and public housing at 40 of HUD’s largest field offices, as well as the 14 Directors of Housing who are located in those field offices. Although we have not reported their responses separately, the opinions of the Directors of Housing are included whenever we present results for all directors. (See app. II for the full text of our survey and the responses to it.) Our survey population does not represent directors from other programs or the directors from HUD’s smallest offices. We surveyed directors who had been in their current position for at least 4 months and with HUD for at least 24 months. We did not survey directors with less than 4 months of experience, who may be less familiar with the effects of the changes that have recently occurred at HUD. Seven directors were excluded for this reason. In addition, one eligible director declined to participate in our survey, resulting in a 99-percent response rate. To summarize the directors’ opinions in bar graphs, for questions with the response categories “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor,” we assigned values of 3, 2, 1, and 0 points, respectively, to the responses and averaged the numerical values. For questions using a satisfaction scale, a parallel strategy was used. We met with agency officials to discuss our survey results. They noted that they had not evaluated any of the management initiatives discussed in our report and therefore had no basis to dispute our survey results. However, in several instances they provided observations about the directors’ responses to our survey. For example, concerning the negative tenor of the CPD directors’ responses, the officials commented that the CPD directors’ responses appear to be intended to send headquarters a message rather than answer questions on the basis of the real situations in the field. They also noted that addressing the training needs identified at the time of our survey will not ensure that future training needs are met because the Department is about to go through significant changes due to buyouts, redeployments, and consolidations. The officials recognized that there are staffing and workload imbalances, particularly in the field, and commented that these imbalances may be contributing to the directors’ perceptions that their workloads are increasing. The officials also conceded that reaching numeric performance goals is overemphasized by headquarters management and noted that efforts are being made to correct this situation. We performed our work from April 1996 through January 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) 0 66 34 0 0 0 36 44 19 0 3 71 19 3 3 3 74 17 6 0 0 39 39 23 0 1 59 30 9 0 (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) Throughout the survey, the directors who had held their current position for less than 2 years were asked to discuss only the changes that had occurred since they assumed that position. Fran Featherston 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 surveyed Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) field directors in four of HUD's major program areas to obtain the directors' perspectives on the corrective actions HUD has undertaken over the past 2 years. GAO found that its survey showed: (1) most field directors considered HUD's field office reorganization, completed in September 1995, an overall success, but there were differences of opinion among the directors and program areas concerning HUD's success in meeting certain reorganization goals; (2) a majority of the directors said that: (a) they were satisfied with the skills of their staffs and that staff training had increased over the last 2 years; (b) training needed to be further increased in all areas; and (c) they did not have enough staff members to effectively administer their programs; (3) the satisfaction with information and financial management systems differed by program area; (4) almost three-quarters of the community planning and development and public housing directors were satisfied with their systems, whereas only one-third of the multifamily housing directors were satisfied; and (5) although a majority of the directors rated HUD's overall internal control system as good or excellent, a substantial number said that their systems were only fair or poor for certain activities, such as ensuring data reliability and compliance with laws and regulations, and HUD's programs have not received adequate monitoring. |
The pizza parlor owners who received death threats and were subjected to an online hate campaign will reopen for business tomorrow with the backing of $842,000 from well wishers and a defiant message that they stand by their opposition to gay weddings. They were going to open today but were advised to hold off for security reasons.
In an exclusive first interview inside Memories Pizza restaurant since it closed down last week, owner Kevin O’Connor and daughter Crystal emerged from hiding and told Daily Mail Online they had been heartened by the support of 29,000 people who donated and many more who wrote to them.
They revealed they are set to share their new fortune with disabled children, a women’s help group, fire fighters, police trusts, Christian churches and Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, 70, who was fined after declaring she would not serve a gay wedding.
The tiny pizza joint in the unremarkable town of Walkerton, which has a population of just over 2000, became the focal point of a raging national debate over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed last month.
Scroll down for video
Back in business: Kevin O’Connor and daughter Crystal emerged from hiding and told Daily Mail Online they had been heartened by the support of 29,000 people who donated and many more who wrote to them
Controversy: The tiny pizza joint in the unremarkable town of Walkerton, which has a population of just over 2000, became the focal point of a raging national debate over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed last month
Critics said it would allow individuals and businesses to use religion as a defense against any accusation of discrimination from gay people.
The bill was severely tested over the last week after Crystal, 22, a devout Christian, told a local radio station that the restaurant she runs with her father would never cater a wedding of two people of the same sex.
Mr. O’Connor and his daughter were still adamant today, despite the furor that has engulfed them, that they would refuse to serve gay marriages with their pizzas.
He added: ‘ If any child of mine came out as gay and entered into a gay marriage, I would still love them, but Daddy wouldn’t be going to the wedding.’
The O’Connors, who serve around 100 pizzas a week to locals, admitted they had never actually been commissioned to provide their 16 inch $12.99 cheese pizzas or pulled pork $5.75 sandwiches to a same sex wedding.
Crystal said:’ I was asked a hypothetical question and that was the answer I gave. But I didn’t hope to gain anything by saying what I said.
‘I wasn’t trying to score points. It is something I believe in from my heart and my faith about gay weddings. But I don’t regret what I said.
‘I have been scared, but God is giving me strength. I think it is nothing compared to what Christ had to suffer.’
Speaking to ABC57 a week ago, Crystal said: 'If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no.’
The remark was quickly picked up by opponents of the new law and sparked an intense and angry debate, with threats being made against the O’Conners, forcing them to close down and go into hiding until today.
Crystal said: ‘I don’t like attention, period. Before all this I was the “Pizza Girl” and I didn’t like that and now I got even more attention.
People were looking at me and all that brought my spirits down. But the support we got also lifted me and made me stronger and humbled. But it has been difficult. Crystal O'Connor
‘I don’t know how to take it.'
She said the abuse in telephone calls and in online remarks had frightened her of being attacked when walking along the sidewalk in tiny Walkerton which is primarily set around a small stretch of a busy highway.
‘I didn’t want to leave my apartment. I was scared.
‘People were looking at me and all that brought my spirits down. But the support we got also lifted me and made me stronger and humbled. But it has been difficult.’
Her father, who has owned the business for around nine years, said: ‘I am overwhelmed and not just because of the money, but the positive feedback that we have met with.
‘There are just a lot of good people out there. It seems like all we hear about is the bad ones and when something like this happens, it seems like the bad ones are the first to come out and get after you.
‘I don’t hate these people. They are just angry. I am not really sure what they are so angry about. So many things today are topsy turvey. What used to be wrong is now right and what used to be right is now wrong. I don’t hold anything against them.
‘When this country was founded it was a Christian nation and those were the rights given to us by the founders and before that by God. People just don’t want you to have those rights any more.
‘I just don’t understand it all. But it is kind of like fighting the fire. The fire burns big until thefire trucks get there. The fire rages and the more supportive people are like the fire trucks as they come in and start displacing the flames, putting itdown and building your spirits back up.’
Postman Kevin Kollar delivers the mail to Memories Pizza and More in Walkerton yesterday. Kollar said the restaurant went from receiving about four letters a day to 40 or more
He recalled how the fury began over a few words Crystal chose to reveal her deep rooted opposition to same sex marriages.
‘This all happened last Tuesday. Crystal was by herself and I was by myself in a different spot.’
He said his daughter telephoned him to discuss a reporter’s request for an interview on the ramifications of the new law and whether she should agree to talk.
Mr O’Conner said he considered the situation after he recalled a verse from the Bible ‘ when Christ said ‘If you deny me before a man, I will deny you before the father’.
He said he felt it would be denying his and his daughters Christian beliefs if they did not admit to their opposition against gay marriage.
After the interview had been broadcast and the negative remarks began, he said he saw his daughter’s despair.
‘She was feeling more and more helpless about it and I was telling her ‘Its going to be ok...its not going to be that big.
‘And then it just blew up and the ugliness arrived. But it was not a throwaway remark that she made. We do not believe in gay marriages, so we will not support them.’
A local teacher sent a message out on Twitter, which was quickly deleted, calling for Memories Pizza to be firebombed. The message is now the subject of a police investigation and charges are being considered against her. The sports school coach has been suspended.
Creating memories: The O’Connors, who serve around 100 pizzas a week to locals, admitted they had never actually been commissioned to provide their 16 inch $12.99 cheese pizzas or pulled pork $5.75 sandwiches to a same sex wedding
Mr O’Connor said he had read some of the remarks against him and his daughter and he found them ‘vile and disgraceful’.
‘I have seen some of the stuff and it disgusts me and I don’t know how one human being can think about doing something like that to another. I had never really thought about being hated before.
‘But on the day after which was a Wednesday, stuff started rolling in and it really started lifting ourspirits.
‘There were a whole lot of people out there who began voicing our support and just building our confidence.
‘It is very encouraging to know there are other people out there who think the way you do and feel thesame way you feel.
‘They support our right to be able to have that belief and I compare this case like that of conscientiousobjectors.
‘There were people who kind of beat them up because they wouldn’t go to war for their country, but they understood. And some of them did fight.
They shouldn’t suffer in the way they have and my only problem with them is that I don’t like their pizzas very much. A friend ordered one once and I didn’t really care for it. Whitney Doody
‘But some were allowed the right not to have to fight for their country because that was there religious belief… that is how I see it. ‘
He denied being homophobic and wanting to raise opposition to gay weddings.
Pointing to the front of the restaurant, which is decorated with pictures of Jesus and Christian verse and pictures of Elvis, he said: ‘I don’t care who comes through that door.
‘They are people. I don’t care if they are gay. I don’t care if they walk in on their hands. I don’t care if their heads are attached to their knee.
‘They are more than welcome to come in and eat. ‘That is not what is about. We believe that it is not right for a man to marry a man and for a woman to marry a woman. People could end up marrying trees…come on!’
Whitney Doody, 26, a lesbian who lives in Walkerton, said she had no ill feelings against the owners of Memories Pizza.
“They are entitled to feel how they feel. They have their religious rights just the same as I have my gay rights.
‘They shouldn’t suffer in the way they have and my only problem with them is that I don’t like their pizzas very much. A friend ordered one once and I didn’t really care for it.’
Bar owner Larry Stoner has installed a sign outside his business Club 23 which says ‘ We don’t discriminate.’
He said: ‘I don’t have any problems with gays in Walkerton. They are as welcome in my bar the same as anybody else.
‘But I do have a problem with people who have no money because my business cannot operate with those kind of people coming in.’
Mr O’Connor, whose cell phone rings to the tune of ‘When You Wish Upon A star’ from Disney's Pinocchio, said he was re-opening his restaurant after receiving police assurances about his safety.
But his decision to lift the shutters for the first time in a week was also for commercial reasons as business had been slack and the till hasn’t rung in a week.
Whitney Doody, a Walkerton, Ind. resident and openly gay woman, said she has not been discriminated against in the small community. despite the recent controversy involving a restaurant in the town
‘Business was slow. But it starts picking up. We do a little over 100 pizzas a week. We are not a big city and can’t charge much more than we do.’
He said he would not describe himself as a rich man or a near-millionaire because much of the donated money will be given away to what he deems are worthy causes and he will also make up the deficit caused by the enforced shut down.
The news and entertainment network Blaze began a fundraising campaign on the website GoFundMe to help the O'Connors and the fund stood at $842,592 from 29,166 people when it closed.
The O’Connors are being advised by financial guru Ed Butowsky, an expert in the investment wealth management industry.
He said: ‘Mr O’Connor and Crystal are genuine people. He is devastated that he has given Walkerton a bad name and people around the US might view it as a gay hating town.
‘It is not that. But the O'Connors believe what they believe and that is their right. They want to share the money they have received and we are discussing how best that should happen.
‘Nothing has been decided 100 per cent, but some charities will receive money as will Barronelle Stutzman who they wish to support.
Christian Ms Stutzman refused to sell flowers for the 2013 wedding of longtime customers Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed, on religious grounds.
A judge declared last month that her refusal to sell flowers to the gay wedding couple violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which makes bias based on sexual orientation illegal. She was fined $1,000, but a separate fund-raising campaign on her behalf has brought in $94,000 and is rising. ||||| Help Barronelle! (Arlene's Flowers)
12 HOURS AGO UPDATE #7
Barronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist, referred her friend and long-time customer to other florists because she could not in good conscience provide full wedding support for a same-sex wedding. Although the couple received flowers, the Washington State Attorney General, and later, the same-sex couple, sued Barronelle.
The court found her liable for violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination and ruled that both the state and the couple may collect damages and attorneys' fees from Barronelle's business and personal assets.
The 70-year-old grandmother may lose her business, her home, and her savings - because she stood for her faith, she could lose everything she owns!
But you can help!
Give today to protect Barronelle against the financial risk she faces.
____________________________________________________________
I am a friend of Barronnlle Stutzman and work for the legal organization helping Barronelle defend her constitutional rights. I am doing this campaign with her knowledge and cooperation.
The funds will be held until the legal challenge has been resolved and the full extent of the need is assessed. Funds may be used to help cover any outstanding legal fees and costs imposed from the opposition. Funds may also be used to help replace the assets taken as a result of the legal challenges brought against Barronelle. The total cost to Barronelle is unknown because the legal challenges are ongoing. In the event the funds provided by donors exceed Barronelle’s needs, the funds will be used to cover those same expenses for others who defend their constitutional right to live consistently with their faith.
The highest priority is to protect Barronelle and her livelihood. The funds will either be paid directly to Barronelle, a trust established to assist Barronelle, or a non-profit organization that will hold the funds to assist Barronelle and those in similar circumstances.
21K TOTAL
SHARES COPY, PASTE & SHARE: http://www.gofundme.com/Arlenesflowers
What is GoFundMe? ||||| Many customers wait for service as Memories Pizza reopened for business Thursday, April, 9, 2015, in Walkerton, Ind. The restaurant was closed, and its operators said they'd gone into hiding after their... (Associated Press)
Many customers wait for service as Memories Pizza reopened for business Thursday, April, 9, 2015, in Walkerton, Ind. The restaurant was closed, and its operators said they'd gone into hiding after their... (Associated Press)
WALKERTON, Ind. (AP) — A northern Indiana pizzeria that closed after its owner said his religious beliefs wouldn't allow him to cater a gay wedding opened Thursday to a full house of friends, regulars and people wanting to show their support.
"It's a relief to get going again and try to get back to normal," said Kevin O'Connor, owner of Memories Pizza.
O'Connor closed the shop for eight days after comments by him and his daughter, Crystal, to a local television station supporting a new religious objections law. The law, which has since been revised, sparked a boycott of Indiana.
O'Connor said the criticism hasn't changed his beliefs. He said gays are welcome in his restaurant in the small, one-traffic-light town of Walkerton, 20 miles southwest of South Bend, but that he would decline to cater a same-sex wedding because it would conflict with his Christian beliefs.
"I'd do the same thing again. It's my belief. It's our belief. It's what we grew up on," he said. "I'm just sorry it comes to this because neither one of us dislike any of those people. I don't hold any grudges."
A crowdfunding campaign started by supporters raised more than $842,000 with donations from 29,160 contributors in 48 hours. O'Connor said he hasn't received the money yet, but said he plans to give some to charity and use some money to make improvements to the restaurant.
The 61-year-old father of eight who has owned the restaurant for nine years said he never thought about taking the money and retiring.
"I enjoy it. I don't want to leave here," he said. "I want this to be something that my daughter can enjoy."
Crystal O'Connor said the amount of money was overwhelming.
"We were like, 'Stop! Stop! Stop!'" she said.
"It was really making us uncomfortable," her father said.
The restaurant reopened about 4 p.m. Thursday. He says that within an hour, all eight tables were filled and six people were waiting for carryout orders. There were no protests as of 7 p.m.
Jeanne and Ken Gumm from outside LaPorte, about 20 miles northwest of Walkerton, said they had been waiting for the pizzeria to reopen so they could show their support.
"We couldn't wait to get down here," said Ken Gumm, 66, a tank truck driver. "To us this whole thing isn't about gay marriage. It's mostly about freedom of religion." | Memories Pizza is open and ready to serve once again, assuming you're not a gay couple looking for a wedding caterer. The Indiana pizzeria gained either fame or infamy, depending on your views, after the owner backed the state's controversial religious freedom law and said he would happily serve gay customers but would not cater a gay wedding. Kevin O'Connor was hit with threats and closed the eatery for eight days, but it reopened yesterday to what the AP terms "a full house of friends, regulars, and people wanting to show their support"—and, at least as of last night, no protests. As for the brouhaha, it didn't change O'Connor's mind; he still says gay customers are welcome but gay weddings are off the table. "I'd do the same thing again. It's my belief. It's our belief. It's what we grew up on," he says. "I'm just sorry it comes to this because neither one of us [his daughter echoed his original comments] dislike any of those people. I don't hold any grudges." In addition to the threats and criticism, the pizzeria will also receive $842,387 donated by about 29,000 people in a now-finished crowdfunding campaign. O'Connor says he'll use some of the money to improve the restaurant, but will also donate to charity ... and to Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington state florist who was fined when she refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding, O'Connor tells the Daily Mail. |
The ability to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars is the cornerstone of U.S. defense strategy. For planning purposes, the military assumes that the two most likely places where these wars would take place are Korea and Southwest Asia. Mobilization of U.S. forces for such conflicts requires a global system of integrated land, sea, and air resources, and supplies already stored overseas. The fleet of civilian and military passenger and cargo aircraft and the En Route System (ERS) airfields provide the critical air component. ERS airfields provide the primary “throughput” services for aircraft as they move from U.S. bases through ERS airfields and on to their eventual destinations at bases located in or near the war zones. As each aircraft lands at an ERS airfield, the base must have the ramp space to park the aircraft and perform required maintenance, the equipment to load and unload cargo if needed, and the equipment needed to quickly refuel the aircraft and speed it to its final destination. However, the ERS also provides the capabilities needed to handle ongoing peacetime operations and requirements associated with smaller-scale contingency operations. For example, ERS bases were used extensively during recent operations in Kosovo. We discussed issues related to the basing of combat aircraft in our recent report on Kosovo operations, but not ERS operations. As shown in figure 1, the 13 ERS airfields are located mostly in Europe and throughout the Pacific. DOD selected the 13 ERS bases according to their proximity to the anticipated war zones, the host nation’s willingness to allow the use of its bases, and other factors such as climate. Each is planned to be within an area 3,500 nautical miles from the United States and from the war zones. This distance is based on the maximum efficient range of the C-17 cargo aircraft without refueling. Operation of the ERS airfields is shared between the host nation, which owns the airfield, and a number of DOD organizations. Host nation responsibilities vary and are documented in the Status of Forces Agreement for each country. U.S. organizations with responsibility for the airfields include the Air Force, who provides day-to-day operations for all but two of the airfields, and the U.S. Transportation, Air Mobility, European, Central, and Pacific Commands, which have various functional or geographical responsibilities. According to U.S. Transportation Command officials, while space is sometimes shared between the host nation and the United States, many airfields are primarily for U.S. cargo and refueling operations. U.S. fighter aircraft are generally located at separate bases because of the specialized equipment needed. The airfields are normally staffed for the peacetime flow of aircraft. Additional personnel and equipment would be brought in to handle the increased flow of aircraft in the event of contingency operations or full-scale war. According to DOD’s January 2001 estimate, in the event of overlapping major theater wars in Korea and Southwest Asia, the 13 ERS airfields would not currently have enough capacity to move the required amounts of personnel and equipment to the war zones in the time required (the specific requirements and capacities are classified). DOD expects the shortfall to be largely eliminated by 2005. But the assumptions and modeling approach DOD uses in its calculations raise some uncertainty about the precise size of the shortfall. Some study assumptions tend to underestimate the shortfall, while the modeling approach used could overestimate it. The net effect of these factors on estimates of ERS capacity in 2005 is unclear. DOD officials believe their analyses of ERS requirements and capacity are accurate. The capacity requirements of the ERS are defined in the recent Mobility Requirements Study 2005, which estimated the mobility assets and supporting infrastructure needed to deploy for the two-war scenario and compared them to current capabilities and those planned for 2005. The study concluded that current capacity is significantly short of requirements but that improvements to the ERS would largely eliminate the shortfall by 2005. According to DOD officials, the effect of the shortfall would be that required military forces and equipment would arrive in the war zones later than planned, increasing the risk of operations not being executed as planned and of higher casualties. The study estimated the shortfall by simulating the movement of troops and equipment needed for each war with a series of models and calculated capacity in terms of the amount of cargo weight that could move through ERS bases in the first 40 days of a conflict (the period of highest demand). We found that some of the study’s assumptions tend to underestimate the size of the shortfall. For example, despite concerns about their old age and deteriorating condition, DOD assumes that ERS airfields would operate without breaking down. In addition, because the construction projects are expected to run through 2006, the capacity of several airfields will still be short of requirements at the end of 2005. The study at least partially offsets these assumptions by calculating the capacity of ERS bases in Europe on the assumption that DOD would lose access to one of six bases during mobilization (the so-called “six-lose-one” strategy). A similar strategy is being considered for the Pacific, but it has not yet been approved. Additional study assumptions that tend to underestimate the shortfall are classified. Capacity requirements for the ERS could be raised even higher if other ongoing missions (such as peacekeeping) were added, further increasing the shortfall. The Mobility Requirements Study 2005 analyzed the capacity of the mobility system to handle additional missions occurring concurrently with two wars and found that in general, the additional requirements could raise airlift capacity requirements by about 7 percent. The ability of the ERS to handle this extra requirement, however, is unclear. According to the study, DOD needs to reanalyze the ERS to determine whether there might be any extra capacity available to handle the additional missions or whether more capacity must be built. Officials were unsure when this issue would be tackled. In contrast to the assumptions that tend to underestimate the shortfall, the model DOD uses to simulate ERS operations—the Airlift Flow Model— could overestimate the size of the shortfall. Air Mobility Command officials acknowledge that the Airlift Flow Model, although designed to simulate or describe complex systems such as the ERS, does not necessarily identify the best or optimal solution to mobilization requirements. The model repeatedly simulates cargo movements until it reaches a solution to the identified mission, but the solution may or may not be the optimal one. There are other types of models, called optimization models, that officials say are designed to seek the best or optimal solutions to mission requirements by identifying the best allocations of cargo to aircraft, aircraft to routes, and ground resources to airfields. For example, in analyzing the movement of cargo aircraft through the ERS the Airlift Flow Model would only be aware of what cargo is available for pickup at the moment, while an optimization model would be aware of all cargo available for pickup throughout the mission being modeled. As a result, in a situation where 10 tons of cargo are ready to be loaded right now and 40 more tons several hours in the future, the Airlift Flow Model would schedule an aircraft to pick up the 10-ton cargo immediately since it is focused on current conditions. It would then schedule another aircraft to pick up the remaining 40 tons later when another plane became available. However, an optimization model would likely wait a few hours until an aircraft was loaded with all 50 tons before sending it off. In 1997 DOD sponsored an ERS capacity analysis that compared the results of an optimization model with those of the Airlift Flow Model. The optimization analysis agreed with the basic Airlift Flow Model conclusion that there would be a capacity shortfall. However, the optimization analysis also concluded that a better distribution of ERS resources could significantly increase the flow of cargo compared with the flow predicted by the Airlift Flow Model. For example, the optimization model predicted that by redistributing the existing ramp space and fuel, DOD could boost cargo deliveries by an estimated 12 to 13 percent. A second DOD- sponsored study used an optimization model to analyze the impact of proposed construction projects designed to increase the fuel handling capacity at ERS bases. The study concluded that the increase in throughput capacity provided by the projects would be small and that using existing resources more effectively may be the best way to increase fuel deliveries. Although DOD officials believe that optimization models have promise, they also believe that they have drawbacks and did not use them to analyze the ERS in the Mobility Requirements Study 2005. They believe, for example, that optimization models can come to unrealistic conclusions because they cannot simulate random events and may use information (such as longer-range plans for an entire mobilization) that may not be available to commanders early in the mobilization. Officials further state that loading data into optimization models can be very labor intensive, making the models relatively inflexible and slow, and that it is difficult to introduce variables into analyses because optimization models attempt to analyze all possible permutations. For their part, Air Mobility Command officials responsible for operating the Airlift Flow Model believe that by repeated analyses over time using their model, they were able to identify the best solutions for mobilization missions. Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense stated, however, that because optimization models show promise, DOD is continuing to sponsor projects to further develop their use. We were unable to quantify the overall impact of all these factors on the size of the shortfall. As a result, their net effect on estimates of ERS capacity in 2005 is unclear. DOD officials attribute the shortfall in ERS capacity to the shrinkage in the U.S. overseas presence since the end of the Cold War and to increased reliance on the 13 remaining old and deteriorating ERS bases. DOD’s latest estimate of ERS construction to eliminate the shortfall consists of 516 projects and costs about $2 billion. This revised figure is substantially higher than the estimated $1.2 billion that DOD reported to us at the beginning of our review in July 2000. Most (58 percent) of the costs are associated with bases in the Pacific region. Host nations and U.S. allies are expected to fund about 55 percent of the total, and the United States is expected to fund the rest. But it is unclear whether all the projects will be completed as planned, as the projects must compete with each other and with other DOD projects for funding and face other uncertainties. Most of the costs (86 percent) are associated with projects that had not yet started construction as of October 2000. Since the end of the Cold War, many U.S. military locations overseas have been closed and their personnel relocated to bases in the continental United States. Transportation Command officials state that with this drawdown (see fig. 2) in the 1990s, the ERS lost many of its facilities and much of its flexibility. Today, the ERS has access to only 13 locations, compared with 45 in the early 1990s. As a result, the remaining bases have become much more important as the only airfield options available for en- route mobilization support. In July 2000, DOD officials told us that the cost to eliminate the shortfall in ERS capacity was about $1.2 billion for fiscal years 1997 through 2006. However, shortly after that the estimate was changed to $2.0 billion. According to Transportation Command officials, no one is responsible for monitoring the overall cost to eliminate the shortfall. The $1.2-billion estimate was simply carried forward from an estimate developed in the mid-1990s in conjunction with a major review of overall mobility requirements. That estimate was based on a quick world tour by a team of engineers who covered what at the time were about 35 ERS bases, with sometimes only half a day spent at each base. Following our request for an updated estimate, the Air Mobility Command agreed to query all of the various commands involved in the ERS to determine the current cost to eliminate the shortfall and found that the estimated cost had grown to about $2 billion. According to officials, the increase reflects changes in the bases making up the ERS since the mid-1990s, increases in the costs of repairing/improving system components due to aging, and a more in-depth and accurate analysis of costs. Transportation Command officials told us that most ERS airfields were built during or immediately after World War II, and some components were built by host nations even earlier. The $2 billion will fund repairs and improvements to fuel systems, runways, ramp space, and other base elements needed to bring system capacity up to requirements. As shown in figure 3, the largest construction cost category is associated with fuel system repair and improvement. According to Transportation and Air Mobility Command officials, the standard fuel systems at current ERS bases were designed and built during the early 1950s and had an estimated life span of 30 to 40 years. At some bases refueling must be carried out by trucks, rather than by more modern pipeline and hydrant systems. At other bases, hydrants are antiquated or have deteriorating lines that slow and sometimes interrupt fueling operations altogether. Bases in the Pacific are the worst off. As shown in figure 6, repairs and improvements at bases in the Pacific region total about $1.14 billion (58 percent), compared to about $825 million (42 percent) for the European bases. Officials emphasize that the proposed projects are intended largely to replace capability lost due to deterioration or base closures, not to increase overall capacity. In fact, only 25 of the 516 projects provide additional capacity. The remaining projects either upgrade existing capacity to current environmental, safety, or operational standards or replace/repair equipment due to obsolescence or failure. DOD plans call for about 55 percent of the $2 billion in ERS construction funding to come from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ($132.6 million) and host nations such as Germany ($430.8 million) and Japan ($523.9 million) (see fig. 6). According to officials from the U.S. Transportation, European, and Pacific Commands, funding commitments from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Germany are contained in formal agreements. Japanese funding is provided under the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program. Japan has provided some $21 billion for projects under this program, which started in 1979 to ease the financial burden of stationing U.S. forces in Japan. However, funding for projects under this program is voluntary, and there are no written agreements associated with the ERS projects. Moreover, the level of funding has been declining somewhat since the early 1990s, and is also constrained by prohibitions such as using the funds for projects viewed by the government of Japan as increasing war-fighting capacity. The remaining 45 percent ($878 million) is expected to come from a variety of U.S. programs (see table 1). The largest contributors are the Defense Logistics Agency and the Air Force Operation and Maintenance and Military Construction programs. It is unclear whether all the construction projects will be completed as planned. According to Transportation Command officials, funding for the projects covered by U.S. programs has been formally requested through the DOD budget process, and they believe the projects will be funded within planned time frames. However, U.S.-funded ERS projects in Europe must compete for funding against Pacific projects and others within DOD in an environment of concern about a growing backlog of facilities maintenance and repair projects. According to these officials, DOD infrastructure is grossly under funded, with facilities currently funded for replacement every 250 years. (See p. 18 for a discussion of DOD problems in infrastructure management.) Projects planned in later years are more vulnerable to funding changes since they have not yet been spent and they must continue to compete against other projects in a highly competitive budget environment. Officials also note that host nation involvement in funding can create some uncertainty in construction timetables. For example, DOD had to reassign fiscal year 2002 funding for construction projects at one ERS airfield in Europe to other DOD projects because of a 2- to 3-year delay in host government approval of funding requirements. According to officials, the host government was concerned about sovereignty issues involved in its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Formal approval has now been received for these projects, and funding has been shifted by about 1 year. Most of the projects have not yet started construction. As shown in figure 7, as of October 2000, about 4 percent ($75.0 million) of total funding had been spent on completed projects with another 10 percent ($194.6 million) spent on projects in progress. The remaining 86 percent ($1.7 billion) of funding was associated with projects in various stages of planning, programming of funds, and engineering design running out through 2006. Funding for such projects is subject to future budgetary constraints and uncertainties. Projects funded by U.S. programs have progressed somewhat faster than those funded by host nations and allies. About 19 percent of funding under U.S. programs was associated with projects that had either begun or completed work, compared to about 10 percent of host nation and allied funding. According to Transportation Command officials only recently has the ERS begun to receive high priority for funding. In the first few years after the end of the Cold War and during the military drawdown, little concern was voiced about shrinking ERS capacity. But as contingency operations began to place increasing demands on the remaining airfields, Air Mobility Command leaders realized how critical the airfields were and how they needed higher resource priority. To publicize the problem and obtain higher priority, the Air Mobility Command proclaimed 1997 the “Year of the En Route System” and funding began to increase. However, even with the increased priority, officials told us that it still takes many years to move projects through the budget process, obtain funding, and begin construction. Despite the strategic importance of the ERS, critical information on ERS plans and operations is not available, and the system is not managed as a coherent whole. For example, notwithstanding the increase in construction cost estimates, DOD has not carried out overall cost-benefit studies to document the rationale for its decisions and demonstrate that its proposed projects represent the best solutions. Similarly, despite concerns about aging and deteriorating facilities and equipment, the ERS has no centralized oversight system to provide data on deterioration and failure rates. It has no formal strategic plan to identify long-term plans and strategies, guiding policies, and operating priorities for the ERS. No single organization is responsible for managing and funding the ERS. These weaknesses raise questions about system plans and operations, and unnecessarily increase the risk of operational problems and inefficiencies. Moreover, DOD does not include information on ERS shortfalls in its reports on the performance of the overall strategic mobility system, resulting in an incomplete picture of mobility capabilities. Despite the increased cost estimates and other uncertainties surrounding ERS construction projects, DOD has not developed overall cost-benefit studies or other prudent assurances to demonstrate either the rationale for its decisions or to show that the planned $2 billion in projects represent the best solutions for correcting the shortfall. According to Transportation Command officials, the process DOD used to determine the en-route infrastructure was primarily focused on satisfying mission war-fighting requirements while attempting to minimize costs where possible. An overall cost-benefit analysis was not done, they said, because the ERS evolved over many years in response to changing military and political conditions and to hundreds of mobility and engineering analyses of capacity trade-offs under different combinations of bases. Officials stated that they attempted to make cost-effective decisions by, for example, choosing to repair or improve existing bases rather than building new ones. Because of the age of the facilities, many of the planned projects had already been identified and justified in the military construction budgeting process. Moreover, despite concerns about aging and deteriorating facilities, Transportation Command officials also told us that they could not provide data on deterioration and failure rates. The ERS has no centralized oversight system to provide readily available, up-to-date data on the condition and readiness of the airfields, and officials said that they could not identify any worthwhile measures that they could accurately produce without an extended research effort. Sound strategic planning that clearly lays out missions and goals, needed resources, priorities, strategies, measures of performance, and assigned responsibilities is crucial to achieving program success. According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, some strategic guidance for the ERS is expressed through the DOD budget process. However, these officials acknowledged that DOD has no formal strategic plan for the ERS. Without such a plan, DOD does not have the information—such as the elements discussed above—or management structure needed to ensure the success of the ERS. Over the years, we have noted similar gaps in DOD’s overall strategic planning processes that have led to difficulties in assessing performance in a variety of areas. As a result, we have classified DOD strategic planning as a major management challenge. We also classified DOD management of support infrastructure as a major management challenge because of DOD’s problems in this area. DOD has reduced force structure since the end of the Cold War, but it has not achieved similar reductions in infrastructure costs. At the same time, DOD acknowledges that it has not been spending enough money to offset the growing backlog of facilities maintenance and repair projects. We concluded that reducing unneeded infrastructure could free up the funding needed to ensure that critical assets such as the ERS airfields are adequately funded. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, DOD reports annually on its performance in managing strategic mobility capabilities by using three measures (airlift capacity, sealift capacity, and overseas prepositioning of equipment). However, it does not include data on ERS shortfalls in the report, despite the major effect such shortfalls have on airlift capacity. Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense said that they do not include ERS shortfalls because the report covers only the highest-level measures of performance. They acknowledged the importance of ERS airfield capacity but stated that it has not been considered a primary criterion for measuring performance in strategic mobility. According to the Air Mobility Command, the chief limiting factor on deployment operations is not usually the number of available aircraft but the capability of the en-route or destination infrastructure to accommodate the ground operations of the aircraft. According to Transportation Command officials, the absence of elements such as an overall strategic plan is the result of no single organization having overall responsibility for the ERS. Figure 8 illustrates the difficulty in managing and coordinating the ERS. Management of the ERS is fragmented among at least four unified commands and six subcommands, three services, host nations, and other organizations such as the Defense Logistics Agency—each with its own functional interests and priorities. (See app. I for more details on the various responsibilities of these organizations.) Because of the absence of centralized responsibility for the ERS, the European and Pacific Commands established separate steering committees (the En Route Infrastructure Steering Committees) to provide a forum for coordination and resolution of ERS issues in each region. These two committees are not required by any DOD-level guidance but are a collaborative effort sanctioned by the geographical commands to solve ERS operating issues. The committees are composed of all the organizations in each region with responsibility for ERS airfields in the area (the European steering committee also includes the Central Command). The Transportation Command co-chairs both steering committees. While these committees perform an important function, officials said that no organization is responsible for formally coordinating and overseeing overall ERS operations. The growth in importance of the En Route System has not been matched by a commensurate improvement in its information and management structures. Establishing the European and Pacific steering committees was an important first step in organizing regional operations, but does not go far enough. While the war-fighting responsibilities and authorities of the geographical commands must be respected, one overarching organization with responsibility for strategic operations and coordination of overall ERS operations during peacetime is needed. Without such structure ERS operations are prone to a higher risk of inefficiency in the form of confusing and overlapping lines of authority and accountability for key decisions, a lack of coordination and duplication of effort among responsible organizations, and wasteful competition for resources. A formal, written strategic plan that lays out missions and goals, guiding principles and priorities, performance measures, and monitoring mechanisms is also needed. This plan would help ensure that ERS operations are governed by a coherent worldwide vision and not by limited regional or service notions and perspectives. Without the vision and order provided by a formal strategic plan, decisionmakers do not have the information they need to ensure that ERS resources and operations are focused on the right goals and outcomes. Without a system for ongoing monitoring of key aspects of ERS operations, decisionmakers do not have the real time, readily available information needed to quickly identify and correct problems, including the status of projects needed to ensure that strategic requirements are met and planned troop movements will not be delayed. DOD also needs to develop an overall cost-benefit study of its construction plans for the ERS. Without this information, DOD cannot compare options and alternatives for improving the ERS, and document that the solutions it chooses are the best ones. Moreover, DOD needs to be able to ensure that the guiding principles and rationales at play in allocating scarce funding dollars are not lost in the many individual decisions made by different organizations to serve different interests and priorities. This study would also serve as a useful review of ERS construction plans and projects in light of the ongoing review of the National Military Strategy. Finally, DOD needs to ensure that ERS problems and issues receive a visibility consistent with their critical strategic importance. Omitting data on ERS limitations from DOD’s plan and reports on strategic mobility presents an incomplete picture of DOD capability and tends to obscure ERS problems and the resources needed to resolve them. Efforts to reduce shortages of DOD cargo aircraft will have limited impact if those aircraft do not have adequate airfields to land on. To improve the visibility of the ERS and reduce the risk of management problems and inefficiencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense: make one organization responsible for strategic management and coordination of overall ERS operations during peacetime, develop a formal strategic plan and monitoring system for the ERS, develop an overall cost-benefit study to document the rationales for plans to repair and improve the ERS, and include information on ERS limitations and how they affect the Department’s strategic mobility performance in DOD’s performance plan and report. Because DOD indicated in its written comments that it generally would not implement the recommendations made in this report, the Congress may wish to consider directing the Secretary of Defense to implement the recommendations, and periodically report on DOD’s progress to ensure that these prudent improvements to ERS management are carried out. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally disagreed with our conclusions and recommendations. In particular, DOD did not agree with our view that the ERS lacks a coherent management structure, our description of the growth in costs of eliminating the shortfall in system capacity, or our description of the modeling approach used to analyze ERS capacity. Regarding our first recommendation, DOD believes that the existing organization, in particular its ERS steering committees, readiness reporting processes, planning and budgeting system, and reviews of strategic mobility already provide a “robust” management structure for the ERS. Nonetheless, it partially agreed with our recommendation to make one organization responsible for overarching strategic issues. It believes that base-level management of ERS airfields is best performed by the responsible services but agreed to consider whether one organization should be designated as responsible for some matters. We remain convinced that the ERS needs a better management structure. We agree that some elements of ERS operations are individually managed by various organizations and processes and that some elements, such as base level operations, fuels projects and readiness reporting, may be managed quite intensively. We in fact describe examples of many of these organizations and processes and their responsibilities for parts of ERS operations in our report. However, “robust” management in one or even several areas does not constitute a coherent and coordinated overall management structure. Our recommendation is intended to assign responsibility for overarching issues—such as development of an overall strategic plan, cost-benefit study, and monitoring system—to one organization to help provide a clear, coordinated, and comprehensive management structure for all ERS operations. It should be noted that during our review this recommendation received strong support from officials at organizations currently involved in ERS operations, including the Transportation and Central commands. DOD partially agreed with our recommendation to develop an overall ERS strategic plan and monitoring system. It stated that the recent Mobility Requirements Study 2005 already includes a strategic plan for the ERS. DOD said it would nevertheless try to improve the integration, presentation, and documentation of the plan to help outside organizations understand its provisions. We disagree that the January 2001 Mobility Requirements Study 2005 contains a strategic plan for the ERS. Moreover, there seems to be some confusion in DOD over this issue. During the course of our review we asked repeatedly for copies of any strategic plan and DOD officials repeatedly told us that no formal strategic plan for the ERS existed. In fact, during our formal closeout meeting in April 2001 officials told us that a formal strategic plan was being developed as a result of our review. The document cited by DOD in the January 2001 Mobility Requirements Study 2005 is identified as the ERS “Infrastructure Analysis,” not as a strategic plan. It is simply an analysis of current shortfalls in capacity and whether planned construction projects will remedy those shortfalls by 2005—if they are completed on schedule. The analysis does not include many of the elements needed for sound strategic plans, which need to lay out missions and goals, necessary resources, assigned responsibilities for accomplishing goals, priorities and strategies to be followed, and performance measures for gauging progress toward identified goals. In addition, the analysis does not identify the expected cost to remedy the capacity shortfalls, or the organizational or procedural responsibilities for achieving ERS goals. Similarly, the analysis does not identify priorities between regions, bases, or projects to help identify strategies to be followed in case of funding or other problems. Finally, the analysis also does not identify any system of performance measures and monitoring mechanisms to help decisionmakers gauge progress and problems in carrying out strategic goals. For example, it simply assumes that projects will be completed on schedule without any measures of actual progress. In fact, during our review Transportation and Air Mobility Command officials could not tell us how many projects were behind their original schedule because there is no centralized monitoring system. The Department also disagreed with our recommendation for an overall cost-benefit study to document the rationales for plans to repair and improve the ERS. DOD believes the guidance it provides through the planning and budgeting process is sufficient to optimize the list of construction projects to be funded. We disagree. We understand that developing a formal cost-benefit analysis of the overall ERS infrastructure is difficult because of the size of the ERS and the influence of diplomatic considerations versus strictly economic considerations. However, our experience has shown that relying exclusively on the budget process to document funding rationales often results only in inferences as to why decisions were made. This process lacks the benefit of clear information on the pros and cons of available choices or on the guiding principles used to make those decisions. DOD’s annual requests for funds contain no evidence that projects are prioritized by importance or that progress toward an established goal, such as modernizing the ERS, is being made in an efficient and timely fashion. DOD disagreed with our recommendation to include information on ERS limitations in its annual performance plan and report along with the other elements of strategic mobility: airlift, sealift, and prepositioned equipment. DOD stated that information on ERS performance is already included in other documents such as the mobility requirements studies, the annual budget justification documents, and quarterly readiness reports. We disagree that it is appropriate to exclude information on ERS performance from the annual report while including information on the other elements of strategic mobility. The ERS is an integral aspect of strategic mobility. In fact, Air Mobility Command reports cite ERS infrastructure as the top limiting factor in deployment operations. Omitting ERS information from the key annual performance report gives an incomplete and misleading view of strategic mobility capabilities. DOD also disagreed with our description of the growth in estimated costs for improving the ERS. DOD stated that the different cost estimates we were provided are not directly comparable because they were produced several years apart and were premised on different sets of bases and analytical methodologies. Our report clearly lays out these differences. Moreover, DOD further claimed that we were using the comparison to point to “unexplained” cost growth. Whether DOD was aware of the reasons behind the increased estimate was not the primary point we were trying to make. Our primary point is that DOD did not know how much it would cost to bring ERS capacity up to requirements because it does not monitor overall costs. Air Mobility Command officials had to make a special query to all the commands to find out what the current costs were and whether they had changed over previous estimates. Similarly, when we requested an updated estimate late in our review, officials responded that obtaining such an update would be very labor intensive and time consuming. We believe that the lack of a strategy or system for monitoring progress and overall costs is symptomatic of the weaknesses in DOD’s management of the ERS. Finally, DOD disagreed with our description of the modeling approach it used to analyze ERS capacity. DOD stated that our report asserted that the approach it used is “flawed” and overestimates the shortfalls. DOD further stated that any modeling provides only an approximation of real-world systems and that no analysis can provide solutions that are 100-percent accurate. DOD believes that it has applied the best tools available and that it will continue to refine its capabilities, as new modeling tools become available. DOD appears to have misunderstood our point. Our report does not assert that the modeling approach was flawed or that it overstated the shortfall. We state that the assumptions and modeling approaches DOD used could underestimate or overestimate the size of the shortfall, but that we could not measure the precise effect of these factors on DOD’s estimate. Our report does not attempt to endorse one modeling approach over the other. We point out the uncertainties of both approaches—including DOD officials’ comments on the pros and cons of each—so that the reader can clearly understand the degree of precision in DOD’s estimate. It is important to fully consider all options in such analyses to ensure that, should an optimal solution be available, it is identified. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix III. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (757) 552-8100 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. According to Transportation and Air Mobility Command officials, all of the organizations with responsibility for the En Route System (see fig. 8) play some combination of three basic roles: owner/manager, funder, and/or advocate in support of various ERS needs. The Transportation Command has functional responsibility for managing the entire Defense Transportation System, with the airlift portion handled by its air component, the Air Force Air Mobility Command. The Transportation Command plans and coordinates movements through the overall transportation system. The Air Mobility Command uses the ERS airfields to help provide aerial refueling and airlift through its fleet of air tankers and cargo airplanes. Both commands may act as advocates for the resource needs of the ERS. However, even though the Transportation Command has functional responsibility for managing the entire Defense Transportation System, it is not in charge of the ERS airfields and can provide only limited funding for repair and improvement projects. The needs of the geographical commands (such as the European, Central, and Pacific commands) take precedence over those of the functional commands (such as the Transportation Command) because of the geographical commands’ war-fighting responsibilities. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization may also use the bases to assist in carrying out its strategic operations. Conflicts can and do occur. For example, in the late 1980s, the European Command had planned to return U.S. facilities at two ERS airfields to the host nations, in part because of budget reductions. However, Transportation Command officials believed the airfields were needed for mobilizations to the Middle East and asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to oppose the European Command’s plans. The airfield facilities were ultimately retained. Overall management of a particular ERS airfield is shared between the command with responsibility for that geographical area and the military service that operates the airfield on a daily basis. The Air Force operates 11 ERS airfields; the Navy operates the airfield in Rota, Spain; and the Marines operate the airfield in Iwakuni, Japan. The airfields are located on bases owned by the host country, under agreements for support negotiated by the State Department. Each military service must operate the airfield in accordance with its primary service mission but may act as advocate for the airfield’s ERS-related needs. However, each service must also manage the airfield in accordance with the policies set forth by the geographical command. These commands are responsible for supporting and achieving U.S. interests in their particular region and for planning and maintaining war-fighting capabilities in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. They include component commands drawn from each of the military services to manage the support associated with each. For example, U.S. Navy Europe and U.S. Air Forces Europe provide support for their naval and air bases in the region. The U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet, Marine Forces Pacific, and Pacific Air Forces provide similar support in the Pacific. These commands may act as an advocate for ERS needs consistent with their contribution to the commands’ mission of maintaining war-fighting capabilities. In Europe, both the European and Central commands may act as advocates for the ERS airfields. The airfields are in Europe, but their ERS purpose is to act as a conduit for aircraft headed to war zones in the Middle East, which is managed by the Central Command. While the unified commands have some management responsibilities for the airfields, they have no funding programs for base operations and construction. The military services and the Defense Logistics Agency generally provide U.S. funding for these purposes. For example, the Air Force provides funds for the operation of its ERS airfield in Fairford, England. If the base command needs funds for a construction project, it requests them from its parent command in the region, U.S. Air Forces Europe, which is under the European Command. Air Forces Europe would validate the project and request funding through the various programs available. These would be primarily Air Force programs funding military construction, operations, and maintenance, or, in the case of fuels projects, the Defense Logistics Agency. The Defense Logistics Agency has responsibility for funding fuels projects across all services. In deciding whether to include a project in funding requests, the services and the Defense Logistics Agency assign their own priorities to the project in terms of its relative contribution to their own missions, as well as its contribution to the overall Department of Defense mission. To determine whether the ERS airfields have the capacity needed to meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy, we obtained briefings, reviewed documents, and interviewed officials at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Transportation Command, the European Command, the Central Command, the Pacific Command, the Air Force Mobility Command, the RAND Corporation, and the Naval Postgraduate School. Much of our analysis was focused on reviewing the requirements and ERS capacity analyses set forth in the Mobility Requirements Study 2005 and in earlier similar studies. We did not independently verify DOD’s estimate of system capacity. To identify the causes of any shortfalls and DOD’s plans to correct them, we reviewed the processes DOD used to identify deficiencies and corrective actions and discussed them with officials at the offices identified above, as well as at DOD’s Office of the Inspector General. We reviewed deficiencies and corrective actions identified in DOD Joint Monthly Readiness Review Reports, Air Mobility Command reports, and reports and other documents produced by the European and Pacific Steering committees and the Inspector General. We obtained lists of construction projects at each ERS airfield and analyzed them from a number of different perspectives, including the total costs by base, by region, and systemwide; the purpose; and the expected source of funding and discussed them with DOD officials. To determine whether the ERS has the information and organizational structure needed to ensure that its operations are carried out efficiently and effectively, we analyzed data and reports on a variety of basic management issues and discussed information gaps with DOD officials. We identified all organizations with responsibility for or management duties at ERS airfields and reviewed the scope of their individual responsibilities with DOD officials. We conducted our review from July 2000 through April 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to those named above, Katherine Chenault, Lawrence E. Dixon, Richard G. Payne, Stefano Petrucci, and Gregory J. Symons, made key contributions to this report. | The National Military Strategy calls for the Department of Defense (DOD) to maintain the transportation capability to quickly move the large amounts of personnel and equipment needed to win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars anywhere in the world. To provide this mobility, DOD relies on a transportation system--the En Route System (ERS)--that includes an airlift fleet of cargo aircraft and a critical network of overseas airfields that provide logistical support to aircraft on their way to the war zones. Although the two-war requirement and other aspects of the National Military Strategy are now under review by the new administration, the ERS remains critically important as the primary means of quickly moving U.S. soldiers and equipment to areas of conflict around the world. This report addresses (1) whether en-route airfields have the capacity to meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy, (2) the causes of any shortfalls and DOD's plans to correct them, and (3) whether DOD has the information and management structure needed to ensure that the operations of the ERS can be carried out efficiently and effectively. |
Since 1989, when the first drug court program was established, the number of drug court programs has increased substantially. In addition, DCPO’s oversight responsibilities and funding to support the planning, implementation, and enhancement of these programs have increased. As shown in figure 1, the number of operating drug court programs has more than tripled since our prior report from about 250 in 1997 to almost 800 in 2001 based on information available as of December 31, 2001. The number of operating programs that received DCPO funding, and thus were subject to its oversight, has also grown—from over 150 in fiscal year 1997 to over 560 through fiscal year 2001. As shown in figure 2, the number of drug court programs started by calendar year since our prior report has also increased. Although the number of drug court programs started in 2001 dropped, over 450 additional programs have been identified as being planned based on information available as of December 31, 2001. Based on information available as of December 31, 2001, drug court programs were operating in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Only New Hampshire and Vermont had no operating drug court programs. Six states (California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Ohio) accounted for over 40 percent of the programs. Appendix II provides information on the number of operating drug court programs in each state. Although there are basic elements common to many drug court programs, the programs vary in terms of approaches used, participant eligibility and program requirements, type of treatment provided, sanctions and rewards, and other practices. Drug court programs also target various populations (adults, juveniles, families, and Native American tribes). Appendix III provides details on the number of drug court programs by targeted population, and appendix IV provides details on the drug court programs by jurisdiction and the types of funding, if any, the programs have received from DCPO. Federal funding for drug court programs has also continued to increase. As shown in table 1, congressional appropriations for the implementation of DOJ’s drug court program has increased from about $12 million in fiscal year 1995 to $50 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Since fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated about $267 million in Violent Crime Act related funding to DOJ for the federal drug court program. DCPO funding in direct support of drug court programs has increased from an average of about $9 million in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 to an average of about $31 million for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2001, DCPO has awarded about $174.5 million in grants to fund the planning, implementation, and enhancement of drug court programs. About $21.5 million in technical assistance, training, and evaluations grants were awarded. About $19.6 million were obligated for management and administration purposes and to fund nongrant technical assistance, training, and evaluation efforts. Since the inception of the DCPO drug court program, a total of $3 million in prior year recoveries have been realized. About $4.5 million through fiscal year 2001 had not been obligated. Congress appropriated an additional $50 million for fiscal year 2002. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process of administering the fiscal year 2002 grant award program. Appendix V provides details on the number, amount, and types of grants DCPO awarded since the implementation of the federal drug court program. Since 1998, DCPO implementation and enhancement grantees have been required to collect, and starting in 1999, to submit to DCPO, among other things, performance and outcome data on program participants. DCPO collects these data semiannually using a Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey. This survey was designed by DCPO to ensure that grantees were collecting critical information about their drug court programs and to assist in the national evaluation of drug court programs. In addition, DOJ intended to use the information to respond to inquiries regarding the effectiveness of drug court programs. However, due to various factors, DCPO has not sufficiently managed the collection and utilization of these data. As a result, DOJ cannot provide Congress, drug court program stakeholders, and others with reliable information on the performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs. Various factors contributed to insufficiencies in DOJ’s drug court program data collection effort. These factors included (1) inability of DOJ to readily identify the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs, including those subject to DCPO’s data collection reporting requirements; (2) inability of DOJ to accurately determine the number of drug court programs that responded to DCPO’s semiannual data collection survey; (3) inefficiencies in the administration of DCPO’s semiannual data collection effort; (4) the elimination of post-program impact questions from the scope of DCPO’s data collection survey effort; and (5) the insufficient use of the Drug Court Clearinghouse. DOJ’s grant management information system, among other things, tracks the number and dollar amount of grants the agency has awarded to state and local jurisdictions and Native American tribes to plan, implement, and enhance drug court programs. This system, however, is unable to readily identify the actual number of drug court programs DCPO has funded. Specifically, the system does not contain a unique drug court program identifier, does not track grants awarded to a single grantee but used for more than one drug court program, and contains data entry errors that impact the reliability of data on the type of grants awarded. For example, at the time of our review, the system contained some incorrectly assigned grant numbers, did not always identify the type of grant awarded, and incorrectly identified several grantees as receiving a planning, implementation, and enhancement grant in fiscal year 2000. These factors made it difficult for DCPO to readily produce an accurate universe of the drug court programs that had received DCPO funding and were subject to DCPO’s data collection reporting requirement. Although DOJ has been able to provide information to enable an estimate of the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs to be derived, the accuracy of this information is questionable because DCPO has relied on the Drug Court Clearinghouse to determine the number of DCPO-funded drug court programs and their program implementation dates. One of the Drug Court Clearinghouse’s functions has been to identify DCPO-funded drug court programs. However, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has only been tasked since 1998 with following up with a segment of DCPO grantees to determine their implementation date. Thus, the information provided to DCPO on the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs is at best an estimate and not a precise count of DCPO drug court program grantees. Noting that its current grant information system was not intended to readily identify and track the number of DCPO-funded drug court programs, DCPO officials said that they plan to develop a new management information system that will enable DOJ to do so. Without an accurate universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs, DCPO is unable to readily determine the actual number of programs or participants it has funded or, as discussed below, the drug court programs that should have responded to its semiannual data collection survey. According to DCPO officials, grantee response rates to DCPO’s semiannual survey have declined since DCPO began administering the survey in 1998. As shown in figure 3, the information in DCPO’s database indicated that grantee response rates declined from about 78 percent for the first survey reporting period (July to Dec. 1998) to about 32 percent for the July to December 2000 reporting period. However, results from our follow-up structured interviews with a representative sample of the identifiable universe of drug court programs that were DCPO grantees during the 2000 reporting periods revealed that DCPO did not have an accurate account of grantees’ compliance with its semiannual data collection survey. Based on our structured interviews, we estimate that the response rate to the DCPO data collection survey for the January to June 2000 reporting period was about 60 percent in contrast to the 39 percent response rate DCPO reported. Similarly, the response rate to the DCPO survey for the July to December 2000 reporting period was about 61 percent in contrast to the 32 percent response rate DCPO reported. The remaining programs did not respond or were uncertain as to whether they responded to DCPO’s data collection survey for each of the reporting periods in 2000. DOJ officials said that some of the surveys they did not receive may have been mailed to an incorrect office within DOJ. DCPO officials acknowledged that this type of error could be mitigated if DCPO routinely followed up with the drug court programs from which they did not receive responses. Furthermore, based on our follow-up structured interviews with a representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs that were listed as nonrespondents in DCPO’s database, we estimate that about 61 percent had actually responded to DCPO’s survey for the January to June 2000 reporting period. About two-thirds of these programs could produce evidence that they responded. For the July to December 2000 reporting period, we estimate that about 51 percent of the DCPO-funded drug court programs that were listed as nonrespondents in DCPO’s database had actually responded to the survey. About two-thirds of these programs could produce evidence that they responded. The requirement for grantees to submit DCPO’s semiannual survey is outlined in DOJ’s grant award notification letter that drug court program grantees receive at the beginning of their grant period. In addition, the survey is made available in the grantee application kit as well as on DCPO’s website. However, other than these steps, DCPO has not consistently notified its drug court program grantees of the semiannual reporting requirements nor has it routinely forwarded the survey to grantees. At the time of our review, DCPO had taken limited action to improve grantees’ compliance with the data collection survey requirements. DCPO officials said that they generally had not followed up with drug court program grantees that did not respond to the survey and had not taken action towards the grantees that did not respond to the semiannual data collection reporting requirement. Results from our follow-up structured interviews showed that DCPO had not followed up to request completed surveys from about 70 percent of the drug court program grantees that were nonrespondents during the January to June 2000 reporting period and from about 76 percent of the nonrespondents for the July to December 2000 reporting period. DCPO has had other difficulties managing its data collection effort. Specifically, (1) DCPO inadvertently instructed drug court program grantees not to respond to questions about program participants’ criminal recidivism while in the program; (2) confusion existed between DCPO and its contractor, assigned responsibility for the semiannual data collection effort, over who would administer DCPO’s data collection survey during various reporting periods; and (3) some grantees were using different versions of DOJ’s survey instruments to respond to the semiannual data collection reporting requirement. The overall success of a drug court programs is dependent on whether defendants in the program stay off drugs and do not commit more crimes when they complete the program. In our 1997 report we recommended that drug court programs funded by discretionary grants administered by DOJ collect and maintain follow-up data on program participants’ criminal recidivism and, to the extent feasible, follow-up data on drug use relapse. In 1998, DCPO required its implementation and enhancement grantees to collect and provide performance and outcome data on program participants, including data on participants’ criminal recidivism and substance abuse relapse after they have left the program. However, in 2000, DCPO revised its survey and eliminated the questions that were intended to collect post-program outcome data. The DCPO Director said that DCPO’s decision was based on, among other things, drug court program grantees indicating that they were not able to provide post-program outcome data and that they lacked sufficient resources to collect such data. DCPO, however, was unable to produce specific evidence from grantees (i.e., written correspondence) that cited difficulties with providing post-program outcome data. The Director said that difficulties have generally been conveyed by grantees, in person, through telephone conversations, or are evidenced by the lack of responses to the post-program questions on the survey. Contrary to DCPO’s position, evidence exists that supports the feasibility of collecting post-program performance and outcome data. During our 1997 survey of the drug court programs, 53 percent of the respondents said that they maintained follow-up data on participants’ rearrest or conviction for a nondrug crime. Thirty-three percent said that they maintained follow-up data on participants’ substance abuse relapse. Recent information collected from DCPO grantees continues to support the feasibility of collecting post-program performance and outcome data. The results of structured interviews we conducted in the year 2001 with a representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs showed that an estimated two-thirds of the DCPO-funded drug court programs maintained criminal recidivism data on participants after they left the program. About 84 percent of these programs maintained such data for 6 months or more. Of the remaining one-third that did not maintain post- program recidivism data, it would be feasible for about 63 percent to provide such data. These estimates suggest that about 86 percent of DCPO- funded drug court programs would be able to provide post-program recidivism data if requested. The results of structured interviews we conducted in the year 2001 with a representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs also showed that about one-third of the DCPO-funded drug court programs maintained substance abuse relapse data on participants after they have left the program. About 84 percent of these programs maintained such data for 6 months or more. Of the estimated two-thirds that did not maintain post- program substance abuse relapse data, it would be feasible for about 30 percent to provide such data. These estimates suggest that about 50 percent of DCPO-funded drug court programs would be able to provide post-program substance abuse data if requested. According to survey results collected by the Drug Court Clearinghouse in 2000 and 2001, a significant number of the drug court programs were able to provide post-program outcome data. For example, about 47 percent of the DCPO-funded adult drug court programs that responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse’s 2000 operational survey reported that they maintained some type of follow-up data on program participants after they have left the program. Of these drug court programs, about 92 percent said that they maintained follow-up data on recidivism and about 45 percent said that they maintained follow-up data on drug usage. Of the DCPO-funded adult and juvenile drug court programs operating for at least a year that responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse’s annual survey that was published in 2001, about 56 percent were able to provide follow-up data on program graduates’ recidivism and about 55 percent were able to provide follow-up data on program graduates’ drug use relapse. Operating under a cooperative agreement with DCPO, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has successfully collected performance and outcome data through an annual survey of all operating adult, juvenile, family, and tribal drug court programs, including those funded by DCPO. In addition, as previously noted, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has generally administered an operational survey to adult drug court programs every 3 years, including those funded by DCPO. The Drug Court Clearinghouse annually disseminates the results from its annual survey and has periodically published comprehensive drug court survey reports that provide detailed operational, demographic, and outcome data on the adult drug court programs identified through its data collection efforts. Although funded by DOJ, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has not been required to primarily collect and report separately on the universe of DCPO-funded programs. In addition, no comprehensive or representative report has been produced by DCPO or the Drug Court Clearinghouse that focuses primarily on the performance and outcome of DCPO-funded drug court programs. Instead, DCPO instructed the Drug Court Clearinghouse, in July 2001, to eliminate recidivism data from its survey publications. Although the Drug Court Clearinghouse has developed and implemented survey instruments to periodically collect and disseminate recidivism and relapse data, the DCPO Director had concerns with the quality of the self-reported data collected and the inconsistent time frames for which post-program data were being collected by drug court programs. In response to recommendations in our 1997 report, DOJ undertook, through NIJ, an effort to conduct a two-phase national impact evaluation focusing on 14 selected DCPO-funded drug court programs. This effort was intended to include post-program data within its scope and to involve the use of nonparticipant comparison groups. However, various administrative and research factors hampered DOJ’s ability to complete the NIJ-sponsored national impact evaluation, which was originally to be completed by June 30, 2001. As a result, DOJ fell short of its objective, discontinued this effort, and is considering an alternative study that, if implemented, is not expected to provide information on the impact of federally funded drug court programs until year 2007. Unless DOJ takes interim steps to evaluate the impact of drug court programs, the Congress, the public, and other drug court stakeholders will not have sufficient information in the near term to assess the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. The overall objective of the NIJ-sponsored national evaluation was to study the impact of DCPO-funded drug court programs using comparison groups and studying, among other things, criminal recidivism and drug use relapse. This effort was to be undertaken in two phases and to include the collection of post-program outcome data. The objectives for phase I, for which NIJ awarded a grant to RAND in August 1998, were to (1) develop a conceptual framework for evaluating the 14 DCPO-funded drug court programs, (2) provide a description of the implementation of each program, (3) determine the feasibility of including each of these 14 drug court programs in a national impact evaluation, and (4) develop a viable design strategy for evaluating program impact and the success of the 14 drug court programs. The design strategy was to be presented in the form of a written proposal for a supplemental noncompetitive phase II grant. The actual impact evaluation and an assessment of the success of the drug court programs were to be completed during phase II of the study using a design strategy resulting from phase I. NIJ’s two-phase national impact evaluation was originally planned for completion by June 30, 2001. Phase I was awarded for up to 24 months and was scheduled to conclude no later than June 30, 2000. However phase I was not completed until September 2001—15 months after the original project due date. Phase II, which NIJ expected to award after the satisfactory submission of a viable design strategy for completing an impact evaluation, has since been discontinued. Various administrative and research factors contributed to delays in the completion of phase I and DOJ’s subsequent decision to discontinue the evaluation. The factors included (1) DCPO’s delay in notifying its grantees of RAND’s plans to conduct site visits; (2) RAND’s lateness in meeting task milestones; (3) NIJ’s multiple grant extensions to RAND that extended the timeframe for completing phase I and further delayed NIJ’s subsequent decision to discontinue phase II; and (4) the inability of the phase I efforts to produce a viable design strategy that was to be used to complete a national impact evaluation in phase II. Phase I of the NIJ-sponsored study was initially hampered by DCPO’s delay in notifying its grantees of plans to conduct the national impact evaluation. In November 1998, DCPO agreed to write a letter notifying its grantees of RAND’s plan to conduct the national evaluation. The notification letters were sent in March 1999. As a result, drug court program site visits, which RAND had originally planned to complete by February 1999, were not completed until July 1999. Although RAND completed most of the tasks associated with the national evaluation phase I objectives, it was generally late in meeting task milestones. The conceptual framework for the evaluation of 14 DCPO- funded drug court programs, which RAND was originally scheduled to complete by September 1999, was submitted to NIJ in May 2000—8 months after the original task milestone. This timeframe, according to RAND, was impacted by the delay in DOJ’s initiation of site visits. NIJ officials said that RAND also did not deliver a complete description and analysis of drug court implementation issues to NIJ, which was also due in September 1999, until it received the first draft of RAND’s report in March 2001. The feasibility study, which was originally scheduled to be completed by RAND in September 1999, was provided to NIJ in November 1999. This study informed NIJ of RAND’s concerns with the evaluability of some of the 14 selected DCPO sites. The viable design strategy proposal for evaluating program impact at each of the 14 drug court programs, which RAND was originally expected to complete by May 1999, was not completed. In addition, as discussed below and detailed in appendix VI, RAND was consistently late in meeting the extended milestones for delivery of the final product for phase I. Although RAND raised concerns in November 1999 regarding the feasibility of completing a national impact evaluation at some of the 14 selected DCPO sites, NIJ continued to grant multiple no-cost extensions that further extended the completion of phase I. The first no-cost grant extension called for phase I of the project to end by September 30, 2000; the second no-cost extension called for phase I to end by December 31, 2000; and the final extension authorized completion of phase I by May 31, 2001. Despite the multiple extensions and RAND’s repeated assurances that the phase I report was imminent, a final phase I report was not completed until September 18, 2001—21 months after the original milestone for completion of phase I. NIJ officials said that, in retrospect, they should have discontinued this effort sooner. Appendix VI provides additional details on the phase I delays in the NIJ-sponsored effort to complete a national impact evaluation. Phase I of the NIJ-sponsored national impact evaluation did not produce a viable design strategy that would enable an impact evaluation to be completed during phase II using the selected DCPO-funded drug court programs. RAND did offer an alternative approach. However, this approach did not address the original objective—to conduct a national impact evaluation. During its feasibility study, RAND rated the evaluability of the 14 program sites as follows: 4 - poor or neutral/poor, 5 - neutral, and 5 - neutral/good or good. In response, NIJ and DCPO asked RAND to consider completing the evaluation using those DCPO-funded program sites that were deemed somewhat feasible. RAND, however, was not receptive to this suggestion and did not produce a viable design strategy based on the 14 DCPO-funded programs or the subset of DCPO-funded programs that were deemed feasible to use in phase II to evaluate the impact of federally funded drug court programs. As a result, DOJ continues to lack a design strategy for conducting a national impact to enable it to address the impact of federally funded drug court programs in the near term. To address the need for the completion of a national impact evaluation, DCPO and NIJ are considering plans to complete a longitudinal study of drug-involved offenders in up to 10 drug court program jurisdictions. The DCPO Director said that the study would be done at a national level, and the scope would include comparison groups and the collection of individual level and post-program recidivism data. DOJ expects that this project, which is in its formative stage, if implemented, will take up to 4 years to complete—with results likely in year 2007. We recognize that it would take time to design and implement a rigorous longitudinal evaluation study and that if properly implemented, such an effort should better enable DOJ to provide information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. However, its year 2007 completion timeframe will not enable DOJ to provide the Congress and other stakeholders with near-term information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs that has been lacking for nearly a decade. Despite a significant increase in the number of drug court programs funded by DCPO since 1997 that are required to collect and maintain performance and outcome data, DOJ continues to lack vital information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. Furthermore, the agency’s alternative plan for addressing the impact of federally funded drug court programs will not offer near-term answers on the overall impact of these programs. Improvements in DCPO’s management of the collection and utilization of performance and outcome data from federally funded drug court programs are needed. Additionally, more immediate steps from NIJ and DCPO to carry out a methodologically sound national impact evaluation could better enable DOJ to provide Congress and other drug court program stakeholders with more timely information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. Until DOJ takes such actions, the Congress, public, and other stakeholders will continue to lack sufficient information to (1) measure long-term program benefits, if any; (2) assess the impact of federally funded drug court programs on the criminal behavior of substance abuse offenders; or (3) assess whether drug court programs are an effective use of federal funds. To improve the Department of Justice’s collection of data on the performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs, we recommend that the Attorney General develop and implement a management information system that is able to track and readily identify the universe of drug court programs funded by DCPO; take steps to ensure and sustain an adequate grantee response rate to DCPO’s data collection efforts by improving efforts to notify and remind grantees of their reporting requirements; take corrective action towards grantees who do not comply with DOJ’s data collection reporting requirements; reinstate the collection of post-program data in DCPO’s data collection effort, selectively spot checking grantee responses to ensure accurate reporting; analyze performance and outcome data collected from grantees and report annually on the results; and consolidate the multiple DOJ-funded drug court program-related data collection efforts to better ensure that the primary focus is on the collection and reporting of data on DCPO-funded drug court programs. To better ensure that needed information on the impact of federally funded drug court programs is made available to the Congress, public, and other drug court stakeholders as early as possible, we also recommend that the Attorney General take immediate steps to accelerate the funding and implementation of a methodologically sound national impact evaluation and to consider ways to reduce the time needed to provide information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. Furthermore, we recommend that steps be taken to implement appropriate oversight of this evaluation effort to ensure that it is well designed and executed, and remains on schedule. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney General. We also requested comments from RAND on a section of the draft report pertaining to its efforts to complete phase I of NIJ’s national evaluation effort. On April 3, 2002, DOJ provided written comments on the draft report (see app. VII). The Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs noted that we made several valuable recommendations for improving the collection of data on the performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs and outlined steps DOJ is considering to address two of the six recommendations we make for improving its collection of data on the performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs. However, concerning the remaining four recommendations for improving DOJ’s data collection effort, DOJ does not specifically outline any plans (1) for taking corrective action towards grantees who do not comply with DCPO’s data collection reporting requirements; (2) to reinstate the collection of post program data in DCPO’s data collection effort, despite the evidence cited in our report supporting the feasibility of collecting post program data; (3) to analyze and report results on the performance and outcome of DCPO grantees; and (4) to consolidate the multiple DOJ-funded drug court program-related data collection efforts to ensure that the primary focus of any future efforts is on the collection and reporting of data on DCPO-funded programs. Although DOJ points out in its comments that a number of individual program evaluation studies have been completed, no national impact evaluation of these programs has been done to date. We continue to believe that until post-program follow-up data on program participants are collected across a broad range of programs and also included within the scope of future program and impact evaluations (including nonprogram participant data), it will not be possible to reach firm conclusions about whether drug court programs are an effective use of federal funds or whether different types of drug court program structures funded by DCPO work better than others. Also, unless these results are compared with those on the impact of other criminal justice programs, it will not be clear whether drug court programs are more or less effective than other criminal justice programs. As such, these limitations have prevented firm conclusions from being drawn on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs. With respect to our recommendations for improving DOJ’s drug court program-related impact evaluation efforts, DOJ, in its comments, outlines steps it is taking to complete a multisite impact evaluation and its plans to monitor the progress of this effort and to provide interim information during various intervals. As discussed on page 18 of this report, this effort is intended to be done at a national level, and the scope is to include comparison groups and the collection of individual-level and post-program recidivism data. On April 1, 2002, RAND provided written comments on the segment of the draft report relating to DOJ’s efforts to complete a national impact evaluation (see app. VIII). In its comments, RAND, as we do in our report, acknowledges the need for improvements in the data collection infrastructure for DCPO-funded drug court programs. RAND notes its rationale for why it views the deliverables associated with phase I of the NIJ-sponsored national impact evaluation as being timely and notes that researchers generally have discretion to revise timelines and scopes of work, with the agreement of the client. However, as we point out in our report (pp. 17-18 and app. VI), RAND requested several no-cost extensions to complete the deliverables for various task milestones and did not produce a viable design strategy for addressing the impact of DCPO-funded drug court programs. In addition, NIJ officials said that RAND also did not deliver a complete description and analysis of drug court implementation issues to NIJ until it received the first draft of RAND’s report in March 2001. The deliverable RAND refers to in its comment letter was a paper that RAND had prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which NIJ never considered to be a product under the grant to evaluate the impact of DCPO-funded drug court programs. As we also pointed out in our report (p. 17 and app. VI), NIJ was not amenable to RAND changing the scope or methodology of the national impact evaluation effort. In addition, RAND commented that a “simple” evaluation design was expected. NIJ’s original objective, however, never called for a simple evaluation design, but rather a viable design strategy involving the use of comparison groups and the collection of post-program data. We conducted our work at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C., between March 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will provide copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Daniel C. Harris or me at (202) 512-2758 or at [email protected]. Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix IX. Our overall objective for this review was to assess how well the Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented efforts to collect performance and impact data on federally funded drug court programs. We specifically focused on DOJ’s (1) Drug Courts Program Office’s (DCPO) efforts to collect performance and outcome data from federally funded drug court programs and (2) National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) efforts to complete a national impact evaluation of federally funded drug court programs. While there are drug court programs that receive funds from other federal sources, our review focused on those programs receiving federal funds from DCPO, which is DOJ’s component responsible for administering the federal drug court program under the Violent Crime Act. The scope of our work was limited to (1) identifying the processes DCPO used to implement its semiannual data collection effort; (2) determining DCPO grantees' compliance with semiannual data collection and reporting requirements; (3) determining what action, if any, DCPO has taken to monitor and ensure grantee compliance with the data collection reporting requirements; (4) identifying factors and barriers that may have contributed to a grantee's nonresponse and to delays in and the subsequent discontinuation of the NIJ-sponsored national evaluation of DCPO-funded programs; and (5) identifying improvements that may be warranted in DOJ's data collection efforts. To assess how well DCPO has implemented efforts to collect performance and outcome data from federally funded drug court programs, we (1) interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program stakeholders and practitioners; (2) reviewed DCPO program guidelines to determine the drug court program grantee data collection and reporting requirements; (3) analyzed recent survey data collected by DCPO and the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (Drug Court Clearinghouse) to obtain information on the number of drug court programs that have been able to provide outcome data; and (4) conducted structured interviews with a statistically valid probability sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs to determine (a) the programs' ability to comply with DCPO's data collection requirements, (b) whether the programs had complied with the data collection requirements, and (c) for those programs that did not comply with the data collection requirements, why they did not comply and what action, if any, DCPO had taken. For our structured interviews, we selected a stratified, random sample of 112 DCPO-funded drug court programs from a total of 315 drug court programs identified by DOJ as DCPO grantees in 2000. We stratified our sample into two groups based on whether the programs were listed in DCPO's database as respondents or nonrespondents to the required DCPO semiannual data collection survey in year 2000. To validate the accuracy of the list provided by DCPO, we compared the listing of 315 drug court programs identified as required to comply during a year 2000 reporting period with information on drug court program-related grant awards made by DCPO that was provided by OJP’s Office of the Comptroller to determine if the program was a DCPO grantee during the year 2000 reporting period. We defined a respondent as any drug court program grantee that was identified in DCPO's database as having responded to the DCPO survey during each applicable year 2000 reporting period. We defined a nonrespondent as a drug court program grantee that was identified in DCPO's database as not having responded to the DCPO survey during any applicable year 2000 reporting period. We used a structured data collection instrument to interview grantees. We interviewed 73 nonrespondents and 39 respondents. All results were weighted to represent the total population of drug court programs operating under a DCPO grant in year 2000. All statistical samples are subject to sampling errors. Measures of sampling error are defined by two elements, the width of the confidence intervals around the estimate (sometimes called the precision of the estimate) and the confidence level at which the intervals are computed. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. As each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence level in the precision of our sample results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals based on the structured interviews will include the true value in the study population. All percentage estimates from the structured interviews have sampling errors of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less unless otherwise noted. For example, this means that if a percentage estimate is 60 percent and the 95 percent confidence interval is plus or minus 10 percentage points, we have 95 percent confidence that the true value in the population falls between 50 percent and 70 percent. We performed limited verification of the drug court programs in our sample that were identified as non-respondents in DCPO’s database to determine whether they were actually DCPO grantees in 2000. Data obtained from the drug court programs was self-reported and, except for evidence obtained to confirm grantee compliance with DCPO's year 2000 reporting requirements, we generally did not validate their responses. We also did not fully verify the accuracy of the total number of drug court programs, or universe of drug court programs, provided to us by DCPO and the Drug Court Clearinghouse. To assess DOJ's efforts to complete a national impact evaluation of federally funded drug court programs, we interviewed officials from (1) NIJ, who were responsible for DOJ's national evaluation effort; (2) DCPO, who were responsible for administering the federal drug court program under the Violent Crime Act; and (3) RAND, who were awarded the NIJ grant to complete phase I of the national evaluation effort. To identify the various administrative and research factors that hampered the completion of DOJ's national impact evaluation, we (1) interviewed NIJ and RAND officials who were responsible for the research project; (2) reviewed project objectives, tasks, and milestones outlined in NIJ's original solicitation and the NIJ approved RAND proposal and grant award; (3) reviewed correspondence between NIJ and RAND from 1998-2001; and (4) reviewed various project documents, including (a) RAND's evaluability assessment, (b) progress reports submitted to NIJ, (c) RAND's requests for no-cost extensions, (d) NIJ grant adjustment notices, (e) RAND's phase I draft report, and (f) RAND's phase I final report. Additionally, we compared project task milestones included in the NIJ approved RAND proposal with the actual project task completion dates. To determine the universe and DCPO funding of drug court programs, we (a) interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program stakeholders and practitioners; (b) reviewed and analyzed grant information obtained from DOJ's Office of Justice Programs grant management information system and DCPO; (c) reviewed and analyzed information on the universe of drug court programs maintained by the Drug Court Clearinghouse; and (d) reviewed congressional appropriations and DOJ press releases. We attempted to verify information on the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs, but as the findings in our report note, we were unable to do so due to inefficiencies in DOJ's drug court-related grant information systems. We were able to validate and correct some of the information provided by the various sources noted above through a comparison of the various databases noted and the primary data we had collected from drug court programs during our 1997 review and during our year 2001 follow-up structured interviews with a stratified, random sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs. We conducted our work at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C., between March 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Based on information available as of December 31, 2001, drug court programs were operating in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. New Hampshire and Vermont were the only states without an operating drug court program but both have programs being planned. Guam also has programs being planned. California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Ohio account for 344, or almost 44 percent, of the 791 operating drug courts. Figure 4 shows the number of operating drug court programs in each jurisdiction. Populations targeted by U.S. drug court programs included adults, juveniles, families, and Native American tribes. Table 2 shows the breakdown by target population of operating and planned drug court programs. As Table 3 shows, drug court programs in the United States vary by target population and program status and have received various types of grants from the DOJ Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO). Table 4 shows the number and total amount of DCPO grants awarded to plan, implement, or enhance U.S. drug court programs from fiscal years 1995 through 2001. NIJ issues solicitation for national evaluation of drug court programs NIJ awards grant to RAND RAND requests DCPO to write letters to 14 DCPO-funded sites regarding site visits for the national evaluation RAND submits written progress report to NIJ (no problems or changes were noted) Scheduled milestone for completion of site visits RAND informs NIJ that it was still awaiting DCPO introductory letter to 14 DCPO-funded sites DCPO sent letter notifying 14 sites of the national evaluation Scheduled milestone for completion of phase II design strategy Written progress report submitted by RAND (no problems or changes were noted) Scheduled milestone for completion of conceptual framework RAND provides evaluability assessment of 14 sites to NIJ noting feasibility concerns RAND requests conference with NIJ to discuss evaluability assessment NIJ informs RAND that DCPO still wants impact evaluations on some of the 14 sites RAND submits conceptual framework for 14 sites to NIJ NIJ and DCPO review the conceptual framework NIJ informs RAND that the report on the results of phase I must be submitted prior to the submission of a phase II proposal DCPO requests findings from RAND RAND requests guidance about conceptual framework paper RAND requests the first no-cost extension through September 30, 2000 NIJ informed RAND that phase I findings should be submitted in writing before RAND submits a proposal for phase II. RAND informed NIJ that a report on phase I findings would be completed by November 2000 RAND submits written progress report to NIJ noting their findings, an alternative strategy, and their request for a no-cost extension to enable RAND to bridge the time period between phase I and phase II NIJ grants RAND its first no-cost extension through September 30, 2000 DCPO and NIJ inquire about the status of the phase I draft report. NIJ reminds RAND of the original project requirements for an impact evaluation in phase II RAND inquired about whether the phase I grant would be extended beyond September 30, 2000 NIJ asked RAND to complete the phase I report by September 30, 2000, and reiterated to RAND that any proposals for phase II should address original solicitation objectives NIJ gives RAND the option to (1) let the phase I grant end and prepare the phase II proposal for a new grant or (2) extend the phase I project timeline to allow time for review of a phase II proposalRAND requested second no-cost extension NIJ grants no-cost extension to RAND extending completion of phase I until December 31, 2000. NIJ also inquires about status of draft and reminds RAND that draft must be submitted before a phase II proposal is accepted. RAND agreed RAND presented results from phase I at American Society of Criminology Conference noting that the phase I report would be available by the end of December In response to an NIJ inquiry, RAND informs NIJ that a phase I draft report would be completed by the end of January 2001 (NIJ did not extend the grant) In response to an NIJ inquiry, RAND informs NIJ that the phase I draft report would be completed in February 2001 Written progress report submitted by RAND noting that a draft report will be submitted to NIJ in February 2001 (no problems were noted) RAND informs NIJ that a draft phase I report will be completed in March 2001. NIJ grants third no-cost, extension to RAND extending completion of phase I until May 31, 2001 to allow for peer review of the forthcoming draft report NIJ receives draft phase I report and submits draft to peer reviewers NIJ informs RAND that phase II plans are uncertain NIJ sends peer review results to RAND and inquires as to when final report could be expected. NIJ provides RAND with specific instructions to eliminate the alternative phase II proposal from the finalphase I report noting that RAND's alternative proposal was so different from the project objective that it would be inappropriate to continue the effort RAND meets with NIJ to discuss phase I effort and completion of final report. RAND informs NIJ that the final report will be completed by the end of July 2001 Written progress report submitted by RAND (no problems or changes noted) The following are GAO comments on DOJ’s letter of April 3, 2002. 1. In his reviews, Dr. Belenko noted that the long-term post-program impact of drug courts on recidivism and other outcomes are less clear—pointing out that the measurement of post-program outcomes other than recidivism remains quite limited in the drug court evaluation literature. He also noted that the evaluations varied in quality, comprehensiveness, use of comparison groups, and types of measures used and that longer follow-up and better precision in equalizing the length of follow-up between experimental and comparison groups are needed. 2. Dr. Belenko noted that the evaluations reviewed were primarily process, as opposed to impact, evaluations. He also noted that a shortcoming of some of the drug court evaluations was a lack of specificity about data collection time frames—pointing out that several studies lacked a distinction between recidivism that occurs while an offender is under drug court supervision and recidivism occurring after program participation. Charles Michael Johnson, Nettie Y. Mahone, Deborah L. Picozzi, Jerome T. Sandau, David P. Alexander, Douglas M. Sloane, and Shana B. Wallace made key contributions to this report. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. | In exchange for the possibility of dismissed charges or reduced sentences, defendants with substance abuse problems agree to be assigned to drug court programs. In drug courts, judges generally preside over the proceedings; monitor the progress of defendants; and prescribe sanctions and rewards in collaboration with prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers. Most decisions about drug court operations are left to local jurisdictions. Although programs funded by the Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) must collect and provide performance measurement and outcome data, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not effectively managed this effort because of (1) its inability to readily identify the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs, including those subject to DCPO's data collection reporting requirements; (2) its inability to accurately determine the number of drug court programs responding to DCPO's semiannual data collection survey; (3) inefficiencies in the administration of DCPO's semiannual data collection effort; (4) the elimination of post-program impact questions from the data collection survey effort; and (5) the lack of use of the Drug Court Clearinghouse. Various administrative and research factors have also hampered DOJ's ability to complete the two-phase National Institute of Justice-sponsored national impact evaluation study. As a result, DOJ continues to lack vital information needed to determine the overall impact of federally funded programs and to assess whether drug court programs use federal funds effectively. |
Section 221, among other things, offers two new sex trafficking offenses. One, aggravated sex trafficking (proposed 18 U.S.C. 2429), would replace 18 U.S.C. 1591, but without the requirement that the defendant charged with persuasion, enticement, transportation, etc. of a child must be shown to have known that the child was underage. The other, sex trafficking (proposed 18 U.S.C. 2430), expands federal jurisdiction to reach persuasion, inducement, or enticement to engage in unlawful prostitution when it occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, without regard to the age of the beguiled or the absence of coercion, fraud, or force. Proposed 18 U.S.C. 2429 would condemn knowingly recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining another individual, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or within U.S. special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, with the knowledge that the individual would be used to engage in a commercial sex act either as child or through force, fraud or coercion. The proposed section would condemn profiting from such a venture as well. In either case, offenders would face imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 years or for life (not less than 10 years if the child were 14 years of age or older). The proposal is essentially the same as 18 U.S.C. 1591, but for knowledge of the minority of a juvenile victim upon which Section 1591 insists. Proposed 18 U.S.C. 2430 would represent an expansion of federal authority to punish sex trafficking if the offense occurs in or affected interstate or foreign commerce. It features a more expansive jurisdictional base than 18 U.S.C. 1591. The proposed section would match the jurisdiction reach of Section 1591 and its proposed replacement Section 2429 (in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, etc.), but unlike those sections, Section 2430 would cover attempted violations. It would also cover persuasion, inducement or enticement to commit consensual acts of prostitution involving only adults (i.e., unlike Section 1591 and proposed Section 2429, it would not require that the offense involve either a child under the age of 18 or the use of fraud, force, or coercion as a means of persuasion, inducement or enticement). It would prohibit persuasion, inducement or enticement of an adult to engage in a commercial sex act when it would affect interstate commerce. Such conduct is only a federal crime now if actual interstate or foreign travel is involved. The expansion could be significant, since in other contexts the courts have often held that the prosecution need show no more than a de minimis impact on interstate or foreign commerce to satisfy the "affects commerce" standard. Subsection 221(b) proposes amendments to 18 U.S.C. 1592 (seizure of another's passport and immigration documents trafficking purposes) that also would duplicate and enlarge without repeal or amendment the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 1589 (forced labor). In its current form, Section 1592 proscribes the knowing destruction, concealment, or possession of another person's passport or similar documentation, either (1) in the course of a trafficking offense, or (2) with the intent to commit a trafficking offense, or (3) to unlawfully restrict the travel of a trafficking victim. Section 1589 prohibits providing or obtaining labor or services through physical violence, the threat of physical violence, or abuse or threatened abuse of the law. The proposed amendment to Section 1592 recasts its components in three areas. First, it streamlines the document-seizure prohibition. Second, like Section 1589, it outlaws obtaining labor or services through an abuse of authority or legal process. Unlike Section 1589 which only applies to forced labor, it outlaws such abuse when used to obtain either labor or commercial sex acts. Third, like Section 1589, it outlaws obtaining labor or services using a threat of harm. Unlike Section 1589, it specifies financial harm rather than physical harm, and it reaches threats to secure either labor or commercial sex acts. Offenders would be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years. Subsection 221(g) would create a new federal offense, arranging sex tourism, proposed 18 U.S.C. 2431. The new section would outlaw knowingly (and for profit) arranging, inducing, or procuring an individual's travel in foreign commerce in order to permit the individual to engage in a commercial sex act, or attempting to so arrange, induce or procure, proposed 18 U.S.C. 2431(a). Violations would be punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, but not more than 30 years if the commercial sex act involved a child under the age of 18, proposed 18 U.S.C. 2432(a), (b). Under existing law, it is a federal crime for an American to travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a commercial sex act with a child, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), (f). It is also a federal crime to arrange, induce, procure, or facilitate such travel if done for profit, 18 U.S.C. 2423(d). Both offenses are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 30 years, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b),(d). It is not a federal crime for an American to travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a commercial sex act with an adult. And it is not a federal crime for an American to attempt to travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a commercial sex act with a child. Subsection 221(g) would replicate existing law except to the extent that it would prohibit (1) arranging, inducing or procuring – for profit – the foreign travel of an American to engage in a commercial sex act even though the underlying travel for such purpose is not itself a federal crime, (2) attempting to arrange, induce, or procure for profit such travel, or (3) attempting to arrange, induce, or procure – for profit – the foreign travel of an American to engage in a commercial sex act with a child. Criminalizing an attempt to induce others to engage in innocent conduct (e.g., foreign travel for the purpose of engaging in a lawful commercial sex act with an adult) even when done for profit, may raise First Amendment implications. Subsection 221(h) would call upon the Sentencing Commission to consider any appropriate adjustments in the Sentencing Guidelines to reflect the creation of the offenses established in subsections 221(f)(sex trafficking) and 221(g)(sex tourism). Subsection 221(e) would amend the federal witness tampering and retaliation provisions to prohibit the use of physical force, threats, corrupt persuasion, or deception to prevent another from disclosing information concerning a federal employment-related visa, labor or employment law, relating to aliens, or retaliating against another for his having done so, or attempting to so tamper or retaliate. By operation of the existing penalty restructure, offenders would face imprisonment for not more than 20 years for the use or attempted use of physical force to tamper and not more than 10 years in all other instances. Under existing law, it is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years to obstruct enforcement of the peonage prohibition. The general federal witness tampering statute, among other things, proscribes the use of physical force, threats, intimidation or corrupt persuasion in order to prevent a witness from informing federal law enforcement officials of information relating to the commission of a federal crime. The witness retaliation statute, among other things, proscribes retaliating against a witness for providing information relating to the commission of a federal crime to federal law enforcement officials. Unlike the proposed amendment, present law does not outlaw obstruction or retaliation relating to the investigation of noncriminal alien employment violations. Subparagraph 202(g)(6)(D) of Section 202 would establish a cause of action including reasonable attorneys' fees for the victims of the proposed obstruction of justice offenses. Subsection 221(c) would amend 1594 to require the Attorney General to return to victims property seized or confiscated under the involuntary servitude and trafficking chapter. It would permit the Attorney General to return property confiscated under other laws to trafficking victims. As a general rule, restoration or remission is only possible where the claimant has or had a legally-recognized interest in the confiscated property and where the claimant played no part in the offense which gave rise to the forfeiture. The proposed amendments appear designed to overcome the second limitation; they permit victims to recover notwithstanding their participation in the confiscation-triggering offense. The courts, however, may find in the use of the terms "restoration and remission" an intent to continue in place the ownership requirement. Under the proposals, exploited victims might be thought entitled to no more than the return of property that can be shown to once have been theirs. It seems possible that rather than permitting victims to recover property confiscated from them because of violations of the peonage and trafficking laws, drafters intended to require or permit victim restitution to be paid out of forfeited assets of their oppressors. The proposed amendments might prove inadequate for that purpose. Subsection 221(d) would enlarge the civil cause of action available to victims of violations of the involuntary servitude and trafficking provisions. It would also provide an explicit 10-year statute of limitations within which such suits would have to be filed, proposed 18 U.S.C. 1595(c). Paragraph 214(b)(1) of Section 214 would amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. The Crime Victims Fund finances victim compensation and assistance grants using the fines imposed for violation of federal criminal law, 18 U.S.C. 10601(b), although Congress has capped the amount annually available from the fund. The new section would trump any coverage limitations based on the characteristics of the victim of the crime to be compensated or assisted. It would define "victim," "crime victim" and "victim of crime" for purposes of the federal crime victims compensation and assistance grants and related activities to include individuals "exploited or otherwise victimized" by a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1328 (importation of an alien for prostitution or other immoral purposes) or of any of the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. ch. 117 (transportation of illegal sexual purposes including proposed and enlarged 18 U.S.C. 2430) or comparable offenses under state law – without any expressed regard for the victim's age, gender, consent, culpability, or participation in commercial sexual activity. Section 222 would establish extraterritorial jurisdiction over various peonage and trafficking offenses when the offender or the victim is an American or when the offender is in the United States. Section 222 provides a statement of extraterritorial jurisdiction in some instances when it seems likely that federal courts would assume it even in the absence of such an explicit provision. On the other hand, the application of proposed Section 1596 might prove more problematic when the only contact with the United States or its nationals or interests is the fact the offender is found or has been brought to the United States. Federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1589 (forced labor) might be problematic, for example, when the misconduct occurs entirely within another country and neither the offender nor any of the victims of the offense are Americans. Subsection 223(a) would streamline Section 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1328) with little change in substance. The proposal would omit the venue language now found in the section that permits prosecution in any district into which the alien is imported. The existing provision duplicates the otherwise available venue options under which prosecution is possible in any district through or into which an imported person moves. Subsection 234(a) renames the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and expands the responsibilities of the Innocence Lost Task Forces to include sex trafficking (proposed 18 U.S.C. 2430) offenses involving sexually exploited adults. The Section would become known as the Sexual Exploitation and Obscenity Section. The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section now prosecutes offenses involving federal obscenity, child pornography, interstate trafficking for sexual purposes, international sexual child abuse, and international parental kidnapping. In 2003, the Section together with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children started an Innocence Lost Initiative in 2003. The proposed amendment would greatly expand the Section's jurisdiction, given the accompanying expansion of federal jurisdiction occasioned by proposed Section 2430 which would outlaw trafficking in commercial sexual activity occurring in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce regardless of age or willingness of the individual trafficked. Subsection 202(g) would require those who recruit foreign workers to disclose various specifics regarding the circumstances and conditions of employment to recruits. Paragraph 202(g)(3) would proscribe knowingly making a material false or misleading statement in such disclosures and would declare that, "The disclosure required by this section is a document concerning the proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States for the purposes of section 1519 of title 18, United States Code." Section 1519 of Title 18, United States Code, proscribes the knowing falsification of records with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States. Violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years. In the absence of a reference to Section 1519, the proposed offense would instead be subject to the general false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes violations punishable by imprisonment by not more than 8 years if the offense relates to an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1591 (sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud or coercion); or 18 U.S.C. ch. 109A (sexual abuse), ch. 110 (sexual exploitation of children), or ch. 117 (transportation for illegal sexual activities). The Justice Department drafted a Model State Anti-Trafficking Criminal Statute in 2004. The Model includes suggested language of state criminal laws relating to trafficking in persons, involuntary servitude, sexual servitude of a minor and trafficking in persons for forced labor or services. A number of states have adopted comparable statutes. Section 224 would direct the Attorney General to provide a similar model reflecting the misconduct proscribed in 18 U.S.C. chs. 77 (involuntary servitude) and 117 (Mann Act) as those chapters would be amended by H.R. 3887 . It would also instruct the Attorney General to post the model on the Department's website, distribute it to the states, assist the states in its implementation, and report annually to House and Senate Judiciary Committees and the House Foreign Affairs Committee as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the results of such efforts. | The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 3887), passed by the House on December 4, 2007, continues and reenforces the anti-trafficking efforts that began with Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. That legislation sought to protect the women and children most often the victims of both international and domestic trafficking with a series of diplomatic, immigration, and law enforcement initiatives. H.R. 3887 follows in its path. This report is limited to the bill's law enforcement initiatives or more precisely its proposals to amend federal criminal law. Representative Lantos introduced H.R. 3887 on October 17, 2007, for himself and several other Members. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs reported an amended version of the bill on November 6, 2007. A further revised version passed under suspension of the rules on December 4, 2007. When the bill reached the Senate its criminal law proposals included newly assigned sex trafficking offenses, a sex tourism offense, a coerced services offense, obstruction of justice offenses, an importation of prostitutes offense, a false statement offense, and provisions for civil liability, victim assistance, forfeiture, extraterritorial jurisdiction, Justice Department reorganization, and a model state statute. This is an abridged version of CRS Report RL34323, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 3887 as Passed by the House): Criminal Law Provisions, by [author name scrubbed] without the footnotes, quotations, or citations to authority found in the longer report. |
Mark E. Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of facebook.com, dropped in for some on-campus recruiting and announced he would be dropping out of Harvard indefinitely yesterday afternoon.
Following in the footsteps of Microsoft tycoon and former Harvard student Bill Gates, Zuckerberg has chosen computers over campus life.
“I’m not coming back,” he said. Facebook.com spokesman Chris R. Hughes ’06 left open the possibility that Zuckerberg might return several years down the road.
Zuckerberg, formerly of the Class of 2006, will forego a Harvard degree to run facebook.com, the second largest online social networking site and the 10th most-trafficked site on the Internet, according to Hughes.
Zuckerberg spent the morning meeting with computer science professors for help recruiting engineers straight out of college.
“The professors can identify who the smart students are,” he said, adding that he would prefer to hire younger engineers rather than programming veterans. “The job lends itself to people with raw intelligence rather than industry experience. And if you’re coming out of college, you have a really good idea of what facebook is.”
Zuckerberg said he has made similar recruiting trips to Stanford and Berkeley. He will recruit at MIT today before heading back to facebook.com’s headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif.
He said working for a startup company like facebook.com should be considered a viable alternative to consulting or investment banking, two of the most popular career paths for Harvard grads.
“A lot of people know facebook as a site, but not many think of it as a cool company to work for,” he said.
But students expecting a non-stop party in lieu of hard work may be disappointed. Zuckerberg characterized his company as “humble,” and added that his salary is just $65,000 per year.
Employees will also receive facebook.com stock.
Zuckerberg declined to comment on how much the company is worth, saying only that its estimated value is “a lot.” This summer, MySpace, the largest online social networking site, sold for $580 million.
Zuckerberg concluded his round of interviews by meeting with two sophomore programmers who discussed the addition of a music and band promotion feature to the site.
One of those two students said facebook.com’s widespread appeal makes it an attractive company to work for.
“You got the brand name going,” Jonathan A. Hyman ’08 told Zuckerberg. “It’s a verb, man!”
After those meetings, Zuckerberg, dressed inconspicuously in an orange Puma sweatshirt, jeans, and Adidas sandals, took time to chat with friends and potential employees.
“Well, we’ll just sit,” he said, plopping down on the pavement outside the revolving doors with his friend and former facebook.com employee Andrew K. McCollum ’06-’07.
“Hey Priscilla, do you want a job at the facebook?” Zuckerberg asked a passing friend.
“I’d love a job at facebook,” Priscilla Chan ’07 responded, offering him a Twizzler.
—Staff writer Sam Teller can be reached at [email protected]. ||||| Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook in his college dorm room six years ago. Five hundred million people have joined since, and eight hundred and seventy-nine of them are his friends. The site is a directory of the world’s people, and a place for private citizens to create public identities. You sign up and start posting information about yourself: photographs, employment history, why you are peeved right now with the gummy-bear selection at Rite Aid or bullish about prospects for peace in the Middle East. Some of the information can be seen only by your friends; some is available to friends of friends; some is available to anyone. Facebook’s privacy policies are confusing to many people, and the company has changed them frequently, almost always allowing more information to be exposed in more ways.
According to his Facebook profile, Zuckerberg has three sisters (Randi, Donna, and Arielle), all of whom he’s friends with. He’s friends with his parents, Karen and Edward Zuckerberg. He graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy and attended Harvard University. He’s a fan of the comedian Andy Samberg and counts among his favorite musicians Green Day, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift, and Shakira. He is twenty-six years old.
Zuckerberg cites “Minimalism,” “Revolutions,” and “Eliminating Desire” as interests. He likes “Ender’s Game,” a coming-of-age science-fiction saga by Orson Scott Card, which tells the story of Andrew (Ender) Wiggin, a gifted child who masters computer war games and later realizes that he’s involved in a real war. He lists no other books on his profile.
Zuckerberg’s Facebook friends have access to his e-mail address and his cell-phone number. They can browse his photograph albums, like one titled “The Great Goat Roast of 2009,” a record of an event held in his back yard. They know that, in early July, upon returning from the annual Allen & Company retreat for Hollywood moguls, Wall Street tycoons, and tech titans, he became Facebook friends with Barry Diller. Soon afterward, Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page, “Is there a site that streams the World Cup final online? (I don’t own a TV.)”
Since late August, it’s also been pretty easy to track Zuckerberg through a new Facebook feature called Places, which allows users to mark their location at any time. At 2:45 A.M., E.S.T., on August 29th, he was at the Ace Hotel, in New York’s garment district. He was back at Facebook’s headquarters, in Palo Alto, by 7:08 P.M. On August 31st at 10:38 P.M., he and his girlfriend were eating dinner at Taqueria La Bamba, in Mountain View.
Zuckerberg may seem like an over-sharer in the age of over-sharing. But that’s kind of the point. Zuckerberg’s business model depends on our shifting notions of privacy, revelation, and sheer self-display. The more that people are willing to put online, the more money his site can make from advertisers. Happily for him, and the prospects of his eventual fortune, his business interests align perfectly with his personal philosophy. In the bio section of his page, Zuckerberg writes simply, “I’m trying to make the world a more open place.”
The world, it seems, is responding. The site is now the biggest social network in countries ranging from Indonesia to Colombia. Today, at least one out of every fourteen people in the world has a Facebook account. Zuckerberg, meanwhile, is becoming the boy king of Silicon Valley. If and when Facebook decides to go public, Zuckerberg will become one of the richest men on the planet, and one of the youngest billionaires. In the October issue of Vanity Fair, Zuckerberg is named No. 1 in the magazine’s power ranking of the New Establishment, just ahead of Steve Jobs, the leadership of Google, and Rupert Murdoch. The magazine declared him “our new Caesar.”
Despite his goal of global openness, however, Zuckerberg remains a wary and private person. He doesn’t like to speak to the press, and he does so rarely. He also doesn’t seem to enjoy the public appearances that are increasingly requested of him. Backstage at an event at the Computer History Museum, in Silicon Valley, this summer, one of his interlocutors turned to Zuckerberg, minutes before they were to appear onstage, and said, “You don’t like doing these kinds of events very much, do you?” Zuckerberg replied with a terse “No,” then took a sip from his water bottle and looked off into the distance.
This makes the current moment a particularly awkward one. Zuckerberg, or at least Hollywood’s unauthorized version of him, will soon be starring in a film titled “The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin. The movie, which opens the New York Film Festival and will be released on October 1st, will be the introduction that much of the world gets to Zuckerberg. Facebook profiles are always something of a performance: you choose the details you want to share and you choose whom you want to share with. Now Zuckerberg, who met with me for several in-person interviews this summer, is confronting something of the opposite: a public exposition of details that he didn’t choose. He does not plan to see the film.
Zuckerberg––or Zuck, as he is known to nearly everyone of his acquaintance––is pale and of medium build, with short, curly brown hair and blue eyes. He’s only around five feet eight, but he seems taller, because he stands with his chest out and his back straight, as if held up by a string. His standard attire is a gray T-shirt, bluejeans, and sneakers. His affect can be distant and disorienting, a strange mixture of shy and cocky. When he’s not interested in what someone is talking about, he’ll just look away and say, “Yeah, yeah.” Sometimes he pauses so long before he answers it’s as if he were ignoring the question altogether. The typical complaint about Zuckerberg is that he’s “a robot.” One of his closest friends told me, “He’s been overprogrammed.” Indeed, he sometimes talks like an Instant Message—brusque, flat as a dial tone—and he can come off as flip and condescending, as if he always knew something that you didn’t. But face to face he is often charming, and he’s becoming more comfortable onstage. At the Computer History Museum, he was uncommonly energetic, thoughtful, and introspective—relaxed, even. He addressed concerns about Facebook’s privacy settings by relaying a personal anecdote of the sort that his answers generally lack. (“If I could choose to share my mobile-phone number only with everyone on Facebook, I wouldn’t do it. But because I can do it with only my friends I do it.”) He was self-deprecating, too. Asked if he’s the same person in front of a crowd as he is with friends, Zuckerberg responded, “Yeah, same awkward person.”
Zuckerberg grew up in a hilltop house in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Attached to the basement is the dental office of his father, Edward Zuckerberg, known to his patients as “painless Dr. Z.” (“We cater to cowards,” his Web site reads.) There’s a hundred-and-sixty-gallon fish tank in the operating room, and the place is packed with marine-oriented tchotchkes that Dr. Zuckerberg’s patients have brought him. Mark’s mother, Karen, is a psychiatrist who stopped practicing to take care of the children and to work as her husband’s office manager.
Edward was an early user of digital radiography, and he introduced Atari BASIC computer programming to his son. The house and the dental office were full of computers. One afternoon in 1996, Edward declared that he wanted a better way of announcing a patient’s arrival than the receptionist yelling, “Patient here!” Mark built a software program that allowed the computers in the house and the office to send messages to one another. He called it ZuckNet, and it was basically a primitive version of AOL Instant Messenger, which came out the following year. The receptionist used it to ping Edward, and the kids used it to ping each other. One evening while Donna was working in her room, downstairs, a screen popped up: the computer contained a deadly virus and would blow up in thirty seconds. As the machine counted down, Donna ran up the stairs shouting, “Mark!”
Some kids played computer games. Mark created them. In all of our talks, the most animated Zuckerberg ever got—speaking with a big smile, almost tripping on his words, his eyes alert—was when he described his youthful adventures in coding. “I had a bunch of friends who were artists,” he said. “They’d come over, draw stuff, and I’d build a game out of it.” When he was about eleven, his parents hired a computer tutor, a software developer named David Newman, who came to the house once a week to work with Mark. “He was a prodigy,” Newman told me. “Sometimes it was tough to stay ahead of him.” (Newman lost track of Zuckerberg and was stunned when he learned during our interview that his former pupil had built Facebook.) Soon thereafter, Mark started taking a graduate computer course every Thursday night at nearby Mercy College. When his father dropped him off at the first class, the instructor looked at Edward and said, pointing to Mark, “You can’t bring him to the classroom with you.” Edward told the instructor that his son was the student.
Mark was not a stereotypical geek-klutz. At Exeter, he became captain of the fencing team. He earned a diploma in classics. But computers were always central. For his senior project at Exeter, he wrote software that he called Synapse. Created with a friend, Synapse was like an early version of Pandora—a program that used artificial intelligence to learn users’ listening habits. News of the software’s existence spread on technology blogs. Soon AOL and Microsoft made it known that they wanted to buy Synapse and recruit the teen-ager who’d invented it. He turned them down.
Zuckerberg decided, instead, to enter Harvard, in the fall of 2002. He arrived in Cambridge with a reputation as a programming prodigy. He sometimes wore a T-shirt with a little ape on it and the words “Code Monkey.” He joined the Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi, and, at a Friday-night party there, Zuckerberg, then a sophomore, met his current girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, a Chinese-American from the Boston suburbs. They struck up a conversation while waiting in line for the bathroom. “He was this nerdy guy who was just a little bit out there,” Chan told me. “I remember he had these beer glasses that said ‘pound include beer dot H.’ It’s a tag for C++. It’s like college humor but with a nerdy, computer-science appeal.”
Zuckerberg had a knack for creating simple, addictive software. In his first week as a sophomore, he built CourseMatch, a program that enabled users to figure out which classes to take based on the choices of other students. Soon afterward, he came up with Facemash, where users looked at photographs of two people and clicked a button to note who they thought was hotter, a kind of sexual-playoff system. It was quickly shut down by the school’s administration. Afterward, three upperclassmen—an applied-math major from Queens, Divya Narendra, and twins from Greenwich, Connecticut, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss—approached Zuckerberg for assistance with a site that they had been working on, called Harvard Connection.
Zuckerberg helped Narendra and the Winklevoss twins, but he soon abandoned their project in order to build his own site, which he eventually labelled Facebook. The site was an immediate hit, and, at the end of his sophomore year, Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard to run it.
As he tells the story, the ideas behind the two social networks were totally different. Their site, he says, emphasized dating, while his emphasized networking. The way the Winklevoss twins tell it, Zuckerberg stole their idea and deliberately kept them from launching their site. Tall, wide-shouldered, and gregarious, the twins were champion rowers who competed in the Beijing Olympics; they recently earned M.B.A.s from Oxford. “He stole the moment, he stole the idea, and he stole the execution,” Cameron told me recently. The dispute has been in court almost since Facebook was launched, six years ago. Facebook eventually reached a settlement, reportedly worth sixty-five million dollars, with the Winklevosses and Narendra, but they are now appealing for more, claiming that Facebook misled them about the value of the stock they would receive.
To prepare for litigation against the Winklevosses and Narendra, Facebook’s legal team searched Zuckerberg’s computer and came across Instant Messages he sent while he was at Harvard. Although the IMs did not offer any evidence to support the claim of theft, according to sources who have seen many of the messages, the IMs portray Zuckerberg as backstabbing, conniving, and insensitive. A small group of lawyers and Facebook executives reviewed the messages, in a two-hour meeting in January, 2006, at the offices of Jim Breyer, the managing partner at the venture-capital firm Accel Partners, Facebook’s largest outside investor.
The technology site Silicon Alley Insider got hold of some of the messages and, this past spring, posted the transcript of a conversation between Zuckerberg and a friend, outlining how he was planning to deal with Harvard Connect:
FRIEND: so have you decided what you are going to do about the websites?
ZUCK: yea i’m going to fuck them
ZUCK: probably in the year
ZUCK: *ear
In another exchange leaked to Silicon Alley Insider, Zuckerberg explained to a friend that his control of Facebook gave him access to any information he wanted on any Harvard student:
ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don’t know why
ZUCK: they “trust me”
ZUCK: dumb fucks
According to two knowledgeable sources, there are more unpublished IMs that are just as embarrassing and damaging to Zuckerberg. But, in an interview, Breyer told me, “Based on everything I saw in 2006, and after having a great deal of time with Mark, my confidence in him as C.E.O. of Facebook was in no way shaken.” Breyer, who sits on Facebook’s board, added, “He is a brilliant individual who, like all of us, has made mistakes.” When I asked Zuckerberg about the IMs that have already been published online, and that I have also obtained and confirmed, he said that he “absolutely” regretted them. “If you’re going to go on to build a service that is influential and that a lot of people rely on, then you need to be mature, right?” he said. “I think I’ve grown and learned a lot.”
Zuckerberg’s sophomoric former self, he insists, shouldn’t define who he is now. But he knows that it does, and that, because of the upcoming release of “The Social Network,” it will surely continue to do so. The movie is a scathing portrait, and the image of an unsmiling, insecure, and sexed-up young man will be hard to overcome. Zuckerberg said, “I think a lot people will look at that stuff, you know, when I was nineteen, and say, ‘Oh, well, he was like that. . . . He must still be like that, right?’ ”
In Hollywood’s version, the early founding of Facebook is, as Sorkin said in an interview, “a classical story of friendship, loyalty, betrayal, and jealousy.” Sorkin described Zuckerberg as a “brilliant guy who’s socially awkward and who’s got his nose up against the window of social life. It would seem he badly wanted to get into one of these final clubs”—one of the exclusive, élite-within-élite party clubs at Harvard. The Winklevoss twins were members of the Porcellian Club, the most prestigious.
In the movie’s opening scene, according to a script that was leaked online, Zuckerberg and his girlfriend, Erica, a student at Boston University, sit in a campus bar, exchanging disparaging zingers. (“You don’t have to study,” he tells her. “How do you know I don’t have to study?” she asks. “Because you go to B.U.!”) Erica takes his hand, stares at him and says, “Listen. You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”
The movie is based on “The Accidental Billionaires,” by Ben Mezrich, a book about the founding of Facebook. Mezrich is also the author of a best-seller, published in 2003, about college students striking it rich. The book, titled “Bringing Down the House,” used invented scenes, composite characters, and re-created dialogue. The new book has been criticized for using similar methods. Mezrich says that the book is not “an encyclopedic” description of Facebook’s founding but is nevertheless “a true story that Zuckerberg would rather not be told,” written in what he called a “thriller-esque style.” The book draws heavily on interviews that Mezrich conducted with Eduardo Saverin, Facebook’s initial business manager, who had a falling out with Zuckerberg and sued him. Mezrich did not talk to Zuckerberg. (The producer of “The Social Network,” Scott Rudin, tried to talk to Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives, but he was rebuffed.) Mezrich sold the movie rights to the book even before it was completed. He called Sorkin his “first reader,” and handed over chapters as soon as he finished them.
Sorkin said that creating Zuckerberg’s character was a challenge. He added that the college students were “the youngest people I’ve ever written about.” Sorkin, who is forty-nine, says that he knew very little about social networking, and he professes extreme dislike of the blogosphere and social media. “I’ve heard of Facebook, in the same way I’ve heard of a carburetor,” he told me. “But if I opened the hood of my car I wouldn’t know how to find it.” He called the film “The Social Network” ironically. Referring to Facebook’s creators, Sorkin said, “It’s a group of, in one way or another, socially dysfunctional people who created the world’s great social-networking site.”
Sorkin insisted that “the movie is not meant as an attack” on Zuckerberg. As he described it, however, Zuckerberg “spends the first one hour and fifty-five minutes as an antihero and the last five minutes as a tragic hero.” He added, “I don’t want to be unfair to this young man whom I don’t know, who’s never done anything to me, who doesn’t deserve a punch in the face. I honestly believe that I have not done that.”
As it happens, Sorkin’s “The West Wing” is one of Zuckerberg’s favorite television shows. He discovered it while on a trip to Spain with Chan, whom he has been dating, with a brief interruption, since 2003. In Madrid, they both got sick, and ended up watching the first season of the show in bed. In a Spanish department store, they bought DVDs of the six other seasons and eventually watched them all. Zuckerberg said that he liked the authenticity of the series—the way it captured the truth, at least as friends of his described it, of working in Washington.
I told Sorkin that his TV series was one of Zuckerberg’s favorites. He paused. “I wish you hadn’t told me that,” he said finally. When I asked Sorkin to guess the episode that Zuckerberg liked best, he said, “The Lemon-Lyman episode”—the one in Season Three where Josh Lyman, the deputy chief of staff, played by Bradley Whitford, discovers that he has a following on an online message board and unwisely interacts with its members.
Actually, Zuckerberg’s favorite episode, he told me, was “Two Cathedrals,” at the end of Season Two, in which Martin Sheen, who plays President Josiah Bartlet, grieves at the death of his longtime secretary and, after disclosing that he has multiple sclerosis, ponders whether he should seek reëlection. He is inside the National Cathedral and orders that it be temporarily sealed. He curses God in Latin and lights a cigarette. “It’s, like, even in journeys like Facebook, we’ve had some very serious ups and downs,” Zuckerberg said.
Zuckerberg says that many of the details he has read about the film are just wrong. (He had, for example, no interest in joining any of the final clubs.) When pressed about the movie and what it means for his public persona, he responded coolly: “I know the real story.”
A few days after we spoke, Zuckerberg changed his Facebook profile, removing “The West Wing” from his list of favorite TV shows.
On a recent Thursday afternoon, Zuckerberg took me for a stroll around the neighborhood in Palo Alto where he both lives and works. As he stepped out of the office and onto a street of expensive houses, he told me about his first trip to Silicon Valley. It was during winter break in January, 2004, a month before Facebook’s launch. He was nineteen. “I remember flying in, driving down 101 in a cab, and passing by all these tech companies like Yahoo!,” he said. His gray T-shirt was emblazoned with the word “hacker.” “I remember thinking, Maybe someday we’ll build a company. This probably isn’t it, but one day we will.”
We arrived at his house. Parked outside was a black Acura TSX, which he bought a couple of years ago, after asking a friend to suggest a car that would be “safe, comfortable, not ostentatious.” He drives a lot to relax and unwind, his friends say, and usually ends up at Chan’s apartment. She lives not far from Golden Gate Park and is a third-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco. They spend most weekends together; they walk in the park, go rowing (he insists that they go in separate boats and race), play bocce or the board game the Settlers of Catan. Sundays are reserved for Asian cuisine. They usually take a two-week trip abroad in December. This year, they’re planning to visit China.
Zuckerberg has found all his homes on Craigslist. His first place was a sparse one-bedroom apartment that a friend described as something like a “crack den.” The next apartment was a two-bedroom, followed by his current place, a two-story, four-bedroom house that he told me is “too big.” He rents. (“He’s the poorest rich person I’ve ever seen in my life,” Tyler Winklevoss said.) As we crossed the driveway, we spotted Chan, sitting on a chair in the back yard, a yellow highlighter in her hand, reading a textbook; she plans to be a pediatrician. There was a hammock and a barbecue grill nearby. Surprised, Zuckerberg approached her and rubbed her right shoulder. “I didn’t know you were going to be here,” he said. She touched his right hand and smiled.
He walked into the house, which is painted in various shades of blue and beige, except for the kitchen, which is a vibrant yellow. Colors don’t matter much to Zuckerberg; a few years ago, he took an online test and realized that he was red-green color-blind. Blue is Facebook’s dominant color, because, as he said, “blue is the richest color for me—I can see all of blue.” Standing in his kitchen, leaning over the sink, he offered me a glass of water.
He returned the conversation to the winter of 2004, describing how he and his friends “would hang out and go together to Pinocchio’s, the local pizza place, and talk about trends in technology. We’d say, ‘Isn’t it obvious that everyone was going to be on the Internet? Isn’t it, like, inevitable that there would be a huge social network of people?’ It was something that we expected to happen. The thing that’s been really surprising about the evolution of Facebook is—I think then and I think now—that if we didn’t do this someone else would have done it.”
Zuckerberg, of course, did do it, and one of the reasons that he has held on to it is that money has never seemed to be his top priority. In 2005, MTV Networks considered buying Facebook for seventy-five million dollars. Yahoo! and Microsoft soon offered much more. Zuckerberg turned them all down. Terry Semel, the former C.E.O. of Yahoo!, who sought to buy Facebook for a billion dollars in 2006, told me, “I’d never met anyone—forget his age, twenty-two then or twenty-six now—I’d never met anyone who would walk away from a billion dollars. But he said, ‘It’s not about the price. This is my baby, and I want to keep running it, I want to keep growing it.’ I couldn’t believe it.”
Looking back, Chan said she thought that the time of the Yahoo! proposal was the most stressful of Zuckerberg’s life. “I remember we had a huge conversation over the Yahoo! deal,” she said. “We try to stick pretty close to what our goals are and what we believe and what we enjoy doing in life—just simple things,” she said.
Friends expect Chan and Zuckerberg to marry. In early September, Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page, “Priscilla Chan is moving in this weekend. Now we have 2x everything, so if you need any household appliances, dishes, glasses, etc please come by and take them before we give them away.”
Facebook’s headquarters is a two-story building at the end of a quiet, tree-lined street. Zuckerberg nicknamed it the Bunker. Facebook has grown so fast that this is the company’s fifth home in six years—the third in Palo Alto. There is virtually no indication outside of the Bunker’s tenant. Upon walking in, however, you are immediately greeted by what’s called the Facebook Wall, playing off the virtual chalkboards users have on their profiles. One day in early August, the Wall was covered with self-referential posts. An employee, addressing the constant criticism of the site’s privacy settings, had written, “How do I delete my post??? Why don’t you care about my privacy? Why is the default for this app everyone??” Inside is a giant sea of desks—no cubicles, no partitions, just open space with small conference rooms named after bands (Run-DMC, New Edition, ZZ Top) and bad ideas (Knife at a Gunfight, Subprime Mortgage, Beacon—a controversial advertising system that Facebook introduced in 2007 and then scrapped).
Zuckerberg’s desk is near the middle of the office, just a few steps away from his glass-walled conference room and within arm’s length of his most senior employees. Before arriving each morning, he works out with a personal trainer or studies Mandarin, which he is learning in preparation for the trip to China. Zuckerberg is involved in almost every new product and feature. His daily schedule is typically free from 2 P.M. to 6 P.M., and he spends that block of time meeting with engineers who are working on new projects. Debate is a hallmark of the meetings; at least a dozen of his employees pointed out, unprompted, what an “intense listener” Zuckerberg is. He is often one of the last people to leave the office. A photograph posted by a Facebook employee over Labor Day weekend showed Zuckerberg sitting at a long table in a conference room surrounded by other workers—all staring at their computers, coding away.
In the early years, Facebook tore through a series of senior executives. “A revolving door would be an understatement—it was very unstable,” Breyer said. Within ten days of hiring an executive, Breyer told me, Zuckerberg would e-mail or call him and say that the new hire needed to get the boot. Things calmed down in March, 2008, when Zuckerberg hired Sheryl Sandberg, a veteran of Google who was the chief of staff for Lawrence Summers when he was Secretary of the Treasury. She joined Facebook as the company’s chief operating officer, and executives followed her from companies like eBay, Genentech, and Mozilla. A flood of former Google employees soon arrived, too.
Meanwhile, however, most of Zuckerberg’s close friends, who worked for Facebook at the start, have left. Adam D’Angelo, who has been friends with Zuckerberg since their hacking and programming days at Exeter, teamed up with another former Facebook employee, Charlie Cheever, to start Quora.com, a social network that aggregates questions and answers on various topics. Chris Hughes, Zuckerberg’s Harvard roommate, left to join the Obama campaign and later founded the philanthropic site Jumo.com.
In part, the exodus reflects the status that former Facebook employees have in the tech world. But the departures also point to the difficulty some people have working for Zuckerberg. It’s hard to have a friend for a boss, especially someone who saw the site, from its inception, as “A Mark Zuckerberg production”—the tag line was posted on every page during Facebook’s early days. “Ultimately, it’s ‘the Mark show,’ ” one of his closest friends told me.
In late July, Facebook launched the beta version of Questions, a question-and-answer product that seems to be a direct competitor of Quora. To many people, the move seemed a vindictive attack on friends and former employees. In an interview, Cheever declined to comment, as did Matt Cohler, another friend who left the company, and who invested in Quora.
Chris Cox, Facebook’s vice-president of product, said that Facebook Questions is not an attack on Quora. “We’ve been talking about questions being the future of the way people search for stuff, so it was a matter of time before we built it,” Cox told me. “Getting there first is not what it’s all about.” He added, “What matters always is execution. Always.”
Zuckerberg’s ultimate goal is to create, and dominate, a different kind of Internet. Google and other search engines may index the Web, but, he says, “most of the information that we care about is things that are in our heads, right? And that’s not out there to be indexed, right?” Zuckerberg was in middle school when Google launched, and he seems to have a deep desire to build something that moves beyond it. “It’s like hardwired into us in a deeper way: you really want to know what’s going on with the people around you,” he said.
In 2007, Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would become a “platform,” meaning that outside developers could start creating applications that would run inside the site. It worked. The social-game company Zynga—the maker of FarmVille and Mafia Wars—is expected to earn more than five hundred million dollars this year, most of it generated from people playing on Facebook. In 2008, Zuckerberg unveiled Facebook Connect, allowing users to sign onto other Web sites, gaming systems, and mobile devices with their Facebook account, which serves as a digital passport of sorts. This past spring, Facebook introduced what Zuckerberg called the Open Graph. Users reading articles on CNN.com, for example, can see which articles their Facebook friends have read, shared, and liked. Eventually, the company hopes that users will read articles, visit restaurants, and watch movies based on what their Facebook friends have recommended, not, say, based on a page that Google’s algorithm sends them to. Zuckerberg imagines Facebook as, eventually, a layer underneath almost every electronic device. You’ll turn on your TV, and you’ll see that fourteen of your Facebook friends are watching “Entourage,” and that your parents taped “60 Minutes” for you. You’ll buy a brand-new phone, and you’ll just enter your credentials. All your friends—and perhaps directions to all the places you and they have visited recently—will be right there.
For this plan to work optimally, people have to be willing to give up more and more personal information to Facebook and its partners. Perhaps to accelerate the process, in December, 2009, Facebook made changes to its privacy policies. Unless you wrestled with a set of complicated settings, vastly more of your information—possibly including your name, your gender, your photograph, your list of friends—would be made public by default. The following month, Zuckerberg declared that privacy was an evolving “social norm.”
The backlash came swiftly. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center cried foul. Users revolted, claiming that Facebook had violated the social compact upon which the company is based. What followed was a tug-of-war about what it means to be a private person with a public identity. In the spring, Zuckerberg announced a simplified version of the privacy settings.
I asked Zuckerberg about this during our walk in Palo Alto. Privacy, he told me, is the “third-rail issue” online. “A lot of people who are worried about privacy and those kinds of issues will take any minor misstep that we make and turn it into as big a deal as possible,” he said. He then excused himself as he typed on his iPhone 4, answering a text from his mother. “We realize that people will probably criticize us for this for a long time, but we just believe that this is the right thing to do.”
Zuckerberg’s critics argue that his interpretation and understanding of transparency and openness are simplistic, if not downright naïve. “If you are twenty-six years old, you’ve been a golden child, you’ve been wealthy all your life, you’ve been privileged all your life, you’ve been successful your whole life, of course you don’t think anybody would ever have anything to hide,” Anil Dash, a blogging pioneer who was the first employee of Six Apart, the maker of Movable Type, said. Danah Boyd, a social-media researcher at Microsoft Research New England, added, “This is a philosophical battle. Zuckerberg thinks the world would be a better place—and more honest, you’ll hear that word over and over again—if people were more open and transparent. My feeling is, it’s not worth the cost for a lot of individuals.”
Zuckerberg and I talked about this the first time I signed up for Facebook, in September, 2006. Users are asked to check a box to indicate whether they’re interested in men or in women. I told Zuckerberg that it took me a few hours to decide which box to check. If I said on Facebook that I’m a man interested in men, all my Facebook friends, including relatives, co-workers, sources—some of whom might not approve of homosexuality—would see it.
“So what did you end up doing?” Zuckerberg asked.
“I put men.”
“That’s interesting. No one has done a study on this, as far as I can tell, but I think Facebook might be the first place where a large number of people have come out,” he said. “We didn’t create that—society was generally ready for that.” He went on, “I think this is just part of the general trend that we talked about, about society being more open, and I think that’s good.”
Then I told Zuckerberg that, two weeks later, I removed the check, and left the boxes blank. A couple of relatives who were Facebook friends had asked about my sexuality and, at that time, at least, I didn’t want all my professional sources to know that I am gay.
“Is it still out?” Zuckerberg asked.
“Yeah, it’s still out.”
He responded with a flat “Huh,” dropped his shoulders, and stared at me, looking genuinely concerned and somewhat puzzled. Facebook had asked me to publish a personal detail that I was not ready to share.
In our last interview—this one over the phone—I asked Zuckerberg about “Ender’s Game,” the sci-fi book whose hero is a young computer wizard.
“Oh, it’s not a favorite book or anything like that,” Zuckerberg told me, sounding surprised. “I just added it because I liked it. I don’t think there’s any real significance to the fact that it’s listed there and other books aren’t. But there are definitely books—like the Aeneid—that I enjoyed reading a lot more.”
He first read the Aeneid while he was studying Latin in high school, and he recounted the story of Aeneas’s quest and his desire to build a city that, he said, quoting the text in English, “knows no boundaries in time and greatness.” Zuckerberg has always had a classical streak, his friends and family told me. (Sean Parker, a close friend of Zuckerberg, who served as Facebook’s president when the company was incorporated, said, “There’s a part of him that—it was present even when he was twenty, twenty-one—this kind of imperial tendency. He was really into Greek odysseys and all that stuff.”) At a product meeting a couple of years ago, Zuckerberg quoted some lines from the Aeneid.
On the phone, Zuckerberg tried to remember the Latin of particular verses. Later that night, he IM’d to tell me two phrases he remembered, giving me the Latin and then the English: “fortune favors the bold” and “a nation/empire without bound.”
Before I could point out how oddly applicable those lines might be to his current ambitions, he typed back:
again though
these are the most famous quotes in the aeneid
not anything particular that i found. ♦
||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| student a writes on the white board: mrs. chan
me: hey student a, i'm not married!
student a: oh right
student b runs up to me
student b: i knew you werent married! you look way to happy to be married!
“Teach me,
and I will forget. Show me, and I will remember. Involve me, and I will understand.”
| Mark Zuckerberg is, in Facebook-speak, “in a relationship.” Aol News introduces us to the Facebook founder’s “no-nonsense” girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, with five fun facts: They’ve been together since college: Where they met at a party, in line for the bathroom. Chan told the New Yorker Zuck seemed like a “nerdy guy who was just a little bit out there.” Zuckerberg once offered her a job: He was recruiting for “The Facebook,” as it was then called, on the Harvard campus. Chan’s response to his offer was to say sure and offer him a Twizzler, according to the Harvard Crimson. She’s on Facebook: Obviously. According to the page Aol says is hers, Chan likes cooking, photography, working with kids, Barack Obama, The Onion, Taylor Swift, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Harry Potter. Click for more on Chan, including the “rules” of her relationship with Zuckerberg. |
After delivering his State of the Union address on Jan. 30, President Trump told Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) that he will “100 percent” release a memo alleging abuse by the FBI. (The Washington Post)
After delivering his State of the Union address on Jan. 30, President Trump told Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) that he will “100 percent” release a memo alleging abuse by the FBI. (The Washington Post)
The FBI spoke out publicly Wednesday against a GOP memo criticizing the bureau’s use of surveillance authorities, challenging the classified document’s accuracy as the White House and congressional Republicans are expected to soon make its contents public.
“As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy,’’ the FBI said in a statement.
The bureau also said it carefully follows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides a legal framework for national security investigations.
“The FBI takes seriously its obligations to the FISA Court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are committed to working with the appropriate oversight entities to ensure the continuing integrity of the FISA process,’’ the statement said.
The public statement underscores the concerns among federal law enforcement officials and intelligence officials that the memo is an inaccurate attack on the FBI, and that its release will set a dangerous precedent for future releases of classified information that touches on political issues.
President Trump delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress inside the House Chamber on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. (Reuters)
The FBI statement follows President Trump’s Tuesday night statement that he would “100 percent” authorize the public release of a GOP memo of alleged surveillance abuses at the FBI and Department of Justice.
“There are no current plans to release the House Intelligence Committee’s memo,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday morning on CNN, noting that Trump had not “seen or been briefed” on the memo’s contents before he made those comments Tuesday night.
But later Wednesday morning, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly told Fox News radio that the memo will “be released here pretty quick,” just as soon as the White House’s national security lawyers finish “slicing and dicing and looking at it so that we know what it means.”
On Tuesday night, Trump promised to publicize the memo in comments to Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), who asked the president to “release the memo” as Trump was exiting the House chamber following his first State of the Union address.
“Oh yeah, oh, don’t worry,” Trump told him. “100 percent.”
The exchange was caught by television cameras filming his departure. A White House spokesman confirmed soon after that the president intended to release the memo.
The comments appeared to jump ahead of plans to assure critics that the White House is putting the memo through a formal vetting process before the president makes a decision. They are also the latest sign that Trump is out of step with parts of his administration when it comes to whether, or how, the memo ought to be made public.
After the House Intelligence Committee voted to release a classified memo created by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Republicans lauded the vote as a victory while Democrats criticized it as a political deception. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Sanders also insisted that the White house planned to “complete the legal and national security review that has to take place” before deciding whether the memo should be released.
“There’s always a chance” the memo won’t be released, Sanders said. “No one here is going to make a decision that jeopardizes national security.”
But since the memo issue emerged, Trump has been at odds with top federal law enforcement officials about whether it should be made public.
On Monday, the House Intelligence Committee voted along party lines to make the four-page document available to the public, something that will happen if Trump does not act to block its release within five days. Just before the vote, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who viewed the memo over the weekend, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, made a last-ditch plea to Kelly not to approve the House panel’s action, explaining that it could compromise intelligence gathering and set a dangerous precedent.
[Justice Department officials appealed to White House to halt release of memo alleging FBI abuses related to author of Trump dossier]
It was not the first time that Justice Department officials had warned that releasing the memo could compromise intelligence gathering sources and methods, and threaten national security. But at the White House, Trump made his desire to release the memo clear despite those warnings, prompting Kelly to apprise Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the president’s plans.
Conservative Republican members of Congress were sure days before that Trump would be on board with their campaign to publicize it. The push began shortly after the House Intelligence panel voted on the morning of Jan. 18 to make the memo available to members to read in a secure facility; that afternoon, leaders of the conservative House Freedom Caucus took a phone call from Trump in which they told him of the memo and their plans. Caucus members told of the conversation immediately afterward came away with the impression “that he would want it released . . . since it helps the president so much,” as Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) put it.
The memo was written by staffers for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) earlier this month, after the panel procured from the FBI and Justice Department long sought-after documents related to a now-famous dossier of allegations concerning Trump and his purported ties to Kremlin officials. Sanders told CNN Wednesday that Trump was “not aware of any conversation or coordination” between Nunes and the White House on the production or release of the memo, but she didn’t rule out the possibility entirely, saying: “I just don’t know the answer.”
The memo alleges that the former British spy who wrote the dossier, Christopher Steele, passed bad information to the FBI — though people familiar with the document said it does not determine whether he did so intentionally or by mistake. The memo alleges that information formed the basis for an application to conduct surveillance against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier, particularly since learning that Steele’s work was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Democrats, however, allege that the GOP memo is nothing but a hit job designed to weaken the federal law enforcement agencies behind special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including Trump’s alleged ties to Russian officials. They have prepared a memo countering the allegations in the GOP memo written by Nunes’s staff, but the Democrats’ document is only available to members to read in a secure facility.
John Wagner contributed to this report.
Read more at PowerPost ||||| (CNN) FBI Director Christopher Wray publicly clashed with President Donald Trump on Wednesday over a controversial Republican intelligence memo, furthering the rift between the President and the agency investigating ties between his campaign and Russia.
Wray sent a striking signal to the White House , issuing a rare public warning that the memo about the FBI's surveillance practices omits key information that could impact its veracity. The move set up an ugly confrontation between Wray and Trump, who wants the document released.
"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the FBI said in a statement. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
The dire warning stood in direct contrast to Trump, who has told his associates he wants the memo released to ensure full transparency. Earlier Wednesday, White House chief of staff John Kelly predicted the memo would be released "pretty quick" and that "the whole world will see it." Trump himself was overheard telling a Republican congressman after the State of the Union address on Tuesday he will "100%" release the memo
The FBI's unusual public warning came after two days of private meetings between top Justice Department and White House officials, where the FBI's entreaties to withhold the memo went largely unheeded by Trump's aides.
Officials from the Justice Department and FBI went to the White House on Tuesday to make a renewed effort to explain certain inaccuracies they see in the Nunes memo, according to a source familiar with the discussions. The effort came a day after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Wray made similar overtures to Kelly to delay a House Intelligence Commitee vote on releasing the memo.
Two administration officials told CNN the Nunes memo is not expected to be released Wednesday, but could be released as early as Thursday. Officials said the precise timing has not yet been decided and the memo remains under review.
Raising concerns
JUST WATCHED Trump says he will '100%' release Nunes memo Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump says he will '100%' release Nunes memo 00:40
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have raised concerns about the potential public release of the document, composed by the staff of Republican Congressman Devin Nunes of California. Those agencies have said the memo contains inaccuracies and does not paint a full picture of how the surveillance process works, according to two law enforcement sources.
Nunes, who was traveling Wednesday with fellow congressional Republicans aboard a train when it crashed into a dump truck , decried the FBI's public rebuke.
"Having stonewalled Congress' demands for information for nearly a year, it's no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies," Nunes said in a statement.
Asked about the FBI's statement during an Oval Office meeting with American taxpayers, Trump declined to respond.
The memo, which is currently being reviewed in a secure room at the White House, claims the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act over its use of the opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia as part of the case to obtain a highly classified warrant on former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, people familiar with the document say.
Democratic detractors claim the memo is an attempt to discredit officials overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Trump campaign connections to the Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The investigation has moved increasingly closer to Trump's inner circle, with a series of indictments handed down over the past two months.
Questions have also mounted about the White House's own role in creating the document. Trump's spokeswoman said Wednesday morning she didn't know whether any West Wing aides were involved in the memo's production.
"We have certainly coordinated with members of Congress as is appropriate. As to specifics on this, I just don't know the answer," press secretary Sarah Sanders said on CNN's "New Day." "I'm not aware of any conversations or coordination with Congressman Nunes."
During the House Intelligence Committee's business meeting on Monday to vote on releasing the Nunes memo, Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley pressed Nunes, the committee's chairman, about whether he or his staff had coordinated with the White House on the memo, according to a transcript of the meeting released on Wednesday.
"I would just answer, as far as I know, no," Nunes responded when asked whether he'd coordinated with the White House on the memo.
Quigley said Nunes became "quite agitated" when pressed whether any of his staffers were involved in producing the memo and refused to answer the question.
"The chair is not going to entertain a question by another member," Nunes said, according to the transcript.
Democratic suspicions that Nunes has coordinated with the White House stem from last year, when he took a secret trip to the White House to review intelligence gathered by two White House staffers about the "unmasking" of Trump's team in foreign intelligence collected during the Obama administration. Nunes then briefed Trump about his findings, despite the information coming from the White House.
The whole episode ultimately led to Nunes temporarily stepping aside as leader of the House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation amid an Ethics Committee investigation over whether he revealed classified information. Nunes was cleared by the committee in December.
Growing rift
Ahead of the FBI's statement on Wednesday, some Justice Department officials expressed concerns about publicly opposing the release of the memo, according to multiple officials. Trump had already been angered by a letter the Justice Department sent the House Intelligence Committee last week warning the release would be "extraordinarily reckless." The FBI issued the statement Wednesday anyway.
The memo also faces deep opposition inside intelligence agencies, multiple current and former intelligence officials tell CNN. The intelligence community's concerns are rooted in a fear that disclosing details of the FISA warrant process could reveal crucial elements of intelligence gathering, potentially causing foreign intelligence targets to change behavior to avoid surveillance in the future.
Specifically, these intelligence officials are concerned the memo will reveal what goes into a decision to monitor targets, including what kinds of communications are targeted, and how those communications are intercepted.
These intelligence officials emphasized that applications for FISA warrants would need to be based on law enforcement information as well as intelligence gathered independently by US intelligence agencies. That would include intercepted communications and would not meet the standard for approval if the applications were based largely or entirely on outside information, such as the dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele.
Republican lawmakers allege that the FISA warrant obtained to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Page was based in large part on the dossier, and that the judge who approved the application was not made aware to what degree the dossier played a role in the FBI request.
Review underway
JUST WATCHED Cardin: Nunes memo release would be dangerous Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Cardin: Nunes memo release would be dangerous 00:37
Administration officials cautioned that despite Trump's insistence the memo be released, the document will be reviewed to ensure that it does not compromise sources and methods.
"We are still going to complete the legal and national security review that has to take place before putting something out publicly," Sanders said Wednesday. "That is the place where we are right now."
The process could last up to five days, according to White House officials, but it is possible that they could approve publishing the document sooner.
To date, though, White House, National Security Council and intelligence agency officials have declined to comment on what goes into such a review process. An official told CNN that the document is currently being reviewed and the findings could be presented to Trump as early as Wednesday.
Whenever Trump does see the document, he won't likely see it in a vacuum. It will be accompanied by the relevant agencies weighing in on their interests and contextual underlying intelligence, if warranted.
But the details of how the review is being conducted are still unclear. Wray reviewed the memo over the weekend. Republican members have said that Wray did not raise any objections about inaccuracies at the time.
That said, the Nunes document, the source familiar with the discussion said, is subject to political considerations more so than a typical document that would be subject to this kind of interagency review.
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to state that Wray's clash with Trump happened Wednesday, not Tuesday. ||||| Tweet with a location
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more | The Washington Post calls it a "rare and remarkable standoff," and CNN says it's a "striking signal." Two days after House Republicans voted to release a memo regarding FBI surveillance and one day after President Trump was overheard saying he would release it, the FBI publicly came out opposing that plan. "We have grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy," the FBI said in a statement Wednesday. The memo prepared by staffers for Rep. Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, concerns the role of the so-called Steele dossier in federal surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Last week, the Justice Department warned the House Intelligence Committee that releasing it would be "extraordinarily reckless." The intelligence community worries making the classified document public would inform foreign targets how to avoid surveillance. FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met with Chief of Staff John Kelly on Monday in an attempt to prevent the memo from being released. And Democrats say the memo picks and chooses information to cast doubt on Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference and possible collusion by the Trump campaign. Regardless, Kelly told Fox News Radio on Wednesday that the memo will be released "pretty quick." |
A combative President Barack Obama blamed Republican lawmakers Friday for failing to stop automatic spending cuts that were to begin kicking in later in the day, calling the cuts "dumb, arbitrary."
President Barack Obama speaks to reporters in the White House briefing room in Washington, Friday, March 1, 2013, following after meeting with congressional leaders regarding the automatic spending cuts.... (Associated Press)
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks to reporters outside the White House in Washington, Friday, March 1, 2013, following a meeting with President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders regarding... (Associated Press)
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio enters the White House in Washington, Friday, March 1, 2013, for a meeting with President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders to discuss the automatic federal spending... (Associated Press)
Senate Democratic leaders finish a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, after answering questions about the impending automatic spending cuts that take effect March... (Associated Press)
In this Feb. 28, 2013, photo, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., joined by fellow House Democratic women, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, to talk about the... (Associated Press)
In this Feb. 28, 2013, photo, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio pauses while meeting with reporters during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, to answer questions about the impending automatic... (Associated Press)
Republicans said the fault was his, for insisting that increased taxes be part of the resolution.
The president said the impact of the cuts won't immediately be felt, but middle class families will begin to "have their lives disrupted in significant ways." He said that as long as the cuts stay in effect, Americans will know that the economy could have been better had they been averted.
"The pain, though, will be real," Obama said.
He said he still believed the cuts could be replaced but he wanted a deal that includes more tax revenue.
"Let's be clear: None of this is necessary," Obama told reporters at the White House. "It's happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. We shouldn't be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things."
Obama met for less than an hour Friday morning with House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.
Boehner's office said he and McConnell told Obama they're willing to close tax loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders have agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government beyond the end of March while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
"The president got his tax hikes on January 1st," Boehner said bluntly after the meeting with Obama. "The discussion about revenue in my view is over. It's about taking on the spending problem here in Washington."
On Thursday, two proposals aimed at blunting the blame over the cuts _ one Democratic and the other Republican _ were rejected in the Senate.
___
Follow Jim Kuhnhenn on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn ||||| President Obama warned Friday that the pain of the sequester “will be real.”He called the steep budget cuts “dumb” and “arbitrary” in a news conference following a meeting with Congressional leaders that failed to produce a solution to the budget impasse. (The Washington Post)
President Obama warned Friday that the pain of the sequester “will be real.”He called the steep budget cuts “dumb” and “arbitrary” in a news conference following a meeting with Congressional leaders that failed to produce a solution to the budget impasse. (The Washington Post)
President Obama acknowledged Friday that deep federal budget cuts are here with no end in sight, an outcome that he warned would harm the economy but said he lacked the power to stop.
A final attempt to find common ground with congressional leaders at a White House meeting proved fruitless. The president continued to press for higher taxes as part of a deal, and Republicans continued to refuse — clearing the way for $85 billion in cuts this fiscal year and $1.2 trillion over the next decade.
The reductions, which Obama formally ordered late Friday, are likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future. There had been speculation that they might be adjusted later this month, when lawmakers must agree on a new deal to fund the government or risk a shutdown. But Obama made clear Friday that he would seek to avoid a shutdown even if that means allowing the across-the-board cuts, known as the sequester, to continue.
The failure to reach a deal to turn off the sequester after years of clashes over spending and taxes will usher in an era of deeper austerity in the United States. To date, the country has resisted the sharp pullback in federal spending that has occurred in much of Europe.
The onset of the sequester also will introduce a new level of uncertainty for Americans who rely on the government for employment or services, with an outsize impact in the Washington region.
House Speaker John Boehner and other Congressional leaders met with President Barack Obama on Friday at the White House to discuss ways to avert steep budget cuts due to take effect the same day. (The Washington Post)
For Obama, the failure to reach a deal is a setback. He has spent years arguing that efforts to tame the nation’s debt should involve a balance of spending cuts and tax revenues. As things stand now, the onset of the sequester means that balance tilts heavily toward cuts.
Polls shows Obama has broad support among Americans for his approach to taxes and spending. Over coming weeks, senior administration officials said, he will highlight people and localities hurt by the sequester, with the intention of creating pressure to force Republicans to concede. But the president said that could take months.
“It’s happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made,” Obama said in the White House briefing room after the meeting with congressional leaders broke up. “They’ve allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit.”
The GOP is able to say it defied the president, avoiding his demand for new tax revenue. The standoff comes after deep intraparty divisions nearly tore House Republicans apart late last year in battles about whether to support tax increases.
Republicans can say they have forced greater restraint in government spending — although it is far from the arrangement most GOP leaders wanted. Republican leaders have warned that the sequester could damage national defense and expressed frustration that it does not apply to social programs such as Medicaid and Social Security.
Nonetheless, they say the cuts are preferable to tax increases.
“Let’s make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on January 1st,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said outside the White House, referring to new taxes on the wealthy approved in January. “This discussion about revenue, in my view, is over. It’s about taking on the spending problem here in Washington.”
The coming months will be a test of both sides’ strategy. Obama and his aides have associated the sequester with a the litany of horrors, from hundreds of thousands of job losses to steep pay cuts for Border Patrol agents and the Pentagon’s 900,000 civilian employees.
“Not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away,” Obama said. “The pain, though, will be real.”
But some Republicans have suggested that Obama has more flexibility than he is letting on, and that many Americans might not notice the impact of the sequester.
The stock market was unfazed, ending Friday flirting with record highs. Independent economists say the cuts are likely to slow growth and cost jobs, but the magnitude is less than in previous budget crises, such as the 2011 debt-limit battle.
The across-the-board cuts fall on the Defense Department and domestic agencies. Some major safety-net programs, including Medicaid and food stamps, are exempt. The president and Congress created the sequester in 2011 to force themselves to find smarter ways to reduce the deficit.
To replace the sequester, Obama demanded additional tax revenue this year as well as alternative cuts. Republicans declined to offer any new revenue.
The White House has been preoccupied with budget battles for more than two years, but Obama on Friday signaled a desire to move beyond the issue to pursue other priorities, such as immigration and gun control.
“The conversations that are taking place on a bipartisan basis around immigration reform are moving forward,” Obama said. “What I’m going to keep on trying to do is to make sure that we push on those things that are important to families. We won’t get everything done all at once, but we can get a lot done.”
Still, several major fiscal issues will linger. Republicans and Obama signaled a willingness Friday to continue to fund the government at sequester levels when a stopgap measure expires on March 27. Obama said that he expects a new stopgap measure to follow long-term spending caps agreed to in 2011, and that he would also abide by the sequester if an alternative is not found. “There’s no reason why we should have another crisis by shutting the government down,” Obama said.
Republicans plan to put forward a bill next week that would keep the government open past March, but fund it at the lower levels of sequestration.
But the truce could be upended if a group of conservatives get their way. Some conservatives are pressuring lawmakers to defund Obama’s health-care overhaul — an obvious red line for the White House.
Other looming potential battles include the need to raise the federal debt ceiling by midsummer and to find a way to fund the government past the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
“This is not a win for anybody,” Obama said of the sequester. “This is a loss for the American people.”
The short-term impact of the cuts started to emerge across the country Friday as officials prepared for their enactment. Governors, including Virginia’s, received letters from top administration officials warning about how their states would be affected by the cuts.
The Pentagon’s two top officials held a news conference to reiterate their position that budget reductions of $46 billion this fiscal year could inflict lasting damage on military readiness. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said he was particularly worried about the toll the cuts will take on the workforce of the country’s largest bureaucracy.
“Our number one concern are our people,” he said. “I know these budget cuts will cause pain.”
Katie Savant, 35, wife of a Marine artillery captain stationed at Twentynine Palms in San Bernadino, Calif., said that like many of the military wives with whom she socializes, she is unsure and worried about the sequester’s impact. There’s lots of “speculation and rumors” flying around the base,” Savant said. “The uncertainty of it all adds this extra level of stress.”
In the Texas border town of El Paso, the local economy relies heavily on federal workers, according to El Paso Chamber of Commerce President Richard E. Dayoub. Customs and Border Protection, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and the military all have a large presence there.
“Our community will face significant challenges because of the level of federal employees in this region,” Dayoub said. “If each one of those employees takes a 20 percent pay cut, that means not buying new cars and fewer nights our for dinner. It means less visits to the shopping mall.”
In addition to Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) attended Friday’s meeting.
William Branigin , Emily Heil, Rosalind Helderman, Josh Hicks, Ernesto Londoño, Lori Montgomery and Steve Vogel contributed to this report.
Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums. ||||| To say that the meeting between congressional leaders and President Barack Obama was unproductive might be an understatement.
And as the meeting wrapped up, a new reality began to take hold: The sequester may be here to stay.
Text Size -
+
reset Boehner meets with White House PHOTOS: Sequestration: Final day Play Slideshow
Next to no progress was made at the White House, said several sources familiar with the meeting, and both sides hewed closely to talking points, as $85 billion in budget cuts loom.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who has sworn off closed-door negotiations with the president, said inside the meeting that the House has acted twice in passing a bill to delay the sequester, so now it’s up to the Senate. Those bills were passed in the 112th Congress and are no longer operative.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) snapped back that “there is that pesky thing called the Constitution that says that was then, this is now.”
(Also on POLITICO: When does sequestration start?)
“You couldn’t pass it again,” Reid said, according to several sources.
President Barack Obama signaled Friday that he would not force a government shutdown in late March as a leverage point for resolving the standoff with Republicans.
(See also: Full coverage of the sequestration)
That means Obama’s strategy for turning off $85 billion in spending cuts set to kick in Friday now rests solely on the White House building enough public pressure onRepublicans for them to return to the negotiating table.
“There’s no reason why we should have another crisis by shutting the government down in addition to these arbitrary spending cuts,” Obama told reporters after meeting with congressional leaders.
It was long assumed that the White House and Congress would use the expiration of government funding on March 27 as a vehicle for replacing the indiscriminate cuts of the sequester with more targeted spending reductions — and, if the president got his way, fresh revenue from closing tax loopholes.
But with the president removing it as an option, a deal could be months away — a reality that Obama acknowledged Friday.
(PHOTOS: How sequestration could affect you)
“My hope is that, after some reflection, as members of Congress start hearing from constituents who are being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester’s having, that they step back and say, all right, is there a way for us to move forward on a package of entitlement reforms, tax reform, not raising tax rates, identifying programs that don’t work, coming up with a plan that’s comprehensive and that makes sense?” Obama said from the White House briefing room. “And it may take a couple of weeks, it may take a couple of months, but I’m just going to keep pushing on it.”
Obama spent an hour with congressional leaders, but it was clear they accomplished next to nothing. The meeting began at 10:18 — just a smidge more than 12 hours before the sequester was scheduled to begin —and ended at 11:10 a.m.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) emerged from the meeting reiterating that Republicans wouldn’t budge on revenues as part of a sequester solution. Instead, they want a replacement solely based on spending cuts.
(PHOTOS: Best lines from Obama’s sequestration presser)
“But let’s make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1,” Boehner said outside of the White House. This discussion about revenue, in my view, is over. It’s about taking on the spending problem here in Washington.” | No sequester kumbaya. President Obama and congressional leaders met for an hour this morning and made zero progress on striking a deal to avoid the automatic budget cuts, reports Politico. Their respective statements afterward tell the story: Obama: "Let's be clear: None of this is necessary," he said, reports AP. "It's happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. We shouldn't be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things." He warned that while not everyone will feel the cuts initially, "the pain ... will be real." John Boehner: He made clear that Republicans will not budge on tax increases as part of the president's "balanced" approach, reports the Washington Post. "The president got his tax hikes on January 1st. The discussion about revenue in my view is over. It's about taking on the spending problem here in Washington." He added that the House would put forth a continuing resolution next week to fund the government beyond March 27 to avoid a shutdown. The lack of progress means that at some point today, Obama will notify government agencies that sequestration is in effect, and the resulting cuts will begin to take shape in the coming days and weeks, reports the New York Times. Click for more on what to expect. |
Members of Congress have more choices and options available to communicate with constituents than they did 20 years ago. In addition to traditional modes of communication such as townhall meetings, telephone calls, and postal mail, Members can now engage their constituents via email, websites, tele-townhalls, online videos, social networking sites, and other electronic-based communications applications. The rise of electronic communications has altered the traditional patterns of communication between Members and constituents. Although virtually all Members continue to use traditional communications tools, the use of new technology is increasing. For example, past research on the adoption of Twitter has shown that by August 2009, 29% of Members had adopted it. The percentages of Members who adopted had increased to 38% by September 2009, 57% by December 2010, and 79% by January 2012. By January 2013, 100% of Senators and 90% of Representatives had adopted Twitter. More recently, Members have begun to adopt video and picture sharing social media services. This report examines Members' use of one of these new electronic communications platforms: Vine. After providing an overview of Vine, the report analyzes patterns of Members' use of Vine. Finally, the report offers a discussion of the implications of the rise of video sharing services like Vine, and of social media more generally. Vine is a social media video sharing service, owned by Twitter, which allows users to create six-second videos that can be short snippets of conversation, a series of still shots, or a moving panorama that automatically repeats in a loop. These videos (Vines) can be shared with Vine followers and on Twitter and Facebook. Vine is primarily designed for use on mobile devices such as iPhone, Android, and Windows supported devices. Vine combines many features of Twitter—short posts and hashtags—with the ability to share short, looping videos or compilations of pictures. It also allows users to reach followers with both text and video images. Up to 140 characters of text can accompany a Vine post. This report analyses the following questions related to Members' use of Vine: What proportion of Members use Vine? How often do Members use Vine? What do Members Vine about? In June 2014, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) collected data on the adoption and use of Vine. To collect the data, CRS first determined which Representatives and Senators had registered with Vine. Using the Vine search engine, CRS searched for each Representative and Senator by name. The adoption data were the basis for analyzing Members' use of Vine. CRS examined all Vines for all registered Representatives and Senators to create a second dataset capturing Members' use of Vine. The unit of analysis of this second dataset was individual Vines. This dataset includes a total of 487 Vines. To categorize each Vine, CRS devised a comprehensive set of coding categories. The researchers then examined each Vine and recorded the appropriate coding results. Several caveats accompany the results presented. First, the analysis treats all Member Vines as structurally identical, because each individual Vine reveals no information about who physically took the video. In some cases, Members might personally appear in a Vine, whereas other Members might choose to highlight constituents, staff, or other items. CRS draws no distinction between the two. Second, as with any new technology, the number of Members using Vine and the patterns of use may change rapidly in short periods of time. Thus, the conclusions drawn from these data cannot be easily generalized. Finally, these results cannot be used to predict future behavior. As of June 25, 2014, 141 of all 541 Members of Congress (26.1%) had an account registered with Vine. This represents an increase from 105 Members (19.4%) who, according to a January 2014 CRS report, had adopted Vine. When examined by chamber, 21% of registered Members were found to be Senators and 79% Representatives. When examined by party, 57% of Vine-registered Members were found to be Republicans and 43% Democrats. The proportion of adoption by party is consistent with previous research on the adoption of other social media platforms—such as Twitter and Facebook. Figure 1 shows the percentage of Member adoption of Vine by political party and chamber. Earlier studies of social media adoption found that House Republicans were the most likely early adopters of Twitter. That finding also appears to be true for Vine; House Republicans had the most adoptions—with a total of 69 Members on Vine. Adoptions for House Democrats (42), Senate Democrats (19), and Senate Republicans (11), were lower. By percentage, the majority party in each chamber—the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats—had the highest proportion of Members adopt Vine. On February 6, 2013, the first Member Vine was posted. Between that date and June 25, 2014, a total of 487 Vines were posted by Representatives and Senators, for an average of 29 Vines per month. Representatives posted an average of 74 Vines per month. Senators posted an average of seven per month. Figure 2 shows the total number of Vines posted per month, divided by chamber. House Republicans posted a majority of the Vines (51%). Next were House Democrats (24%), then Senate Democrats (18%), and Senate Republicans (8%). Figure 3 shows the proportion of Vines by chamber and party. CRS created six major message categories for classifying Members' Vines: position taking, homestyle, official action, personal/family, information, and other. Each observed Member Vine post was coded as belonging in one category based on the primary contents of the message. Following are definitions of the categories: In these Vines, a Representative or Senator took a position on a policy or political issue. The expressed position could concern a specific bill under consideration or a general policy issue. The Member might or might not have appeared. These Vines featured a Representative or Senator highlighting the district in an official capacity. The Member could be discussing a trip, visit, or event in the district or state; highlighting a factory or district or state feature; or engaging in some other non-Washington official action, such as travel to or from the district. In these Vines, a Representative or Senator described, showed, or recounted an official action. Examples included signing letters, voting on the floor or in committee, and introducing legislation. These were Vines in which a Representative or Senator discussed events in his or her personal life or provided opinions concerning matters that were explicitly unrelated to the Member's work in Congress. In this category of Vines, a Representative or Senator gave factual information on a variety of topics, such as historical events, holidays, Congressional staff, or interns. The Member might or might not have appeared. Vines that did not fit into other categories were classified as "other." Figure 4 shows the percentages of total Vines posted by Representatives and Senators that were in the each of the six categories. Overall, position-taking Vines were the most common (33.5%). This category was followed by information (29.6%), then homestyle (16%), personal/family (11.7%), official action (7.1%), and other (2.3%). When Members were examined by chamber, Senators were found to have Vined most often about information (9%), followed by homestyle (7%), and personal/family and position taking (roughly 4% each). Representatives Vined most often about position taking (30%), followed by information (20%), and homestyle (9%). At this early stage of the Vine adoption and use process, Member posts are similar to early use of Twitter, when Members primarily used the platform to provide information, often in the form of press releases. Further, Members were visible in 53% of Vines overall, and 61% of Vines appear to have been recorded in the District of Columbia, judging from images of Members' offices, DC landmarks, and Members' tagging posts to indicate their locations. Vine provides an opportunity for Members to be seen directly by followers in a way that is not possible on Twitter—where it can be difficult to know whether the Member is personally tweeting or has delegated that action to a staff member. After coding each Vine for contents, CRS recorded the issue area that was mentioned in each of the position-taking Vines. Some Vines covered more than one issue. A total of 38 issue areas received mention in 163 Vines. Six issues were mentioned most frequently. They were: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (19 Vines—12%); immigration (19 Vines—12%); unemployment benefits (17 Vines—10%); better wage or minimum wage (17 Vines—10%); 2013 government shutdown (14 Vines—9%); and jobs (10 Vines—6%). The remaining 32 issues were each mentioned in six Vines or fewer. Overall, Members are using Vine to take positions on specific policy issues (see Figure 4 ). The most common issue areas generally reflect the contents of congressional media coverage; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, immigration, jobs, and the government shutdown have dominated media coverage of the 113 th Congress (2013-2014). The use of Vine by Members of Congress is an evolving phenomenon. As Members continue to embrace new technologies, their use of social media applications, like Vine and other platforms, may increase. Vine allows Members to communicate directly with constituents (and others) in a potentially interactive way that is not always possible using more traditional modes of communication. For Members and their staff, the ability to transmit real time information through videos and pictures, and observe how that information is shared across the Internet, could be influential for issue prioritization, policy decisions, and voting behavior. Unlike other forms of social media such as Twitter, Vine's emphasis is on visual instead of written communication. Whereas Twitter's focus is on communicating short bursts of information in 140 characters or fewer, Vine has the ability to translate those written thoughts into short series of pictures or videos that could potentially allow Members of Congress to disseminate their messages more effectively. One strength of social media, including Vine, is the potential for posts to go "viral," which would allow Members to communicate policy ideas, stake out positions, or announce events to an audience potentially far wider than just their followers. Further, Vine allows for a clear distinction between Member and staff postings. Twitter, and other text-centric social media platforms, can obscure whether posts are coming directly from a Representative or Senator or from a staff member. To combat this problem, some offices have the Member sign his or her tweets, often with initials, to indicate that the post came directly from the Member. For Vine, this process can be straightforward because a Member can appear on camera to deliver his or her message directly. If the Member does not appear in the Vine, then the public may assume that staff posted the message. Even with the ability to provide short video contents, Vine is currently not nearly as popular as Twitter or many other social media sites. While specific analysis on the percentage of adults using Vine is not currently available, the Pew Internet Research Project conducted a study on the use of Vine-like applications to watch videos on smartphones and the web. The Pew Project found that "... apps such as Vine are emerging which allow users to easily record and share short videos. Among online video consumers, 17% say they watch videos using a cell phone app like Vine. And among online video posters, 23% say that they have posted a video using this kind of app." The use of video sharing applications is becoming more popular. Consequently, the opportunities for Members of Congress to use these applications and websites to disseminate public policy positions and constituent services information are also increasing. How Members use social media continues to evolve. Some reports have suggested that Members are dedicating additional staff (or hiring new staff) to handle social media as part of their messaging and communications strategy. In the current budget climate, how Members allocate staff—especially in the House of Representatives, which limits the number of full time staff that a Member can hire—is crucial. If Members spend more resources on social media, the priorities of other representational functions possibly could change. Further research on the adoption and use of social media platforms—such as Vine—could provide insight into the changing approaches to representation, messaging to constituents and non-constituents, internal congressional communications (i.e., Members interacting with other Members through social media), and potential regulations. Also, while official Member communications cannot include campaign rhetoric, what Members say on official House or Senate social media accounts arguably can be used in elections. The impact of a video sharing service like Vine, as compared to a text-based service like Twitter, is unknown. Potential challengers could possibly use a Member's appearance in a Vine more directly than a Member's Twitter statement. The potential use of a Vine as part of a campaign commercial, for example, could alter a Member's decision on the type of contents included in future Vines. Electronic communications have also raised some concerns. While a complete discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this report, a few observations warrant mentioning. First, existing law and chamber regulations on the use of communications media such as the franking privilege have proven difficult to adapt to new electronic technologies. Currently, House regulations largely treat social media communications as similar to franked mail. Several key differences, however, exist between electronic communications and franked mail—most notably the lack of marginal cost for sending electronic communications, the inability to differentiate between constituents and non-constituents, the opt-in nature of social media, and the ability of campaign challengers to adopt and utilize identical applications. These factors raise questions about both the suitability and necessity of applying the franking model to social media communications. Second, the use of social media communications is rapidly changing. In 2012, Vine did not exist. Going forward, there is no way to predict whether Vine, or other similar video-sharing services, will continue to enjoy popularity. Policy makers thus may choose to seek general rather than specific structures when considering social media regulation, to avoid the need to revisit policies as new technologies are developed. Similarly, Members of Congress may choose to adopt social media platforms that provide similar user experiences in order to simplify messaging and the impact on staff time. | In the past 10 years, the rise of social media has expanded the number of options available for communication between Members of Congress and their constituents. Virtually all Members, including all 100 Senators, use Twitter as a tool to communicate legislative, policy, and official actions to interested parties; and the use of other forms of social media, including Facebook, has also proliferated. The adoption of these technologies has enhanced the ability of Members of Congress to fulfill their representational duties by providing greater opportunities for constituents to communicate with Members and their staff. Electronic communications have also raised some concerns. Existing law and chamber regulations on the use of communications media such as the franking privilege have proven difficult to adapt to new technologies. More recently, Members have begun to adopt video and picture sharing social media services. This report examines Members' use of one of these new electronic communications platforms: Vine. After providing an overview of Vine, the report analyzes patterns of Members' use of Vine. This report is inherently a snapshot of a dynamic process. As with any new technology, the number of Members using Vine and the patterns of use may change rapidly. Thus, the conclusions drawn from these data cannot be easily generalized, nor can these results be used to predict future behavior. For more information on the adoption and use of social media by Members of Congress, see CRS Report R43018, Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Members' Use of Twitter and Facebook During a Two-Month Period in the 112th Congress, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed] and CRS Report R43477, Social Media in the House of Representatives: Frequently Asked Questions, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |
Summer Zervos, right, listens to her attorney Gloria Allred during a news conference where she announced she has filed a defamation lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday in Los Angeles. (Mike Nelson/EPA)
A former contestant on the reality show “The Apprentice” filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against President-elect Donald Trump over his response to her allegations that he groped her during a job interview in 2007.
Summer Zervos, a California restaurant owner who appeared on the show in 2006, accused Trump of aggressively kissing and grabbing her when she went to his bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel to discuss a possible job at the Trump Organization a year later.
In her suit, Zervos alleges that Trump defamed her when he denied her account of their interactions in the hotel room, accusing her and other women who made similar accusations of lying and fabricating their accounts. Zervos said she would drop her lawsuit, which was filed in New York, without seeking monetary damages if Trump would retract his claim that she lied and acknowledge his actions.
[Read Summer Zervos’s legal complaint]
Zervos appeared at a Los Angeles news conference alongside her lawyer, Gloria Allred, who said Zervos took and passed a lie-
detector test before filing her suit.
(Reuters)
“Enough is enough,” Allred said. “Truth matters. Women matter. Those who allege they were victims of sexual misconduct or sexual assault by Mr. Trump matter.” Allred said that as the lawsuit proceeds, she would seek to depose Trump under oath and could also seek to subpoena recordings Trump made during tapings of “The Apprentice.”
Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded in a statement: “More of the same from Gloria Allred. There is no truth to this absurd story.”
Eleven women spoke publicly before the election, accusing Trump of inappropriately touching or kissing them. They stepped forward after Trump denied ever touching a woman without her consent during a presidential debate in October.
“Have you ever done those things?” Trump was asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, regarding comments Trump made during a taping of “Access Hollywood” in 2005, when he bragged about groping and kissing women without their prior permission. “I will tell you: No, I have not,” Trump responded.
During the campaign, Trump asserted that each of his accusers was lying and vowed to sue the women for making the claims.
“Total fabrication,” he said during a campaign rally in Gettysburg, Pa., in October. “The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”
Without evidence, he said the women were coordinating with the campaign of his rival, Hillary Clinton. He also mocked some of the women, suggesting they were not attractive enough for him to sexually harass.
Summer Zervos listens as her attorney Gloria Allred speaks during a news conference announcing the filing of a lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday in Los Angeles. (Mike Blake/Reuters)
[Here are the women who accused Donald Trump of inappropriate touching]
“Look at her, and look at her words. And you tell me what you think. I don’t think so,” Trump said at a rally about one of his accusers, a People Magazine reporter who said Trump shoved her against a wall and forcibly kissed her while she was at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate on assignment in 2005.
Trump has not yet filed suit against any of the women.
The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents can be sued while in office over their private conduct or activities before their election. The ruling came after President Bill Clinton sought to have a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Arkansas state worker Paula Jones delayed until after he left office.
The Clinton case shows the potential peril of such suits for a sitting president. Clinton ultimately settled with Jones, but allegations that he had lied under oath during a deposition in the matter about his relations with intern Monica Lewinsky led to his impeachment.
Trump has already settled other lawsuits to ensure they do not linger into his presidency. In November, he agreed to pay $25 million to settle lawsuits accusing his defunct real estate seminar program Trump University of fraud. He did not admit fault.
In her suit, Zervos asserted that she had gone to the Los Angeles hotel to discuss a possible job with Trump after he had been complimentary of her performance on the television show. In the room, she alleged that Trump kissed her aggressively and groped her breast. As she attempted to reject his advances, she said Trump steered her toward the bedroom, saying, “let’s lay down and watch some telly telly.”
“Come on man, get real,” she replied, according to the suit. Trump then “repeated her words back to her lasciviously, drawing out the second word and saying, ‘get reeeeal,’ as he began to press his genitals against her, trying to kiss her again,” the suit alleges.
Immediately after leaving Trump, Zervos told her father about the encounter, according to the suit.
Zervos said she excused Trump’s behavior for years, particularly because she was ultimately offered a job at the Trump Organization, but she had been compelled to step forward after hearing the presidential candidate brag to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush about behaving similarly with other women.
According to the suit, the tape convinced Zervos that Trump was “a sexual predator who had preyed on her and other women.” She claimed his dismissal of her as a “phony” and her account as a “hoax” had resulted in lost business for her restaurant and emotional distress.
Zervos is one of four of Trump’s accusers represented by Allred, who also represents more than two dozen women who have accused comedian Bill Cosby of sexual assault.
In the suit, Zervos alleges that Trump knew his statements were defamatory, not just because he knew the truth of their interactions but also because he knew “he engaged regularly in this kind of unwanted sexual touching for years, and that was, in fact, how he treated women routinely and how he lived his life.”
If the case is allowed to proceed, the claim could allow Allred to explore other allegations made by women against Trump. ||||| Just days before he's set to be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump has been hit with a defamation lawsuit from a former Apprentice contestant who says he engaged in sexually inappropriate contact with her.
Shortly before Election Day, Trump faced a barrage of sexual assault accusations from many women following the release of a bombshell video showing him boasting to Access Hollywood's Billy Bush about grabbing women's genitals. Sumner Zervos, who appeared on season five of The Apprentice, was one of the accusers. At that time, Trump responded at a rally in Pennsylvania, "All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."
Trump never sued. But Zervos hasn't let go.
On Tuesday, she appeared alongside her attorney Gloria Allred at a press conference to announce the suit, filed in New York.
Allred told The Hollywood Reporter in December that, even if Trump didn't follow up on his threat to sue his accusers for defamation, one of her clients might strike first.
Zervos accuses Trump of kissing her twice in 2007 and attacking her in a hotel room. According to her complaint, she confided in family and friends at the time. She alleges that Trump took an interest in mentoring her, and as a result, she "decided that Mr. Trump's behavior had either been an isolated set of incidents, or perhaps that he had even regretted the behavior. She continued to look up to him for his success as a businessman, and spoke highly of him after he announced his candidacy."
But that changed upon the revelation of the Access Hollywood tapes and the Oct. 9, 2016, debate where she alleges in the complaint, "Mr. Trump told the world a boldface lie: he stated in response to a direct question from Anderson Cooper that [he] had not ever done any of the things that he had bragged about to Billy Bush."
The complaint zeroes in on Trump's initial statement upon Zervos' allegation that he "never met [Ms. Zervos] at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately," along with tweets how his accuser "made up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED." She also points to comments of "100% fabricated and made-up charges," "totally false," and so forth, including, "Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign."
"In doing so, he used his national and international bully pulpit to make false factual statements to denigrate and verbally attack Ms. Zervos and the other women who publicly reported his sexual assaults in October 2016," states the complaint (read here). "Mr. Trump knew that his false, disparaging statements would be heard and read by people around the world, and that these women, including Summer Zervos, would be subjected to threats of violence, economic harm, and reputational damage. In his effort to win the Presidency and counter the damage to his election prospects caused by his own recorded words with Billy Bush, Mr. Trump knowingly, intentionally and maliciously threw each and every one of these women under the bus, with conscious disregard of the impact that repeatedly calling them liars would have upon their lives and reputations."
Zervos likely wouldn't be able to prevail in a lawsuit for sexual assault thanks to the statute of limitations. Instead, she's echoing the legal strategy by many of Bill Cosby's accusers by suing over comments that allegedly branded her a liar. To win, she will have to show that Trump's statements were "of and concerning" her. Zervos also will need to beat back a defense likely to come from the president-elect — that his statement represented opinion. As shown in the Cosby cases, courts throughout the nation have come to different judgments about whether denials of sexual assault charges are capable of defamatory meaning.
Just last week, the president-elect beat a libel lawsuit filed against him by political strategist Cheryl Jacobus. She sued for defamation after Trump tweeted that she begged him for a job and he turned her down. The judge there ruled that Trump's statements qualified as opinions. Right before the holidays, the president-elect cleared another legal mess from his plate and agreed to a $25 million settlement to resolve the Trump University fraud lawsuits.
Suing a sitting president is logistically complicated, and courts often are deferential to their schedules, but Zervos will take some hope from the Supreme Court's 1996 ruling in Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton. There, Justice John Paul Stevens decided that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect the president from the burdens of private litigation. Instead, it's possible that Trump may have to give a deposition that explores his history with women, although his attorneys will surely attempt to limit the scope of questioning.
Zervos is seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, plus an order that he retract defamatory statements and apologize.
Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a statement Tuesday afternoon in response to the suit: “More of the same from Gloria Allred. There is no truth to this absurd story.”
Jan. 17, 2:55 p.m. Updated with a statement from Trump's representative. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Daniella Silva
A woman who previously accused Donald Trump of unwanted sexual advances has filed a defamation lawsuit against the president elect — just three days before Trump’s presidential inauguration.
Summer Zervos, a former contestant on the “The Apprentice,” said in a press conference with attorney Gloria Allred in Los Angeles on Tuesday that she filed the lawsuit over allegedly false statements Trump made in response to her accusation.
Summer Zervos listens as her attorney Gloria Allred speaks during a news conference announcing the filing of a lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump in Los Angeles, Calif., on Jan. 17, 2017. Mike Blake / Reuters
The suit, filed Tuesday morning, claims Trump knew his statements about Zervos and his other accusers would subject them to “threats of violence, economic harm and reputational damage.”
Allred said Zervos would be willing to dismiss the lawsuit without any monetary damages if Trump agreed to retract his comments about her and admit that the accusations against him were in fact true.
“Ms. Zervos is willing to dismiss her lawsuit if he will retract his false statements about her and acknowledge that what Summer said about Mr. Trump and his alleged conduct is and was the truth,” she said.
Related: The Allegations Women Have Made Against Donald Trump
Zervos claimed in an October press conference that Trump sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions during a 2007 business meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
She said Trump made unwanted sexual advances toward her on multiple occasions during the meeting, kissing her on the lips, pressing himself against her and groping her breast and body without her consent.
Trump has vehemently denied the claims. In response to Tuesday's press conference, Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks provided the following statement to NBC News: "More of the same from Gloria Allred. There is no truth to this absurd story."
On the campaign trail, Trump said Zervos and his other accusers were liars, according to the lawsuit, and that she and the other women were motivated to come forward by the promise of “ten minutes of fame.”
“In doing so, he used his national and international bully pulpit to make false factual statements to denigrate and verbally attack Ms. Zervos and the other women who publicly reported his sexual assaults in October 2016,” the lawsuit said.
Allred said at the press conference on Tuesday that Zervos told friends and family about the incident at the time, but did not go public at the time because she decided her behavior had either been “an aberration or a test” or that Trump felt guilty about his behavior.
That all changed in the wake of the October release of a leaked video from 2005, where Trump bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent. After the video and Trump’s statements during the Oct. 9th presidential debate in which he denied he had ever done any of the things he bragged about, Zervos decided to take action, according to the lawsuit.
Related: Ex-’Apprentice’ Contestant Summer Zervos Says Trump Made Unwanted Sexual Advances
“For the first time, Summer Zervos saw Mr. Trump’s behavior towards her for what it was: that of a sexual predator who had preyed on her and other women,” the lawsuit says.
Following Zervos’ allegations, Trump released a statement from a man claiming to be her cousin which refuted her claims. But Zervos fought back with another press conference in which a social worker and friend of Zervos said the former “Apprentice” contestant told her about the claims more than five years ago.
Prior to the release of the tape, a handful of women have accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault for decades, including in court filings. The number of women has seen since grown in the wake of the tape’s release.
The video prompted a firestorm of controversy during the 2016 presidential campaign and an outcry from women’s rights groups.
Trump has since denied that he engaged in the behavior described in the tape and has said all of the accusations against him are false.
Zervos' suit also alleges emotional distress and is seeking financial damages. | During the election, eleven women accused Donald Trump of inappropriate touching or kissing, the Washington Post reports. Now one of them has sued him. According to NBC News, Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit against the president-elect on Tuesday. Zervos, a former contestant on The Apprentice, claims Trump kissed her on the lips, pressed himself against her, and groped her breast without her permission during a 2007 meeting about a job with the Trump Organization. In response to the accusations, Trump called Zervos and the other women liars in search of their "ten minutes of fame." "All of these liars will be sued after the election is over," the Hollywood Reporter quotes Trump as saying during a rally in the fall. Now Zervos' lawyer, Gloria Allred, says Trump knew his comments would open the women up to "threats of violence, economic harm, and reputational damage." She's seeking to depose Trump under oath and seek recordings made during filming of The Apprentice. However, Allred says Zervos will dismiss her defamation suit if Trump admits her accusations about him are true. "Truth matters," the Post quotes Allred as saying. "Women matter." Allred says Zervos told her family and friends about the alleged assault when it happened and has passed a lie-detector test. Zervos says she decided to come forward after Trump was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women's genitals. Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks calls the allegations "absurd." |
In recent years, federal agencies, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, GAO, and others have documented hundreds of secret, intentional government releases of radiation and other pollutants into the environment in connection with the Cold War. The releases occurred in the years after World War II at locations around the country, including Tennessee, New Mexico, Washington, Alaska, and Utah. (See app. I.) Such releases typically occurred at remote federal installations, in an era when there was little federal or state environmental regulation of such activities. Today, an extensive environmental oversight framework is in place. In accordance with NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations, and the Clean Air Act, EPA shares with CEQ the responsibility for overseeing federal agencies’ environmental planning, including their classified planning. For example, under NEPA, federal agencies must assess the environmental impact of major federal actions significantly affecting the environment before they proceed and must submit environmental impact statements (EIS) for review by the public and other federal agencies; EPA is supposed to review these EISs, including those portions containing classified information. CEQ, within the Executive Office of the President, conducts administrative oversight of agencies’ NEPA programs. NEPA also places public disclosure requirements on agencies. However, NEPA and its implementing regulations allow agencies to avoid public disclosure of classified proposals in the interest of national security. NEPA still requires agencies to prepare EISs and other NEPA assessments for classified actions, but CEQ regulations allow agencies to segregate information from public oversight in fully classified EIS documents or appendixes. Federal agencies are also subject to the requirements of federal pollution control laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has a mandate to oversee the enforcement of the environmental laws at federal facilities, including those that conduct highly classified research operations. EPA’s Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement is the agency’s focal point for enforcement, including developing strategies and participating in enforcement oversight and litigation. EPA has some resources for inspecting highly classified facilities and storing classified documents, including headquarters and field personnel with the appropriate security clearances. Under some laws, such as the Clean Water Act and RCRA, EPA can authorize states to carry out their own program for these laws if they meet certain requirements. Whether EPA or a state acts as the regulatory authority, federal agencies with facilities that are releasing pollutants into the environment must obtain required permits and are subject to inspections and enforcement actions. Radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act are exempt from RCRA and the Clean Water Act. DOE regulates these materials under its Atomic Energy Act authority. Over the years, we have issued numerous reports addressing how well various EPA, DOE, and DOD programs implement this framework. (See app. II.) We found that although EPA was given many additional pollution prevention, control, abatement, and enforcement initiatives, its budget for carrying out these activities did not keep pace with the increased responsibilities. The Advisory Committee’s report therefore recommended that (1) an independent panel review planned secret environmental releases and (2) EPA permanently keep key documents related to its environmental oversight of classified programs and report periodically to the Congress on its oversight of such programs. A February 1996 draft response by the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group questions the need for the recommended independent review panel but agrees that EPA should keep permanent files of key environmental documents. EPA has responsibilities for overseeing federal facilities’ activities, including classified federal research planning and operations. However, the agency’s capability to conduct such oversight is limited. In large measure, under NEPA and other laws, EPA relies on the agencies themselves to have their own internal environmental monitoring programs. In part because of secrecy requirements, EPA is especially dependent on the cooperation of agencies in identifying their facilities and activities and reporting on the environmental impacts of their classified research planning and operations. EPA’s Office of Federal Activities reviews hundreds of EISs each year, but according to activities office staff, only a tiny fraction of these—perhaps two or three a year—are either partially or fully classified. According to EPA, classified EISs are submitted almost exclusively by DOE and DOD. The activities office has two people with high-level clearances who review these classified EISs. EPA does not keep records of classified EISs that have been sent to it for review and does not store them, although it does have some classified storage capability. Classified EISs are stored at the agencies themselves. Officials in EPA’s activities office said there is little incentive to establish such recordkeeping or more such storage at EPA because classified EIS submittals are rare. Neither EPA nor CEQ has the responsibility or the resources to closely monitor and direct the EIS submittal process. Agencies are required to submit unclassified and classified EISs for EPA’s review, but according to activities office officials, EPA is not charged with conducting outreach to ensure that all such EISs are submitted. Also, EPA is not responsible for reviewing the thousands of other lower level environmental planning documents—such as environmental assessments—which agencies generate each year; its review is limited to EISs, which are required for “major” actions only. As a result, EPA activities office staff said their overview of agencies’ internal NEPA planning is very limited. According to EPA records and activities office officials, historically some agencies have not been sending EISs to EPA for review, either classified or unclassified, as required. Such agencies include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Defense Intelligence Agency. According to EPA officials who have been assigned the responsibility to review EIS’s for the CIA and NSA over the past several years, they have not had contact with these agencies concerning EISs and do not know who these agencies’ liaisons are for NEPA matters. Furthermore, environmental compliance officials within the agencies may not be reviewing all classified research activities. According to a responsible Air Force NEPA compliance official, although his office is charged with reviewing classified EISs internally, historically the office has rarely received such documents for review. He said his office may not have a need-to-know for all such documents. He also could not recall his office receiving for review any unclassified or classified NEPA documents prepared for proposed projects at the classified Air Force operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada. Agencies may conduct environmental planning secretly, and a proposed action may proceed without prior public comment. For example, in 1994, the government conducted Project Sapphire, a classified nuclear nonproliferation action that transferred highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan in the former Soviet Union to storage at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE conducted internal NEPA planning for Project Sapphire in the form of a detailed classified environmental assessment, but because it was an environmental assessment and not an EIS, EPA was not required to review the assessment and prior public comment was not possible for national security reasons. The public was fully apprised of the Project Sapphire environmental assessment after the uranium transfer was completed. According to EPA headquarters and regional enforcement officials, EPA and the states have been conducting enforcement activities at known classified federal research facilities, but management oversight of such enforcement has not been systematic. According to EPA, known facilities are inspected and required through EPA and/or state oversight to comply with environmental laws. However, neither EPA headquarters nor its regions have complete inventories of all classified federal facilities subject to environmental requirements, either nationally or at a regional level. Instead, EPA headquarters and field enforcement officials said they depend on agencies to report the existence of their classified facilities, to report environmental monitoring data, and to cooperate with EPA and authorized states in assuring that such facilities are in compliance. They said they receive a degree of cooperation at known DOE and DOD classified facilities but are constrained by secrecy and need-to-know considerations. When they receive cooperation, they conduct appropriate field enforcement activities. In this regard, an ongoing lawsuit by former employees at an Air Force facility near Groom Lake, Nevada, alleged violations of RCRA, including EPA’s failure to conduct a RCRA inspection there. EPA has affirmed that EPA field inspectors conducted an inspection of the location pursuant to RCRA from December 1994 to March 1995. In August 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that the plaintiffs’ objectives in bringing the suit had been accomplished, in that EPA had performed its duties under RCRA to inspect and inventory the site. In May 1995, EPA and the Air Force affirmed by a memorandum of agreement that EPA will continue to have access at the Groom Lake facility for purposes of administering the environmental laws and that the Air Force is committed to complying with RCRA at the location. The details of the issues resulting in the agreement are classified. According to the director of EPA’s Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement, EPA is fulfilling its oversight responsibility at the facility. However, he said he was uncertain of the extent to which other such highly classified federal facilities—or areas within facilities—may exist and whether their research operations are in environmental compliance. According to the director of federal facilities enforcement, the degree of EPA’s involvement in classified activities may broaden in the future. The agency is currently working with the Air Force on a broader memorandum of agreement applicable to all classified Air Force facilities. Also, the director said that EPA held a meeting in 1995 with other agencies, including intelligence agencies, concerning further possible memorandums of agreement similar to the one signed with the Air Force for Groom Lake. Also, EPA, in conjunction with agencies that have highly classified programs, is working on procedures for improved environmental regulation at classified installations. Nevertheless, it is not clear that EPA will have the resources to oversee additional environmental compliance by any federal facilities. EPA’s Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement is currently responsible for overseeing the cleanup of the 154 federal sites included in the National Priorities List under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA has stated that it has the resources to oversee federal facilities’ overall environmental management and compliance, but few additional resources for greater oversight of classified facilities. Although federal environmental laws allow the President to provide exemptions from environmental requirements in cases involving the paramount interest of the U.S. or in the interest of national security, federal agencies appear to have rarely sought these exemptions. We found only two cases in over 15 years of federal agencies obtaining presidential exemptions from environmental laws. While it is possible that exemptions were sought and obtained in secret, those with whom we spoke, including an official of the National Security Council, generally indicated they did not know of any such exemptions. Under NEPA, numerous less formal special arrangements have been obtained through emergency agreements with CEQ. Presidential exemption provisions are contained in some environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, CERCLA, and the Noise Control Act. These provisions differ in detail but generally provide that the President can declare a facility or activity exempt from applicable environmental standards. Depending on the law, he may do so in the paramount interest of the nation or in the interest of national security. A presidential exemption can suspend the applicable pollution standards in the laws for whole facilities or specific sources of pollution. Generally, exemptions are for 1 to 2 years, may be renewed indefinitely, and must be reported to the Congress. Executive Order 12088 gives agencies guidance on complying with the laws and contains implementation procedures. Generally, the head of an executive agency may recommend to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that an activity or facility be exempt from an applicable pollution control standard. According to an EPA official, the exemption mechanism is a “last resort” for agencies that may not be able to comply with environmental laws. We found only two cases in which federal facilities have been exempted by the President from compliance with environmental laws. Responsible officials at several agencies and in the Executive Office of the President were aware of only these two exemptions: In October 1980, President Carter exempted Fort Allen in Puerto Rico from applicable sections of four environmental statutes—the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Noise Control Act, and RCRA. The exemption was determined to be in the paramount interest of the U.S., allowing time for the relocation of thousands of Cuban and Haitian refugees to the fort from Florida. The exemption was renewed once, in October 1981, by President Reagan. In September 1995, President Clinton exempted the Air Force’s classified facility near Groom Lake, Nevada from the public disclosure provisions of RCRA, determining that the exemption was in the paramount interest of the United States. According to OMB and the National Security Council (NSC), the most recent exemption was routed through NSC for Presidential attention, not through OMB as provided in Executive Order 12088. NEPA does not contain explicit exemption provisions related to paramount national interest or national security. The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA permit special arrangements when NEPA’s procedures might impede urgent agency actions. According to CEQ’s records, there have been at least 22 instances of emergency NEPA agreements between an agency and CEQ, usually for reasons of time criticality. Three of these recorded emergency arrangements concerned national policy or national security issues: In 1991, the Air Force and CEQ agreed to alternative measures instead of a written EIS—including noise abatement steps—so that aircraft launches from Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts, toward the Persian Gulf could proceed in a timely manner. In 1991, the Air Force and CEQ agreed that an EIS was not required before conducting a Desert-Storm-related test of aerial deactivation of land mines at the Tonapah Range in Nevada. In 1993, DOE and CEQ agreed on alternative NEPA arrangements for U.S. acceptance of spent nuclear fuel from a reactor in Belgium. Subsequently, Belgium declined the U.S. offer of acceptance. This concludes our testimony. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. Nuclear Waste: Management and Technical Problems Continue to Delay Characterizing Hanford’s Tank Waste (GAO/RCED-96-56, Jan. 26, 1996). Department of Energy: Savings From Deactivating Facilities Can Be Better Estimated (GAO/RCED-95-183, July 7, 1995). Department of Energy: National Priorities Needed for Meeting Environmental Agreement (GAO/RCED-95-1, Mar. 3, 1995). Nuclear Cleanup: Difficulties in Coordinating Activities Under Two Environmental Laws (GAO/RCED-95-66, Dec. 22, 1994). Environment: DOD’s New Environmental Security Strategy Faces Barriers (GAO/NSIAD-94-142, Sept. 30, 1994). Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking (GAO/RCED-94-190, Sept. 19, 1994). Environmental Cleanup: Better Data Needed for Radioactivity Contaminated Defense Sites (GAO/NSIAD-94-168, Aug. 24, 1994). Environmental Cleanup: Too Many High Priority Sites Impede DOD’s Program (GAO/NSIAD-94-133, Apr. 21, 1994). Federal Facilities: Agencies Slow to Define the Scope and Cost of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups (GAO/RCED-94-73, Apr. 15, 1994). Pollution Prevention: EPA Should Reexamine the Objectives and Sustainability of State Programs (GAO/PEMD-94-8, Jan. 25, 1994). Air Pollution: Progress and Problems In Implementing Selected Aspects of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (GAO/T-RCED-94-68, Oct. 29, 1993). Environmental Enforcement: EPA Cannot Ensure the Accuracy of Self-Reported Compliance Monitoring Data (GAO/RCED-93-21, Mar. 31, 1993). Environmental Enforcement: Alternative Enforcement Organizations for EPA (GAO/RCED-92-107, Apr. 14, 1992). Environmental Enforcement: EPA Needs a Better Strategy to Manage Its Cross-Media Information (GAO/IMTEC-92-14, Apr. 2, 1992). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO discussed its review of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) capability to conduct environmental oversight of classified federal research. GAO noted that: (1) EPA conducts limited oversight of classified federal research, primarily relying on agencies' internal environmental monitoring programs; (2) although agencies are required to submit environmental impact statements (EIS) to EPA for review, EPA does not ensure that agencies submit all EIS or know the liaisons for some agencies' environmental issues; (3) environmental compliance officials within agencies may not be reviewing all classified research activities; (4) EPA conducts environmental enforcement activities at known classified federal facilities when the agencies cooperate, but it does not have a complete inventory of all facilities and is sometimes hindered by secrecy and need-to-know considerations; (6) while it is possible that federal agencies have secretly sought exemptions from environmental requirements, it appears that they have rarely sought such exemptions; and (7) agencies have occasionally sought special emergency arrangements concerning environmental standards because of national security concerns. |
Senate Rule XXVI establishes specific requirements for Senate committee procedures. In addition, each Senate committee is required to adopt rules, which may "not be inconsistent with the Rules of the Senate." Senate committees also operate according to additional established practices that are not necessarily reflected in their adopted rules. The requirement that each committee must adopt its own set of rules dates to the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act (P.L. 91-510). That law built on the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act (P.L. 79-601), which set out some requirements to which most Senate committees must adhere. Under the provisions of the 1970 law (now incorporated into Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 2), Senate committees must adopt their rules and generally have them printed in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of a Congress. Typically, the Senate also publishes a compilation of the rules of all the committees each Congress, and some individual committees also publish their rules as committee prints. Committee rules govern actions taken in committee proceedings only, and they are enforced in relation thereto by the committee's members in a similar way that rules enforcement occurs on the Senate floor. There is generally no means by which the Senate can enforce committee rules at a later point on the floor. So long as the committee met the requirement of Senate Rule XXVI that a physical majority be present for reporting a measure or matter, no point of order lies against the measure or matter on the floor on the grounds that the committee earlier acted in violation of other procedural requirements. Beyond the requirements of Senate rules and a committee's own formal rules, many committees have traditions or practices they follow that can affect their procedures. (One committee, for example, does not allow Senators to offer second-degree amendments during committee markups, though this restriction is not contained in either the Senate or the committee's rules.) An accounting of any such informal practices that committees might observe is not provided below. This report first provides a brief overview of Senate rules as they pertain to committees. The report then provides four tables that summarize each committee's rules in regard to meeting day, hearing and meeting notice requirements, and scheduling of witnesses ( Table 1 ); hearing quorum, business quorum, and amendment filing requirements ( Table 2 ); proxy voting, polling, and nominations ( Table 3 ); and investigations and subpoenas ( Table 4 ). Table 4 also identifies selected unique provisions some committees have included in their rules. The tables, however, represent only a portion of each committee's rules. Provisions of the rules that are substantially similar to or essentially restatements of the Senate's standing rules are not included. Although there is some latitude for committees to set their own rules, the standing rules of the Senate set out specific requirements that each committee must follow. The provisions listed below are taken from Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. (Some committees reiterate these rules in their own rules, but even for those committees that do not, these restrictions apply.) This is not an exhaustive explanation of Senate rules and their impact on committees. Rather, this summary is intended to provide a background against which to understand each committee's individual rules that govern key committee activities. Rules. Each committee must adopt rules; those rules must generally be published in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. If a committee adopts an amendment to its rules later in the Congress, that change becomes effective only when it is published in the Record (Rule XXVI, paragraph 2). Meetings. Committees and subcommittees are authorized to meet and hold hearings when the Senate is in session and when it has recessed or adjourned. A committee may not meet on any day (1) after the Senate has been in session for two hours, or (2) after 2 p.m. when the Senate is in session. Each committee must designate a regular day on which to meet weekly, biweekly, or monthly. (This requirement does not apply to the Appropriations Committee.) A committee is to announce the date, place, and subject of each hearing at least one week in advance, though any committee may waive this requirement for "good cause" (Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a); Rule XXVI, paragraph 3). Special meeting. Three members of a committee may make a written request to the chair to call a special meeting. The chair then has three calendar days in which to schedule the meeting, which is to take place within the next seven calendar days. If the chair fails to do so, a majority of the committee members can file a written motion to hold the meeting at a certain date and hour (Rule XXVI, paragraph 3). Open meetings. Unless closed for reasons specified in Senate rules (such as a need to protect national security information), committee and subcommittee meetings, including hearings, are open to the public. When a committee or subcommittee schedules or cancels a meeting, it is required to provide that information—including the time, place, and purpose of the meeting—for inclusion in the Senate's computerized schedule information system. Any hearing that is open to the public may also be open to radio and television broadcasting at the committee's discretion. Committees and subcommittees may adopt rules to govern how the media may broadcast the event. A vote by the committee in open session is required to close a meeting (Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(b)). Quorums. Committees may set a quorum for doing business so long as it is not less than one-third of the membership. A majority of a committee must be physically present when the committee votes to order the reporting of any measure, matter, or recommendation. Agreeing to a motion to order a measure or matter reported requires the support of a majority of the members who are present. Proxies cannot be used to constitute a quorum (Rule XXVI paragraph 7(a)(1)). Meeting r ecord . All committees must make public a video, transcript, or audio recording of each open hearing of the committee within 21 days of the hearing. These shall be made available to the public "through the Internet" (Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(2)(A)). Proxy voting. A committee may adopt rules permitting proxy voting. A committee may not permit a proxy vote to be cast unless the absent Senator has been notified about the question to be decided and has requested that his or her vote be cast by proxy. A committee may prohibit the use of proxy votes on votes to report. However, even if a committee allows proxies to be cast on a motion to report, proxies cannot make the difference in ordering measure reported, though they can prevent it (Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(3)). Investigations and subpoenas. Each standing committees (and its subcommittees) is empowered to investigate matters within its jurisdiction and issue subpoenas for persons and papers (Rule XXVI, paragraph 1). Witnesses selected by the minority. During hearings on any measure or matter, the minority shall be allowed to select witnesses to testify on at least one day when the chair receives such a request from a majority of the minority party members. This provision does not apply to the Appropriations Committee (Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(d)). Reporting. A Senate committee may report original bills and resolutions in addition to those that have been referred to it. As stated above in the quorum requirement, a majority of the committee must be physically present for a measure or matter to be reported, and a majority of those present is required to order a measure or matter favorably reported. A Senate committee is not required to issue a written report to accompany a measure or matter it reports. If the committee does write such a report, Senate rules specify a series of required elements that must be included in the report (Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(3); Rule XXVI, paragraph 10(c)). Table 1 summarizes each's committee's rules in three areas: meeting day(s), notice requirements for meetings and hearings, and witness selection provisions. Many committees repeat or otherwise incorporate the provisions of Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(a), which, as noted above, requires a week's notice of any hearing (except for the Appropriations and Budget committees) "unless the committee determines that there is good cause to begin such hearing at an earlier date." Provisions in committee rules are identified and explained in this column only to the extent that they provide additional hearing notice requirements, specifically provide the "good cause" authority to certain members (e.g., chair or ranking minority member), or apply the week's notice to meetings other than hearings (such as markups). Similarly, as noted in the report, Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(d) (sometimes referred to as the "minority witness rule"), provides for the calling of additional witnesses in some circumstances (except for the Appropriations Committee). Some committees restate this rule in their own rules. Only committee rule provisions that go further in specifically addressing the selection of witnesses or a right to testify are identified in this column. Table 2 focuses on each's committee's rules on hearing quorums, business quorums, and requirements to file amendments prior to a committee markup. In regard to a business quorum, the "conduct of business" at a committee meeting typically refers to actions (such as debating and voting on amendments ) that allow the committee to proceed on measures up to the point of reporting. Some committees require that a member of the minority party be present for such conduct of business; such provisions are noted below. As noted earlier, Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a), requires a majority of the committee to be physically present (and a majority of those present to agree) to report out a measure or matter; this is often referred to as a "reporting quorum." The rule allows Senate committees to set lower quorum requirements, though not less than a third of membership for other business besides hearings. Some committees restate the Senate requirement in their own committee rules, but even those committees that do not are bound by the reporting quorum requirement. Table 2 does not identify committee rules that simply restate the reporting quorum requirement unless the committee has added additional requirements to its provisions (e.g., that a reporting quorum must include a member of each party). Though no Senate rules govern the practice, several committees require, in their committee rules, that Senators file with the committee any first-degree amendments they may offer during a committee markup before the committee meets. Such a provision allows the chair and ranking member of the committee to see what kind of issues may come up at the markup and may also allow them to negotiate agreements with amendment sponsors before the formal markup session begins. Some committees distribute such filed amendments in advanced of the markup to allow committee members a chance to examine them. It also provides an opportunity to Senators to draft second-degree amendments to possible first-degree amendments before the markup begins. Table 3 summarizes each's committee's rules on proxy voting, committee polling, and nominations. Since Senate rules require a majority of a committee to be physically present for a vote to report a measure or matter, a committee vote to report an item of business may not rely on the votes cast on behalf of absent Senators (that is, votes by proxy). Some committees effectively restate this requirement in their committee rules by either stating that proxies do not count toward reporting or referencing the proxy provisions of Senate Rule XXVI. However, committees may still allow (or preclude) proxy votes on a motion to report (as well as on other questions so long as members are informed of the issue and request a proxy vote). Table 3 identifies committees that explicitly allow or disallow proxy votes on a motion to report (even though such votes cannot, under Senate rules, count toward the presence of a "reporting quorum" or make the difference in successfully reporting a measure or matter). "Polling" is a method of assessing the position of the committee on a matter without the committee physically coming together. As such, it cannot be used to report out measures or matters, because Senate rules require a physical majority to be present to report a measure or matter. Polling may be used, however, by committees that allow it for internal housekeeping matters before the committee, such as questions concerning staffing or how the committee ought to proceed on a measure or matter. Senate Rule XXVI does not contain provisions specific to committee consideration of presidential nominations. Some committees, however, set out timetables in their rules for action or have other provisions specific to action on nominations. Some committees also provide in their rules that nominees must provide certain information to the committee. Such provisions are not detailed in this table except to the extent that the committee establishes a timetable for action that is connected to such submissions. This column of the table also identifies any committee provisions on whether nominees testify under oath. Table 4 describes selected key committee rules in relation to investigations and subpoenas. Note that some Senate committees do not have specific rules providing processes for committee investigations, and many also do not set out procedures for issuing subpoenas. The lack of any investigation or subpoena provisions does not mean the committees cannot conduct investigations or issue subpoenas; rather, the process for doing so is not specified in the committee's written rules. Some committees have provisions that are generally not included in other committee rules. Selected notable examples (that do not fit into other categories in other tables) are summarized in the last column of Table 4 . | Senate Rule XXVI establishes specific requirements for certain Senate committee procedures. In addition, each Senate committee is required to adopt rules to govern its own proceedings. These rules may "not be inconsistent with the Rules of the Senate." Senate committees may also operate according to additional established practices that are not necessarily reflected in their adopted rules but are not specifically addressed by Senate rules. In sum, Senate committees are allowed some latitude to establish tailored procedures to govern certain activities, which can result in significant variation in the way different committees operate. This report first provides a brief overview of Senate rules as they pertain to committee actions. The report then provides tables that summarize selected, key features of each committee's rules in regard to meeting day, hearing and meeting notice requirements, scheduling of witnesses, hearing quorum, business quorum, amendment filing requirements, proxy voting, polling, nominations, investigations, and subpoenas. In addition, the report looks at selected unique provisions some committees have included in their rules in the miscellaneous category. The tables, however, represent only a portion of each committee's rules, and provisions of the rules that are substantially similar to or essentially restatements of the Senate's Standing Rules are not included. This report will be not be updated further during the 114th Congress. |
Representative Frederick Richmond reportedly began forming what became the Congressional Arts Caucus in response to proposals by the Reagan Administration to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the defeat of other prominent arts advocates in Congress. Within days, 77 Members of the House of Representatives had joined the caucus, and by the start of the 98 th Congress (January 1983), House membership had grown to 166 Members—reportedly one of the largest caucuses on Capitol Hill at that time. Representative Richmond served as the first chairman and Representative Jim Jeffords as the first vice-chairman. (See Table C-1 for a list of the chairs.) In July 1981, on behalf of the Congressional Arts Caucus, Representative Richmond proposed to the Speaker of the House, Representative Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., a program for encouraging nationwide artistic creativity by high school students through art exhibits in the tunnels connecting the Capitol to the House Office Buildings. In October 1981, Speaker O'Neill, in his role as chair of the House Office Building Commission, indicated no objection to an exhibit as long as it was conducted at no expense to the government. The Speaker further required that the Arts Caucus work with the House Office Building Commission and the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) on the details and to ensure that a jury of qualified people approves the final selection of student art for the exhibit. A detailed proposal for the manner of display of the artwork was also requested. (See Figure A-1 , letter from Speaker O'Neill to Representative Richmond.) In February 1982, the AOC sent a letter to the chairman of the House Office Building Commission in which he submitted the proposal for the National Art Competition program as prepared by the Arts Caucus. In the letter, the AOC expressed his approval and recommended that the House Office Building Commission do the same. (See Figure A-2 , letter from AOC George M. White to Chairman O'Neill.) The letter includes the signatures of all three of the House Office Building Commission members. Subsequently, on February 9, 1982, Speaker O'Neill and several members of the Arts Caucus announced the first annual Congressional Art Competition. Representative Richmond said, about the competition, that "members of Congress would conduct the contest among high school students in their districts. The winning art will line a corridor in the Capitol." No legislation has been introduced to authorize, sanction, or otherwise make permanent the Congressional Art Competition. On July 23, 1991, H.Res. 201 (102 nd Congress, first session) was introduced by the Congressional Art Competition co-chair, Representative Ted Weiss, to recognize the 10 th anniversary of the competition. On November 18, 1991, the resolution was agreed to by voice vote. The only other piece of legislation was H.Res. 1453 (111 th Congress, second session) introduced by the Congressional Art Competition co-chair, Representative Steve Driehaus, to celebrate the 29 th anniversary of the competition. This resolution was introduced on June 17, 2010, and referred to the Committee on House Administration with no further action. Throughout the competition's history, reportedly, a few submitted artworks have been removed as part of a controversy or otherwise. In 2012, an entry submitted to the Illinois Fourth Congressional District for the Congressional Art Competition was the subject of a controversy before being selected as the district winner. A Chicago high school student entered a city-wide competition to determine the next city vehicle sticker. Days before the city was to print 1.2 million new stickers, allegations surfaced on a number of police blogs claiming the design displayed gang signs and other symbols of the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang. The city decided not to use the artwork. It was subsequently entered into the Congressional Art Competition for the IL-04 congressional district. The artwork won the district competition and hung in the Cannon Tunnel for a full year without objection. Prior to the 2016-2017 Congressional Art Competition, the federal government, in a court filing, identified only one other occasion when a piece of art was removed after it was put on display as part of the competition; the work appeared to be a copy of a photograph that had appeared that year in Vogue magazine. In two other identified instances prior to the 2016-2017 competition, when suitability questions arose and the AOC reached out to the sponsoring Member of Congress, the Member agreed to submit another piece. During the 2016-2017 competition, an AOC-convened panel reviewed submissions and identified two works that raised suitability concerns, one titled "Recollection," which depicts a young man with apparent bullet holes in his back, and the other depicting marijuana use by Bob Marley. Consistent with its usual practice, AOC staff contacted the sponsoring Member'' offices regarding these works, and the Members indicated they supported the works' display. Both of these works were displayed. . Artwork for the 2016 Congressional Art Competition went on public exhibit in May 2016. In early December 2016, letters from Members of Congress and the Capitol Police requesting the removal of the winning entry from Missouri's 1 st Congressional District were sent to Speaker Paul Ryan and AOC Stephen T. Ayres. The artwork was viewed by some as violating suitability guidelines in the rules for the competition, as it depicted law enforcement officers as animals abusing protesters. Subsequently, the artwork was repeatedly removed and re-hung in the Cannon Tunnel to the Capitol by various Members of Congress. An administrative decision to prohibit the painting was made by Architect Ayers, which triggered the filing of an injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the artist, claiming violation of First Amendment rights. In April 2017, a judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiffs' injunction, ruling that due to the public location of the artwork in a tunnel connecting the U.S. Capitol to a House office building, the art was government speech and that Members of Congress who objected to the content had a right to remove it. The artwork continued to be banned from display until May 2017 when all artwork from that competition year was removed. The House Ethics Manual addresses the issue of the appropriateness of congressional involvement in the Art Competition in the section on "Official and Outside Organizations." House ethics rules generally prohibit endeavors jointly supported by a combination of private resources and official funds. For example, House Rule 24 prohibits the use of private resources for the operation of both congressional Member organizations (CMOs) and Member advisory groups. Yet, the House Ethics Manual goes on to explain that, "Nevertheless, the giving of advice by informal advisory groups to a Member does not constitute the type of private contribution of funds, goods, or in-kind services to the support of congressional operations that is prohibited by House Rule 24." Later the Ethics Manual specifically addresses the Congressional Art Competition in the following: "One instance when cooperation with private groups has been explicitly recognized is the annual competition among high school students in each congressional district to select a work of art to hang in the Capitol, referred to as the Congressional Art Competition. Members may announce their support for the competition in official letters and news releases, staff may provide administrative assistance, a local arts organization or ad hoc committee may select the winner, and a corporation may underwrite costs such as prizes and flying the winner to Washington, D.C. Private involvement with the Congressional Art Competition in this manner is not viewed as a subsidy of normal operations of the congressional office. Members may not solicit on behalf of the arts competition in their district without Standards Committee [now Committee on Ethics] permission unless the organization to which the donation will be directed is qualified under § 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code." The general guidelines concerning Member solicitations is stated in the Ethics Manual , and solicitation guidelines as related to the Art Competition are addressed in the " Ethics Guidance " document for the 2018 Congressional Art Competition. In their earliest years, the Congressional Arts Caucus and Congressional Art Competition were financially supported by a $300 contribution from the allowances of members of the caucus. The funds were used to pay the salaries of two full-time staff and other operational costs. During the period 1982 to 1994, the caucus used its staff and interns to manage administrative duties related to the competition, such as announcements, guidelines, deadlines, the receipt of completed forms and art, and recordkeeping. These individuals also coordinated the art competition's awards program and reception to honor the winning artists. After 1995, many administrative tasks were undertaken by two Member offices—typically the offices of the co-chairs of the Arts Caucus. From the competition's inception, the AOC curator and the House superintendent have assisted with the moving, arranging, labeling, and hanging of the art works, as well as returning the art to participating Members' offices at the end of a competition—this is done in May of each year just prior to the commencement of a new competition. The curator also arranges the winning artwork alphabetically by state, maintains a tracking system, works with the House carpenters to have the artwork hung in the Cannon House Office Building tunnel, and prepares and attaches the accompanying descriptive labels. In 2005, General Motors, which had provided financial and logistical support to the Art Competition since 1982, asked the Public Governance Institute to assist with logistical support. In 2009, the Congressional Institute, Inc. took over from the Public Governance Institute, providing both advice and logistical support for the competition. According to its website, the Congressional Institute was founded in 1987 and "is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to helping Members of Congress better serve their constituents and helping their constituents better understand the operations of the national legislature." Currently, each participating House Member solicits entries from high school students for the event and establishes his or her own method of judging the submissions. There is no entry fee for the competition and previous entrants (including winners) may re-enter as long as they are high school students. The winning artwork must conform to strict guidelines and meet all deadlines. By mid-February of each year, the Art Competition guidelines and forms to accompany the submitted art are available to the public on the House of Representatives website at https://www.house.gov/content/educate/art_competition . It is the prerogative of the co-chairs, the House Office Building Commission, the AOC curator, or the Congressional Institute, Inc., to modify the guidelines from year to year. Two sets of guidelines are available: The "2018 Rules and Regulations for Congressional Offices" (shown as Figure B-1 , unavailable electronically). The "2018 Rules and Regulations for Students and Teachers" can be found on the House of Representatives public website at https://www.house.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/2018Rulesfor StudentsandTeachers.pdf (s hown as Figure B-2 ) . The "Student Information & Release Form" is available at https://www.house.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/2018StudentReleaseForm.pdf (shown as Figure B-3 ), and a "2018 Art Submission Checklist" is shown as Figure B-4 (unavailable electronically) . Since 2009, the Congressional Institute, Inc. has assisted and advised Member offices on how to run the competition. The institute responds to questions from participants, collects district winner information, prepares the list of winners, organizes the receipt of the artwork, and shares coordination of the reception honoring the district winners. The institute also photographs the artwork and provides a digital record of each annual competition to the House of Representatives for posting on its public website. It has been the practice for the Congressional Institute to mail the invitations, print the programs, and provide food for the annual reception. The reception, transportation, name tags, T-shirts, photography, event website, and program printing have always been privately sponsored. Recent corporate sponsors have included General Motors and Southwest Airlines. Members of Congress may also obtain the services of local sponsors to assist with transportation and local awards. At the culmination of the annual Art Competition, the winning entries from participating congressional districts are available on the House of Representatives website. The names of the 2018 winners and their artwork are available at https://www.conginst.org/art-competition/?compYear=2018&state=all . The Congressional Art Competition co-chairs generally invite an artist from their respective congressional districts to address the student winners at the reception. Since it began in 1982, "over 650,000 high school students nationwide have been involved with the nation-wide competition." There are no required procedures for selecting the winning entries for participating congressional districts. Any entry that conforms to the general specifications stated in the "Guidelines for Students and Teachers" is eligible to represent a congressional district. Members of Congress may have local art teachers, art gallery owners, civic leaders, local businesses, or Member office staff assist with the judging to select their district winner. Members of Congress may also enlist the participation of businesses in the congressional district to donate plaques, savings bonds, and other prizes, or to sponsor a reception or event to announce the competition's district winner. For example, since 2004, the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) in Savannah, GA, has offered scholarship opportunities to the first-place winners of the district competitions as long as funding is available, according to school sources. The $3,000 scholarship may be renewed annually. Other scholarships are targeted for winning entrants from a specific congressional district. In recent years, these have included scholarships to the High School Summer Institute at Chicago's Columbia College and the Art Institute of Phoenix. Georgia's 13 th congressional district winner may receive a scholarship to the Art Institute of Atlanta, in Pennsylvania, the 15 th congressional district winner is eligible for a full-year scholarship to the Baum School of Art in Allentown, and Tennessee 3 rd congressional district participants are eligible for a $3,000 scholarship to Tennessee Wesleyan University in Athens, TN. Additional prizes that have been awarded include roundtrip airfare to Washington, DC, for the opening of the annual exhibition, gift certificates to local art supply stores, family memberships for a year to an art museum, and cash. Although no congressional or taxpayer funds may be used for prizes or scholarships, corporate sponsorship is allowed. As in past years, Southwest Airlines is providing two roundtrip tickets to winning entrants from any city with scheduled Southwest service to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport or Baltimore-Washington's Thurgood Marshall International Airport (BWI). Tickets will be issued to a parent or guardian as ePasses and are to be used within the period of two weeks before and two weeks after the Washington, DC, Congressional Art Competition ceremony. Southwest Airlines does not provide hotel accommodations or hotel discounts. Appendix A. Letters Establishing the Congressional Art Competition Appendix B. Congressional Art Competition Sample Forms Appendix C. Congressional Art Competition Leadership | Sponsored by the Congressional Arts Caucus, and known in recent years as "An Artistic Discovery," the Congressional Art Competition is open to high school students nationwide. Begun in 1982, the competition, based in congressional districts, provides the opportunity for Members of Congress to encourage and recognize the artistic talents of their young constituents. Since its inception, more than 650,000 high school students nationwide have been involved in the program. Each year, the art of one student per participating congressional district is selected to represent the district. The culmination of the competition is the yearlong display of winning artwork in the Cannon House Office Building tunnel as well as on the House of Representatives' website. This report provides a brief history of the Congressional Arts Caucus and the Congressional Art Competition. It also provides a history of sponsorship and support for the caucus and the annual competition. The report includes copies of the original correspondence establishing the competition, a sample competition announcement, sample guidelines and required forms for the competition, and a chronological list of congressional co-chairs. |
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is slated to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto as he tries to clarify his past comments about Mexico and immigration. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is slated to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto as he tries to clarify his past comments about Mexico and immigration. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Donald Trump will travel to Mexico City on Wednesday for a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, just hours before he delivers a high-stakes speech in Arizona to clarify his views on immigration policy.
Peña Nieto last Friday invited both Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to visit Mexico, his office said in a statement provided to The Washington Post on Tuesday night.
Trump, sensing an opportunity, decided over the weekend to accept the invitation and push for a visit this week, according to the people in the United States and Mexico familiar with the discussions.
Late Tuesday, Trump and the Mexican president confirmed on Twitter that they will meet Wednesday.
“I have accepted the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto, of Mexico, and look very much forward to meeting him tomorrow,” Trump wrote Tuesday night. Shortly after, Peña Nieto’s office wrote that “El Señor” Donald Trump has accepted the invitation and will meet privately on Wednesday with Peña Nieto.
1 of 13 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × How Mexicans are reacting to Trump’s rhetoric View Photos Politicians, comedians, artists and developers hit back at Trump’s inflammatory speech. Caption Politicians, comedians, artists and developers hit back at Trump’s inflammatory speech. Oct. 3, 2015 Mexican comedians put on a play called “Los Hijos de Trump,” or “Sons of Trump." In this play, Trump and his golden-haired carbon copies steal from the blind and bribe the police. The play was adapted from another play, a satire on big spenders, "Brokers." Henry Romero/Reuters Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue.
Peña Nieto later tweeted that he believes in dialogue in order to “promote the interests of Mexico in the world and, principally, to protect Mexicans wherever they are.”
The visit comes after Trump has wavered for weeks on whether he will continue to hold his hard-line positions on the central and incendiary issue of his campaign, in particular his call to deport an estimated 11 million immigrants who are living in the United States illegally.
The people informed of Trump’s plans spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding the matter. They said earlier Tuesday that talks between the Trump campaign and Mexican officials were ongoing, with security concerns still being sorted out.
[Trump risks alienating voting blocs with wavering on immigration]
Trump is scheduled to hold fundraisers Wednesday morning in California and deliver his immigration speech in the evening at the Phoenix Convention Center. His trip to Mexico will come between his events.
The Clinton campaign shrugged off Trump’s trip as a distraction from his policies. “What ultimately matters is what Donald Trump says to voters in Arizona, not Mexico, and whether he remains committed to the splitting up of families and deportation of millions,” wrote Jennifer Palmieri, a senior Clinton campaign adviser, in a statement.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border if he wins the election. Here's what people living along the border have to say about that wall. (Zoeann Murphy,Samuel Granados,Kevin Schaul,Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
A Clinton campaign official confirmed that Clinton received a letter requesting an in-person meeting with the Mexican leader. Clinton has not yet accepted.
“Secretary Clinton last met with President Peña Nieto in Mexico in 2014 and our campaign is in a regular dialogue with the Mexican government officials,” the aide said. “She looks forward to talking with President Peña Nieto again at the appropriate time.”
The aide requested anonymity to discuss the potential meeting.
The invitation is a stunning move by Peña Nieto, given the grief that Trump’s campaign has caused the Mexican government over the past year. From calling Mexican illegal immigrants rapists and criminals, to vowing to build a wall along the Southern border, to threatening to undo the North American Free Trade Agreement, Trump has caused growing alarm in Mexico. Peña Nieto himself likened Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, in a March interview with a Mexican newspaper.
To the delight of his U.S. rally crowds, Trump has repeatedly promised to force Mexico to pay for his proposed border wall. Peña Nieto and other Mexican leaders have dismissed the idea as preposterous.
“There is no way that Mexico can pay [for] a wall like that,” Peña Nieto said in a July interview on CNN, adding that he did not agree with Trump’s frequent characterization of illegal immigrants from Mexico as rapists and killers.
Trump’s newly installed campaign chief executive, Stephen K. Bannon, played a key role in devising the Wednesday stop while Trump met Sunday with his aides and family at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., according to two people who have been briefed on the campaign’s deliberations.
Bannon, who previously headed the conservative website Breitbart News, made the case to the group that Trump must underscore his populist immigration views in the final weeks of the general-election campaign, perhaps with an audacious gesture.
[Donald Trump calls for ‘deportation force’ to remove undocumented immigrants]
Peña Nieto’s invitation was brought up, and Bannon said it offered Trump an opening to make headlines and showcase himself as a statesman who could deal directly with Mexico.
Trump was intrigued by Bannon’s proposal and agreed, but not all aides and allies were as enthusiastic, the people said.
Trump appointed Bannon to his post and veteran pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager this month after sidelining campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who subsequently resigned. He has been navigating a flood of conflicting advice this summer about where to land on immigration as he has publicly wrestled with himself on the details of his position.
Following Sunday’s strategy session, plans came together quickly but not without hurdles and some tensions.
Early this week, representatives for Trump contacted the U.S. Embassy in Mexico about his intentions, according to a person in Mexico familiar with the communications between the two sides.
Trump’s representatives were told privately by officials that it would be logistically difficult for Trump to visit. But the businessman’s proxies insisted that Trump would not delay his plans, the person said.
Overseas visits by senior U.S. officials normally require weeks of intricate planning on both sides, as every movement and meeting is plotted. When more security is required, such trips become even more complicated.
Security staffs traveling with the visitor are usually beefed up. While Mexico is not considered a hostile place, the crime level is high, and Trump, should he appear in public, would require significant protection.
The invitation — and particularly a visit — seems certain to cause a backlash in Mexico City, where Trump is widely disliked. Mexicans have bashed Trump piñatas, burned him in effigy during public street parties and staged plays about him as a comic villain.
[Trump on undocumented immigrants: ‘We are going to get rid of the criminals’]
When Trump declared his candidacy in 2015, he was seen by many in Mexico as insulting but not to be taken very seriously. Mexican diplomats back then scoffed at the notion that Trump was a serious candidate or that the government was worried about his ascent.
That’s all changed now. Many of Mexico’s government and business elite have grown skittish about the potential of a Trump presidency and the economic damage that his policies might inflict. The United States is Mexico’s most important trading partner.
Earlier this year, Peña Nieto swapped out key diplomats, including the Mexican ambassador to the United States, to have a more aggressive presence advocating for the importance of a strong relationship between the two countries.
Several Mexican officials were surprised to learn on Tuesday that Peña Nieto had extended an invitation to Trump.
“Wow,” one said, when reached by The Post.
“This is an extraordinarily surprising, but welcome, development, whether it ends up happening or not,” said Andrew Selee, a Mexico expert at the Wilson Center in Washington. “Mexico is a vital country for U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. The second destination for exports and the country of origin of a tenth of all Americans.”
Several Mexican politicians were quick to criticize the meeting. Miguel Barbosa, an opposition senator with the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution, tweeted about Trump: “Your presence in Mexico is not welcome. Get out! You come to take a photo with those you’ve offended.”
“It is a political error by [Peña Nieto] to use this lying anti-Mexican,” Barbosa wrote in another tweet.
A Mexican presidential hopeful with the right-wing National Action Party, Margarita Zavala, tweeted that even though Trump was invited to Mexico, he was not welcome.
“Mexicans have dignity and we reject your discourse of hate,” she wrote.
Former Mexican president Vicente Fox tweeted “Adios, Trump!”
Trump’s Phoenix speech later Wednesday is expected to add to the day’s drama, with declarations by candidate about where exactly he stands on his immigration policy and border security.
Bannon and Trump speechwriter Stephen Miller have had a heavy influence over the speech’s contours, the people familiar with the campaign said. Miller is a former aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a Trump confidant who has urged him to hold to his tough positioning and rhetoric on immigration.
And while Trump’s associates have framed his speech and trip as presidential moves, the surprise gambit also fits his career-long tendency for theater and confrontation.
Partlow reported from Mexico City. Jenna Johnson contributed to this report. ||||| Republican presidential candidate – who wants to build a border wall – will meet Enrique Peña Nieto on Wednesday ahead of major immigration speech
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has confirmed that he will travel to Mexico on Wednesday to meet President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City.
Moments before taking the stage for a rally in Everett, Washington, just north of Seattle, Trump tweeted that he had “accepted the invitation of President Enrique Peña Nieto, of Mexico, and look[ed] very much forward to meeting him tomorrow”.
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) I have accepted the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto, of Mexico, and look very much forward to meeting him tomorrow.
The meeting will happen hours before Trump is scheduled to deliver a major address on immigration in Phoenix, Arizona, in which he will aim to clarify his increasingly murky stance on the issue.
It was confirmed by the official Twitter account for the Mexican presidency, which said:
Presidencia México (@PresidenciaMX) El Señor @realDonaldTrump ha aceptado esta invitación y se reunirá mañana en privado con el Presidente @EPN.
Translated, the tweet says that Trump “has accepted the invitation and will meet privately tomorrow with the president”.
Peña Nieto – who has previously compared Trump to Hitler and Mussolini – said via Twitter that he had invited both presidential candidates to Mexico “to discuss bilateral relations”, adding: “I believe in dialogue to promote the interests of Mexico in the world and to protect Mexicans wherever they are.”
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto said he had invited Trump, despite having previously compared him to Hitler. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
The Trump campaign did not respond to repeated requests for comment. However, Josh Green, a reporter for Bloomberg News, said Trump would be accompanied on the trip by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Alabama senator Jeff Sessions.
Trump surrogates: Republican's position on immigration has not changed Read more
Trump, who launched his campaign in 2015 with the announcement that Mexico was “bringing their worst people”, including “rapists”, to the US, had been scheduled to appear at fundraisers in California on Wednesday morning, before delivering his immigration address in Phoenix at 6pm local time (9pm ET).
The trip to Mexico City to meet Peña Nieto – who has previously invited Trump to debate him in Mexico – will likely occur sometime in the middle of the day.
The proposal was first broached with the US embassy in Mexico City earlier this week, a fast-tracking of an international visit by an American presidential candidate that is typically planned over the course of weeks.
In recent days, Trump has been increasingly vague on his position about the legal status of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US. During the Republican primary, Trump appealed to the conservative base by calling for a “deportation force” to remove all undocumented immigrants from the country.
However, on a recent trip to Iowa, Trump said the policy issue was driven by the media. “In recent days, the media – as it usually does – has missed the whole point on immigration. All the media wants to talk about is the 11 million or more people here illegally,” he said at a fundraiser for Republican senator Joni Ernst.
In front of a crowd in Everett on Tuesday evening, Trump made no mention of his upcoming diplomatic mission, focusing instead on campaign speech favorites, including a rambling story in rhyming couplets about an ungrateful and poisonous snake, intended as an allegory about Muslim refugees to the US.
Also notably absent from the speech was perhaps Trump’s most essential motif: the wall he proposes to build along the US-Mexico border.
Trump’s approval ratings among Latino voters are historically bad, and his relationship with Peña Nieto’s government is even worse. Trump has long pledged to force Mexico to pay for the proposed 2,000-mile (3,220km) border wall, a suggestion the Mexican president responded to coldly.
“No way,” Peña Nieto told CNN earlier this year.
Peña Nieto has fallen on hard political times in recent months. The latest polls put his approval rating at just 23%, according to Mexico News Daily, as the president has been hit by personal scandals, as well as allegations of human rights abuses by police officers. Protests by teachers opposed to his educational reforms have led to widespread unrest and several deaths.
It is hard to see how inviting Trump to meet him would help Peña Nieto domestically, as Trump is, unsurprisingly, considerably less popular in Mexico than the president. In March, city legislators passed a non-legally binding bill to ban Trump from Mexico’s capital.
Peña Nieto’s predecessor, former president Vicente Fox, has been considerably more vocal in speaking out against the Republican nominee, calling Trump’s ideas “racist” and saying “I declare: I’m not going to pay for that fucking wall.”
Trump reveals plan to finance Mexico border wall with threat to cut off funds Read more
A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, said the focus should remain on Trump’s immigration speech in Arizona. Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Hillary for America, said: “From the first days of his campaign, Donald Trump has painted Mexicans as ‘rapists’ and criminals and has promised to deport 16 million people, including children and US citizens. He has said we should force Mexico to pay for his giant border wall. He has said we should ban remittances to families in Mexico if Mexico doesn’t pay up.
“What ultimately matters is what Donald Trump says to voters in Arizona, not Mexico, and whether he remains committed to the splitting up of families and deportation of millions.”
Launching his presidential bid last year, Trump claimed “the US has become a dumping ground for everyone else’s problems”, pointing the finger at Mexico.
“They’re sending us not the right people,” he said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing their problems.
“They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting.” | Before his big immigration speech on Wednesday, Donald Trump plans to visit somewhere where he is hated so much that he is regularly burnt in effigy during parties—and it's not Ted Cruz's house. Instead, Trump will make a surprise visit to Mexico to meet President Enrique Peña Nieto, who has slammed Trump's plan to make Mexico pay for a border wall and compared the candidate to the likes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, reports the Washington Post. Trump's campaign says Peña Nieto invited both Trump and Clinton to Mexico a few days ago and Trump has decided to take him up on the offer for private talks. Trump's Arizona speech on immigration is scheduled for 6pm local time Wednesday and the Mexico visit will probably happen around midday, after a fundraising trip to California, reports the Guardian, which notes that Trump made no mention of a border wall or a "deportation force" during a speech in Everett, Wash., on Tuesday night. Sources tell the Post that new campaign chief Steve Bannon urged Trump to make the visit, saying it would get headlines and make him seem statesmanlike. It's less clear what benefits the visit could have for Peña Nieto, whose approval level has sunk to just 23% and is unlikely to be raised by appearing with Trump. |
Decision set for Tuesday on fate of Obama-era immigration program
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other Republicans on Friday urged President Trump not to rescind an Obama-era program that allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants to stay in the country legally, reflecting fears among some GOP leaders that his decision could be politically damaging for the party.
The entreaties came as Trump neared a decision on whether to dismantle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has provided two-year work permits to nearly 800,000 immigrants known as "dreamers" who have been in the country illegally since they were children.
White House officials said Trump would make an announcement Tuesday, the deadline set by Texas and several other states to pursue a legal challenge of DACA if Trump does not terminate it. But in another sign of how politically charged the issue has become, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III announced Friday that the state was withdrawing support for the case, citing the "human" costs and calling on Congress to work out a legislative solution.
Speculation has mounted among immigrant rights groups that Trump will begin to unwind the program, which President Barack Obama created in 2012 through executive action. But the late-stage opposition from some top Republicans — as well as from hundreds of major corporations such as Facebook, Google and Apple — has raised the pressure on Trump to preserve it.
Asked on a radio program whether the president should end DACA, Ryan said: "I actually don't think he should do that."
"I believe that this is something that Congress has to fix," Ryan told WCLO, a station in his home town of Janesville, Wis. He said GOP leaders have been clear that Obama lacked the legislative authority to create the program.
The speaker emphasized, however, that DACA recipients "are people who are in limbo. These are kids who know no other country, who were brought here by their parents and don't know another home. And so I really do believe that there needs to be a legislative solution."
During a brief appearance in the Oval Office, Trump responded to shouted questions from reporters by saying he would decide the issue soon. During his campaign, Trump had repeatedly referred to DACA as an "unconstitutional executive amnesty" and had pledged to end it on his first day in office.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security has issued an estimated 200,000 new work permits or renewals since Trump took office. The president has wavered between his desire to appear tough on immigration enforcement and his personal empathy for the dreamers, according to aides.
"We love the dreamers," Trump told reporters Friday. "We think the dreamers are terrific."
Milton Flores, a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program recipient, stands with supporters during a rally outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles on Friday. (Kyle Grillot/Reuters)
Trump made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign, but his equivocations over the fate of the dreamers has reflected the political predicament for Republicans. The party has struggled for years over a sharp split between immigration hard-liners and moderates who have supported legal status for some undocumented immigrants.
Polls show broad public support for the dreamers, and Democrats and immigrant rights groups have promised to wage a fierce political effort against the White House, and Republicans, if Trump chooses to end DACA.
At the same time, conservative Republicans and talk show hosts have grown impatient for Trump to make good on his campaign promise. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was an immigration hard-liner while serving as a Republican senator from Alabama, has said publicly that the Justice Department might not be able to defend DACA in court.
Texas led a coalition of 26 states that successfully won a federal court injunction that stopped a larger deferred action program Obama announced in 2014 that would have provided work permits to undocumented immigrant parents of U.S. citizens.
The office of Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who opposes DACA, said in a statement Friday that the program's "legal future is in jeopardy."
Trump is considering a plan that would instruct DHS to stop issuing new work permits or renewing existing ones, while those enrolled in the program would be allowed to continue until their work permits expire. That would result in more than 1,000 people per day losing their jobs through 2018, according to a recent study by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and FWD.us, a high-tech group that promotes immigration.
In addition to Ryan, several other leading Republicans, including Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), also lobbied the president not to kill DACA.
In a statement, Hatch said Congress must provide "a workable, permanent solution for individuals who entered the country unlawfully as children through no fault of their own and who have built their lives here." Flake, in a tweet, said lawmakers must "take immediate action to protect #DACA kids."
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), a longtime Trump backer, weighed in with a statement, as well: "These kids must be allowed to pursue the American Dream, and Congress must act on this immediately."
Legislative action, however, is viewed as a long shot. Three major efforts on immigration reform under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama failed on Capitol Hill, including the Dream Act in 2010 that would have offered the immigrants a path to citizenship.
A small group of congressional Republicans is pitching a "conservative Dream Act" that would reimagine the legislation in a way that could be more palatable for the GOP.
Another bipartisan proposal, called the Bridge Act, would extend DACA protections for three years to give Congress time to enact a permanent fix for the dreamers. In his letter Friday, Slatery, the Tennessee attorney general, said the Bridge Act "would be a very good start."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who represents a Denver swing district, said Thursday that if Trump ends DACA, he would use procedural maneuvers to force a vote on the Bridge Act — an encouraging sign for Democrats, who have long said that they need just a handful of Republicans to join with them to force a vote on such legislation.
Most House Republicans, however, oppose DACA and legal status for undocumented immigrants.
The uncertainty has led employers to warn of potential costs for their businesses and consumers if Trump ends the program without a legislative alternative in place.
The end of DACA would require forcing employers to police their workforce and fire those immigrants whose work permits have expired, said David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. That would impose a massive cost, estimated at $6.3 billion, because of worker turnover, Bier concluded in an analysis posted Friday using government data.
Companies would have to fire nearly 7,000 employees every week for the next two years, at a cost of $61 million a week for recruiting, hiring and training 720,000 new hires.
"That's a really substantial hit that you're forcing employers to incur as a result of ending DACA," Bier said in an interview. But it would be American consumers who will pay the ultimate cost, he added, because a contracting workforce would translate into higher prices.
Tracy Jan and David Weigel contributed to this report. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Andrew Rafferty
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will face significant backlash from Congress, including from members of his own party, if he goes through with ending protections for young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children.
While Democrats are overwhelmingly united in their effort to preserve the policy, some influential Republican lawmakers have signaled support as well for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, instituted under the Obama administration in 2012.
"It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally," Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said in a statement Monday. "However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents."
The president is leaning toward ending DACA, but with a six-month delay, possibly giving Congress a window to revamp the program, two sources told NBC News. The decision, which was first reported by Politico and is likely to come Tuesday, is not final until it is announced, the sources added.
Republican lawmakers, including some of Trump's closest allies in Congress, have publicly spoken out against the decision they say would unjustly punish those who did nothing wrong.
Related: Immigrant Advocates for DACA Keep Up the Pressure on Trump
"I don't think he should do that. I believe that this is something Congress has to fix," House Speaker Paul Ryan said during a radio interview last week.
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of Trump's top conservative defenders in the Senate, also released a statement last week advocating for DACA's survival.
"I've urged the president not to rescind DACA, an action that would further complicate a system in serious need of a permanent, legislative solution," Hatch said. "Like the president, I've long advocated for tougher enforcement of our existing immigration laws. But we also need a workable, permanent solution for individuals who entered our country unlawfully as children through no fault of their own."
Others in the GOP, including frequent Trump critic Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed support for Trump's measure, which he considers necessary to undoing an executive action by President Barack Obama he viewed as overreaching. But he still believes in a congressional fix.
"If President Trump makes this decision we will work to find a legislative solution to their dilemma," Graham said in a statement Monday.
Immigration hardliner Steve King, however, is pushing for an immediate end to DACA. He tweeted that the six-month delay is "Republican suicide," giving the GOP a chance to push what he called "amnesty."
Any announced change to DACA on Tuesday would coincide with Republican officials in 10 states, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, threatening to sue if Trump doesn't end the program.
On the flip side, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said Monday they would file a lawsuit if DACA is terminated.
"The poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty — written by the descendant of early Jewish immigrants — promises this nation will 'lift its lamp' for the huddled masses," Schneiderman said. "New York will never break that promise. And neither will my office."
The DACA issue will be just the latest addition to an already packed agenda facing Congress this fall. Top issues include approving an aid package for Hurricane Harvey, funding the government beyond the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline and raising the debt ceiling.
And Democrats and independents, who have expressed outrage in recent days amid reports the White House is moving to end the program, remain united in their support for DACA.
"Taking legal protections away from 800,000 young people raised in this country is absolutely counter to what we stand for as a nation," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
And Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas asked on Twitter: "How does a five year old decide to break the law?" ||||| WASHINGTON — For months, an anxious and uncertain President Trump was caught between opposing camps in the West Wing prodding him to either scrap or salvage an Obama-era program allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as minors to remain in the United States.
Last week, with a key court deadline looming for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, Mr. Trump, exasperated, asked his aides for “a way out” of a dilemma he created by promising to roll back the program as a presidential candidate, according to two people familiar with the exchange.
Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, who had wrestled with crafting a compromise in his previous job as the president’s homeland security secretary, began consulting with Republican lawmakers and staff members for a quick fix, according to three officials familiar with the situation. He finally arrived at an inelegant solution to an intractable problem: Delaying a decision on the final fate of about 800,000 “Dreamers” covered by President Barack Obama’s executive action for six months, and putting it on Congress to come up with a legislative solution to the problem.
Congressional Republicans expect the administration to unveil some version of this stopgap solution on Tuesday, but Mr. Trump will not make the announcement himself. Instead, Attorney General Jeff Sessions will handle it at an 11 a.m. briefing. He will not take questions from reporters. ||||| President Donald Trump’s expected decision to punt the fate of nearly 800,000 Dreamers to Congress promises to drive yet another rift through an already fractured Republican Party, which has for years struggled to coalesce around immigration reform proposals.
Already, GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reacting in wildly diverging ways to Trump’s yet-to-be-announced plan to dismantle an Obama-era initiative for immigrants brought here illegally at a young age — but to give Congress six months to come up with a legislative solution first.
Story Continued Below
A growing number of Republicans have urged Trump not to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — with some lashing out against the president in harsh terms — while other GOP lawmakers have indicated he is not ending the five-year-old initiative quickly enough.
Meanwhile, some Republicans such as conservative Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas are openly floating trade-offs to protect DACA recipients, even as Democrats insist that Dreamers aren’t bargaining chips for tougher immigration restrictions. In the House, senior Republicans still believe there’s a possible deal to be struck with Democrats: codifying DACA in return for Trump’s sought-after border wall.
That leaves Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who have both expressed sympathy for the plight of Dreamers in the past — in an awkward political position as they navigate a fall agenda that is already packed with a slate of must-pass bills, including government spending bills, a debt limit increase, and an aid package for Hurricane Harvey victims.
One plugged-in immigration advocate predicted a “30-70 chance” that Congress successfully passes legislation that would essentially codify DACA — which temporarily defers deportations and provides work permits to qualifying young undocumented immigrants – into law.
“I just don’t think we can make the mistake of assuming the opposition isn’t formidable, even if we have some conservative support,” the advocate said.
Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Still, support for Dreamers has been rising from unexpected quarters within the GOP, especially as DACA’s future becomes increasingly more precarious. Trump is expected to make an announcement Tuesday that he will end DACA but with a delayed implementation, although White House officials have cautioned that nothing is official until Trump makes it public.
"It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally,” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in a statement Monday. “However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.”
Lankford is among the Republican senators who have been privately speaking with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) about legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as minors to obtain legal status if they work, pursue higher education or serve in the military. Tillis has called it a “fair but rigorous path.”
Several Senate Republicans have been talking quietly for months about multiple immigration bills, in addition to Tillis’ proposal, according to one Senate GOP source, although those discussions stalled during the health care debate in July.
“I have indicated in the past that I’m supportive of DACA and believe that the humanity aspect of this, what you described, is important — no fault of their own, circumstances beyond their control,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told a constituent during a town hall in August. Saying he’ll take a look at related legislation, Moran added: “DACA has made sense to me.”
In the House, GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, a moderate from Colorado, recently hit the TV airwaves calling on Congress to pass his bill allowing law-abiding immigrants brought here before age 16 to stay — a bipartisan proposal whose companion legislation in the Senate is backed by the likes of Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
But immigration hardliners are warning GOP leaders not to go there. For years, congressional Republicans have complained that former President Barack Obama overreached when he created DACA through executive action, and many conservatives view the 2012 program as antithetical to their tougher line on illegal immigration.
“Ending DACA now gives [us a] chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide,” tweeted ultra-conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on Sunday night, after POLITICO first reported Trump’s expected decision.
Despite some Republicans softening toward Dreamers in the Senate, the House is expected to be a tougher hurdle. However, Ryan has long backed overhauling immigration laws, and warned Trump last week against ending DACA, which Ryan told a Wisconsin radio program affects “kids who know no other country” and “don't know another home.”
McConnell has expressed similar sentiments toward Dreamers in the past, though a spokesman said Monday that the majority leader had no new comment on DACA’s future.
“I’m very sympathetic with this situation,” McConnell said during a news conference in February. “I mean, these are young people who were brought here at a tender age and who have grown up here, or are in the process of growing up here. I’m very sympathetic to that situation.”
But large swaths of Capitol Hill are loathe to weigh in on a decision that Trump has yet to announce and is still surrounded by many unknowns. One key question yet to be answered is what happens to the two-year DACA work permits that expire during the six-month period and whether they would be renewed.
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, the pro-immigration group backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, stressed that barring renewals for current DACA recipients would be “devastating.”
“Whether this happens or not, however, both parties and both chambers can and must make a permanent legislative solution like the bipartisan Dream Act an immediate, must-pass bill,” Schulte said. “As a majority of House Republicans are on the record in favor of letting Dreamers earn legal status, we believe a vote should be called and a bill passed without delay."
A number of senior House Republican sources told POLITICO there may be an immigration deal that would codify DACA in return for a down payment on Trump’s border wall with Mexico.
These sources say they’d prefer to iron out such an agreement with Democrats later in the fall as part of a broader spending package that would also lift strict spending caps.
There’s a possibility, however, that the fight doesn’t wait that long. GOP leaders will almost certainly rely heavily on Democrats to raise the debt ceiling this month, which the administration has said must be done by Sept. 29. And Democrats, some Republicans worry, could try to use their leverage to demand that legislation protecting DACA recipients be included.
Congressional Democrats are united in their push to defend Dreamers and have a solid chunk of Republicans in their corner. And others believe that Trump starting a ticking time-bomb against DACA could be the very thing that forces Congress to act.
“If President Trump chooses to cancel the DACA program and give Congress six months to find a legislative solution, I will be supportive of such a position,” Graham said Monday. “If President Trump makes this decision we will work to find a legislative solution to their dilemma.”
| President Trump's expected decision to dismantle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program after a six-month delay may not simply split apart families. The move, expected to be announced Tuesday, may also further divide a splintered Republican Party, reports Politico. While GOP lawmakers including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Steve King support an end to protections for immigrants brought to the US illegally as children, King says any delay allowing leaders to "push amnesty is Republican suicide." Other Republicans, meanwhile, are starkly against killing DACA altogether. Sen. James Lankford, for one, notes Americans should "not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents." Republican Sens. Jerry Moran, Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Flake have also expressed their support for DACA, per NBC News and the Washington Post, while Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have said they are sympathetic to "Dreamers." Trump's decision to dismantle DACA, after a six-month period allowing Congress to come up with a solution, is expected to be announced by Jeff Sessions at an 11am briefing Tuesday at the White House, reports the New York Times. Several House Republicans tell Politico one possible deal in response would involve codifying DACA in exchange for funds to start Trump's proposed border wall. But Republicans will also need Democratic support to raise the debt ceiling this month, and Dems could make codifying DACA a condition of their support. |
American consumers increasingly rely on credit and debit cards to pay for goods and services. Between 1997 and 2011, card payments rose from accounting for 23% of payments to 48%. During the same period, payment by cash and checks dropped from 70% to 35%. In 2011, consumers made 49 billion debit transactions totaling $1.8 trillion and 26 billion credit transactions totaling $2.1 trillion. This shift makes card security and fraud prevention more important than ever. In 2012, MasterCard and Visa—also called "payment brands" —set October 1, 2015, as the date by which U.S. card issuers—banks and credit unions—would need to have replaced existing credit and debit magnetic stripe cards with chip cards, and for merchants to begin accepting them. Chip cards are formally known as "EMV" cards, named for the coalition of three companies, Europay, MasterCard, and Visa, that developed the specifications for the standard. EMVCo membership has now expanded to include the payment brands of American Express, JCB, Discover, and UnionPay. There were four significant drivers of EMV adoption in the United States: L iability Shift. The October 1, 2015, deadline that shifted liability to the party that has not switched to chip cards is seen as a strong incentive for merchants and issuers to make the switch. Increasing Financial Impact of Fraud. In 2012, credit card losses in the United States totaled $5.33 billion, an increase of 14.5% from 2011. Between 2004 and 2010, fraud using U.S.-issued bank credit cards rose 70%. Merchants, card issuers, and consumers are adversely affected by increases in fraud. Increasing Concern o ver Data Breaches. Although the number of breaches dipped significantly between 2011 and 2012, there has been a modest increase between 2012 and 2013. Although the number of incidents in 2013 (198) is small compared to 2011 (855), a lot of attention has been paid to those breaches in the news. That attention appears to have created the perception that the number of breaches is increasing more than it actually is, raising concern among consumers, as well as policymakers. Better Security for Cards and Transactions. Chip cards make data stolen in a breach much more difficult to use: Counterfeiting is significantly more difficult than with stripe cards. Most observers, including the Federal Reserve Bank, agree that chip cards, "regardless of the verification method used, will provide a more secure payment environment." The cost of a complete transition in the United States is expected to be at least $6 billion, but the costs for issuers and merchants that do not meet the adoption deadline could be even greater: Now that the deadline has passed, the liability for fraudulent transactions will shift to the party that has not switched to chip cards. For example, if a merchant does not accept chip cards and the customer has a chip card, the transaction will still be processed using the magnetic stripe still present on the back of the card, but the merchant will bear responsibility for any fraudulent activity. If the merchant has a chip point-of-sale (POS) terminal, but the bank has not issued a chip card to the customer, the bank will be liable. If neither or both parties have complied, the fraud liability will remain the same as it is today. Historically, the issuer has paid about 60% of losses and retailers have paid 40%. Issuers picked up most of the losses when the card was present but was fraudulent, while merchants picked up the bulk of losses when cards were not present. Now that October 1, 2015, has passed, exploring and understanding the ramifications of the transition—or the failure to transition—is likely to become increasingly important for Congress, especially if additional major breaches occur. Additionally, new deadlines are coming in 2016 and 2017 for card-branded ATM cards. There are many policy issues related to EMV adoption in the United States and elsewhere in the world. This report describes the financial harm caused by data breaches and explains how those breaches are carried out. It provides information about the effect of the transition in selected foreign countries. The report also discusses resolved and remaining impediments to completing the EMV transition in the United States and identifies areas of potential congressional interest. EMV cards offer a significantly higher level of data security than stripe cards: Data on the chip is secured using both hardware and software security measures, so even if the card data is compromised, the chip itself will still be difficult to counterfeit. The EMV chip carries cardholder and account data, and is programmed to make decisions about a transaction and control its outcome, that is, approve or decline it. Chip cards can be produced as "chip-and-PIN," "chip-and-signature," or "chip-and-choice" (which allows the use of either a personal identification number [PIN] or signature). Transactions are verified in the method programmed into the chip. If the card is to have a PIN associated with it, the PIN is programmed into the chip before it is embedded in the card and sent to the cardholder. EMV is the global standard for the chip technology embedded in financial payment cards. Much of the rest of the world—Europe, Canada, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region—has already transitioned to chip cards. In the fourth quarter of 2012, there were 1.62 billion chip cards in use across 80 countries, leaving the United States as the last major country to implement what is now the de facto global standard. Globally, card fraud totaled $11.3 billion in 2012, an increase of 15% from 2011. In the United States, although fraud constituted less than 1% of total expenditures, credit card losses totaled $5.33 billion in 2012, an increase of 14.5% from 2011. The United States has been disproportionately affected by fraud: Since 2003, the United States has consistently accounted for about half of the total global loss, but for only about a quarter of the total volume of card payments ( Figure 1 ). Between 2004 and 2010, fraud committed on U.S.-issued bank credit cards rose 70% ( Figure 2 ). Debit card fraud also rose, with cards using a signature for verification accounting for 91% of the fraud and cards using a PIN for verification accounting for 9% ( Figure 3 ). Card fraud can be conducted in a number of ways, but it always begins with the theft of card information. The scale of the theft can range from small, such as stealing a wallet, to large, such as skimming or a data breach. Data breaches can be carried out in more than one way (and for reasons other than committing fraud), but the most common method is hacking into a POS system used to make card-based purchases. These breaches are called "POS intrusions." In 2013, 75% of breaches in the travel/hospitality sector and 31% in the retail sector were POS intrusions aimed at stealing credit and debit card data. POS intrusions and the ensuing card fraud are facilitated by what many consider to be the weak link in the U.S. card payment process: the continued use of magnetic stripe cards that carry unencrypted data. A hacker can gain access to a company's POS systems in a number of ways. Sometimes the hacker will use a "brute force" approach, systematically checking all possible keys or passwords until the correct one is found, or exploiting inadequately managed Internet connections to the POS system. Another common way is through the use of stolen third-party (vendor) credentials (sign-on information). For example, some POS system vendors do not change the default password to access the system. That password is often included in the system documentation, making it easy for anyone, especially a hacker, to find the information online. Once the hacker has gained access to the computer system used to manage the POS system, he or she installs malware that copies the unencrypted data on cards as they are swiped. The most common type of malware used in POS intrusions is called a "RAM scraper," so named because it allows the hacker to "scrape" data out of the memory of the POS system. The RAM scraper exploits the very brief period that the card data is in the POS reader, before it is encrypted and sent to complete the payment process. Europe has transitioned between about 73% and 80% of cards and about 95% of POS terminals to EMV technology. Other regions around the world have transitioned to varying degrees ( Figure 4 ). A 2012 study of five countries by the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Atlanta examined fraud trends experienced by the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Australia, and the Netherlands as they transitioned from stripe cards to chip-and-PIN cards; none of the countries studied issued chip-and-signature cards. Three of the five countries studied in the report experienced decreases in both the rates and total amounts of card fraud ( Figure 5 ), with some exceptions attributed to factors other than the security of the chip itself. For example, when the United Kingdom began issuing chip cards, the cards continued to carry a magnetic stripe, too. If the card was swiped to make a purchase and the card data was compromised, it could be used in card-not-present (CNP) environments or to make counterfeit cards for use in non-chip countries. The data analyzed in the study showed that chip-and-PIN is most effective in reducing certain types of fraud, notably— card-present fraud ; domestic counterfeit card fraud , committed by manufacturing cards created with valid information from lost or stolen cards, but most often carried out using data stolen in a data breach or "skimming"; and lost and stolen card fraud , committed using an original, activated, and valid card after it is lost or stolen, in both "card present" (e.g., retail) and certain "card-not-present" (e.g., Internet purchase) scenarios. Additionally, mail non-receipt fraud , committed by stealing a card before it is activated by the rightful owner, has also decreased with the introduction of chip cards. For example, since 2004, this type of fraud has decreased 91% in the United Kingdom. Most U.S. issuers have stated that they plan to issue chip-and-signature credit cards, rather than chip-and-PIN cards. It is uncertain how this decision may affect fraud in the United States. In all but one of the countries studied (France), the switch to chip cards caused two types of fraud to increase: domestic CNP fraud , e.g., catalog or Internet purchases, and c ross-border counterfeit card fraud . This type of fraud uses data stolen from cards issued in chip countries to produce physical counterfeit cards for use in non-chip countries. This is a phenomenon referred to as "fraud migration," with the fraud migrating primarily to the United States, the last major market to transition to chip cards. In the countries where CNP fraud eventually decreased, many merchants have adopted fraud prevention measures. There are two simple prevention measures: requiring cardholders to authenticate their identities by entering the card's verification/security code and/or expiration date. A card's security code and expiration are shown only on the card and are not encoded on either the magnetic stripe or the EMV chip. An additional measure is "Address Verification Service" (AVS). AVS matches the billing address information provided at check-out with that on file with the card issuer. Other options to mitigate CNP fraud are also available and have been adopted in varying degrees. Some of these are discussed below. Visa, MasterCard, and American Express have developed and adopted proprietary security measures to make CNP fraud more difficult to perpetrate: Verified by Visa, SecureCode, and SafeKey, respectively. All three are based on the 3-D Secure protocol and are only used for Internet-based purchases. They work by redirecting the payment transaction to the issuer's website to perform user authentication by requiring the cardholder to provide additional credentials before approving a transaction. The merchant, the cardholder, and the card issuer all must use the system for it to work. In 2013, only about 3% of U.S. merchants employed an authentication method based on 3-D Secure. The 3-D Secure protocol allows the card issuer to define what those credentials will be. For example, the cardholder might be required to enter a password. The password can be permanent or transaction specific. Transaction-specific passwords can be generated in a number of ways. Issuer-generated passwords can be sent via text message and email to the cardholder's registered mobile device and email account. This method can be used with both stripe and chip cards. With a chip card, the cardholder can generate a password by inserting the card into a cardholder-owned reader and entering the card's permanent PIN. The reader will then generate a one-time PIN for use with that specific transaction. In Europe, about 30 million people use chip cards and readers for Internet transactions. Although 3-D Secure provides an extra layer of security for CNP transactions, it still has vulnerabilities. For example, in the past, hackers successfully used malware to direct cardholders signing up for 3-D Secure to a fake enrollment window, allowing theft of the card data. While this specific vulnerability can be avoided using additional security methods, hackers are likely to continue looking for any vulnerability they can find and exploit in POS systems. There are also new security measures available that were developed by third-party companies not associated with the card companies. Two such examples are "D-FACTOR," by DeviceAuthority, and "TranSecure," a partnership between Quatrro and NorseCorp. Using D-FACTOR, cardholders link their credit cards to one or more devices, such as a mobile phone or home computer. Before a CNP purchase is approved, D-Factor verifies that the purchase is being made using a cardholder-registered device. TranSecure is not a transaction authentication method, but provides ongoing monitoring for fraud. This system uses fraud-detection software paired with fraud analysts to thwart CNP and other types of card fraud. Neither of these systems has been widely adopted at this time. Cross-border counterfeit fraud increased in the countries studied by FRB Atlanta, as counterfeiters used data stolen in chip-and-PIN markets and produced stripe cards for use in those markets still using them. The FRB Atlanta report attributed the increase to issuers providing cards with both chips and magnetic stripes. For instance, when the United Kingdom transitioned to EMV cards, credit and debit cards were issued with both a chip and a magnetic stripe, which rendered them as easy to exploit and clone as stripe cards. The stolen data could then be used to manufacture counterfeit stripe cards for use in places such as the United States, where the transition had not yet begun. To mitigate the chance that this vulnerability will exist, cards issued in the U.K. now include a small "flag" on the magnetic stripe to indicate that the card has a chip on it. If swipe card data is stolen, the flag would be copied along with the other stolen data onto the cloned card. The POS system would then recognize the flag if the card were swiped, alerting the merchant that a cloned card was being used. The United Kingdom and Australia reported an initial increase in counterfeit fraud after EMV implementation, but it later decreased. It is too soon to say whether the United States could have this same "immunity" from such an increase: Since the United States is the only remaining major market still using at least some stripe cards, there will not be any other major markets where stolen information could be used. Unlike CNP fraud, counterfeit fraud appears to diminish as more countries eliminate stripe cards. The upcoming liability shifts for branded ATM cards and the ongoing debate over signature versus PIN are two areas of continued work toward a complete shift to chip cards. On October 1, 2016, a new liability shift will occur: Automated teller machines (ATMs) that accept MasterCard-branded debit cards must be EMV operational. ATMs that accept Visa-branded debit cards will have an additional year to be operational. As nearly all ATMs in the United States accept both Visa-branded and MasterCard-branded cards, the 2016 date for MasterCard essentially forces all ATMs to be operational. As with the 2015 shift date, this date is not a mandate, but most ATMs are likely to be EMV operational to avoid possible fraud liability. There is some concern that the complexity of updating payment processing software to accommodate both debit (PIN) and credit (signature) processing of debit card transactions could contribute to the delay or cause a decrease in the number of ATMs. Many retailers are frustrated with the delays in certifying their payment systems. Retailers made significant investments to upgrade their systems to avoid the possibility of having the liability for fraudulent transactions shift to them after October 1, 2015. For instance, in New York City, one supermarket chain spent about $700,000 to upgrade their systems in time to meet the October 1, 2015, deadline, but their systems remain uncertified as of March 2016 and they have now begun incurring the costs associated with fraud liability. The banks and retailers have differing opinions on the cause or causes for the delay in retail-outlet certification: Banks say that retailers waited till the last minute to update their terminals. Retailers point to financial ties between the banks and the companies that provide certification, saying there is no motivation to move faster. Although most issuers are currently providing chip-and-signature cards, some experts predict that could change. Along with some retailers, the federal government supports PIN use in EMV transactions, stating: Currently, not all EMV cards are issued to consumers with the PIN capability and not all merchant PoS terminals can accept PIN entry. EMV transactions at chip PoS terminals provide more security of consumers' personal data than magnetic strip PoS transactions.... Although EMV cards provide greater security than traditional magnetic strip cards, an EMV chip does not stop lost and stolen cards from being used in stores, or for online or telephone purchases when the chip is not physically provided to the merchant. As yet, there has been no legislation introduced in the 114 th Congress that would affect the EMV transition. In the 113 th Congress, no legislation was introduced that would have directly affected the manner in which the transition is taking place. Four bills contained language that would have addressed concerns about improving protection from credit card data theft in other ways. These bills would have, for example— increased protection for consumers whose card data had been compromised (e.g., free credit monitoring for a year); increased penalties for those convicted of identity theft and certain other violations of data privacy and security; provided for criminal penalties against entities that fail to provide required notice of a breach of personally identifiable information; defined thresholds for when public notification would be required after a breach; and/or defined thresholds for when notification of law enforcement or other government entities (e.g., Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Congressional Judiciary Committees, Federal Trade Commission) would be required. A resolution was also introduced that would have expressed "the sense of the Senate that the President should pursue extradition authority for international cybercriminals committing credit card theft targeting United States citizens." No further action was taken. To date, there has been one hearing in the 114 th Congress on the EMV transition. On October 7, 2015, the House of Representatives Committee on Small Business held a hearing, "The EMV Deadline and What It Means for Small Businesses." The 113 th Congress held three hearings that addressed data breaches, both generally and in response to specific breaches. Each hearing included questions and discussion about the status of EMV adoption in the United States, such as how the transition was expected to affect the frequency and seriousness of data breaches and the progress being made towards a full EMV migration in the United States. Privacy in the Digital Age—Preventing Data Breaches and Combating Cybercrime. This hearing was held by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 4, 2014. It consisted of two panels of witnesses, the first composed of representatives from the consumer protection, retail, and data security sectors, and the second composed of representatives from federal government agencies charged with investigating the breaches. Of particular interest to committee members was the Target Corporation data breach, as well as the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, which was reintroduced by Senator Leahy, Judiciary Committee Chair, on January 8, 2014. Among other issues, the hearing explored how quickly companies inform their customers after a data breach, and whether current reporting requirements are adequate or whether legislation is needed. Protecting Consumer Information: Can Data Breaches Be Prevented? This hearing was held on February 5, 2014, by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. This hearing was prompted by the Target Corporation data breach. Among other issues, the hearing explored: the relationship between federal law enforcement and the private sector in tracking and responding to breaches of consumer information; how private sector entities work among themselves and with the federal government to develop and maintain best practices; how the tactics and efforts of cybercriminals have changed over time; whether it is possible or realistic for a company to be impervious to data breaches; and whether additional regulation of data security might be necessary. Protecting Consumer Information: Can Data Breaches Be Prevented? Can Technology Protect Americans from International Cybercriminals? This hearing was held on March 6, 2014, by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and Technology. This hearing focused on the consumer privacy and national security aspects of data breaches. Witnesses included federal government officials, payment industry representatives, and a privacy advocacy organization. Members were particularly interested in whether the payments industry was on track to meet the October 1, 2015, deadline. Other issues discussed included the current state of technology and standards to protect consumers from international cybercriminals, and the evolution of cyberattacks against the U.S. industry from rogue hackers to sophisticated international crime syndicates and foreign governments. Questions and concerns remain that Congress might choose to monitor. Data on the impact of EMV signature verification on fraud reduction do not exist because signature verification was not adopted in other countries (they chose to adopt PIN verification). So, while the primary driver of the transition is fraud reduction, it remains to be seen if signature verification will produce the same level of fraud reduction in the United States as PIN verification has produced in other countries. Congress may follow the renewed interest by some states to encourage PIN adoption. The delay reaching agreement over debit card programming could cause the EMV debit card transition to lag behind the EMV credit card transition. One study found that fraud reduction in POS transactions was achieved more quickly by migrating all card products at or near the same time. The payments industry will need to stay on track to achieve the simultaneous transition, which could have an impact on overall fraud reduction, and the relative level of fraud between credit cards and debit cards. Given the broad interest in reducing data breaches and fraud, and the October 1, 2015, transition deadline, the 114 th Congress might examine the effectiveness of the transition to determine whether legislative action may be needed, especially if major breaches continue to occur. Many questions were raised in hearings during the 113 th Congress, including: Are companies implementing the additional security safeguards recommended to decrease c ard- n ot- p resent f raud ? CNP fraud decreased significantly in countries where both card issuers and merchants implemented additional safeguards on such transactions. Card issuers here have implemented various methods to offer those safeguards, but success will be largely dependent on widespread use by merchants. Are companies taking adequate steps to prepare for a data breach? Data breaches will likely continue, but there are steps that companies can take to prepare for them and mitigate their damage. For example, Experian has published a preparation guide for companies that could make post-breach activity easier and more conducive to assisting law enforcement. Are existing post-breach consumer notification procedures adequate and consistent? Consumers might reasonably expect to receive all the information needed, in a timely manner, to protect themselves after a data breach. Additionally, they might expect to receive the same information after every breach, regardless of the company who had been breached or where they are located. Are existing legal and regulatory post-breach thresholds that trigger mandatory reporting to law enforcement adequate and consistent ? Law enforcement is unable to begin investigating breaches until they have been notified that a breach has occurred by the affected company. In addition, nearly all states have their own laws requiring notification; there are no federal laws or guidelines. Of the states that have laws, the circumstances that "trigger" reporting differ. For example, some states define "personal information" narrowly, while others have adopted more expansive definitions. So, in effect, a company might be required to report in some states, but not all, when their data has been breached, as well as report different information in each state. These differing requirements can present a challenge to companies with a presence in more than one state. This is one reason that some in the federal government, including some in Congress and the Federal Trade Commission, have advocated a single federal law to address all aspects of data breach reporting nationwide. Many states with existing, and in many cases long-standing laws, though, have expressed concerns about enacting a federal law. They believe such a law, which would likely supersede state laws, might offer consumers less protection. One compromise that policymakers have discussed would be to allow existing state laws with more stringent protections to take precedence over a federal law. The cost of the EMV transition, the slow pace of adoption, and other issues may have hampered both issuer and retailer efforts to meet the October 2015 deadline. Disagreements over transaction verification methods for credit transactions, chip programming, and the fee structure for debit transactions all played roles in delaying EMV transition planning and adoption. Most issues have been resolved through industry negotiation or litigation. There have been four impediments to EMV adoption in the United States: High Cost of Implementation . Both card issuers and merchants in the United States have balked at transitioning to chip cards. They have already made significant financial investments in existing technology, and the transition will impose immediate, short-term costs on them. The cost of the transition to chip cards for financial institutions and businesses that use POS readers will be significant. Although opinions differ greatly as to the actual amount, most industry observers agree that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion. Of that amount, 75% is likely to be paid by merchants, making the transition three times as expensive for them as for the issuers. Costs for Card Issuers: Chip and Card Production . Some analysts have stated that manufacturing chip cards costs between $1.00 and $4.00 per card—2 to 16 times as much as traditional stripe cards, which cost about 25¢ to 50¢ each. Adding to that cost, personalizing the card with the holder's name and other details is about twice as expensive with chip cards as with stripe cards. While the issuing institution would pay initially for the chip and personalization of the card, those costs might be passed down to the consumer. Issuers will also face consideration of the one-time and ongoing costs associated with each type of implementation. Costs for Merchants: POS System Replacement . In addition to the costs to issuers of producing the cards, merchants have to purchase new POS equipment (i.e., chip readers) to process chip card transactions. In 2015, cost estimates ranged from about $100 to $600 each, depending on the number ordered and specific product features. Stripe readers cost approximately $50 to $100 when purchased individually, but less than $20 when purchased in bulk. Estimates prior to the transition were that only 25%-44% of retailers would meet the deadline, with the majority of those being the larger retailers. Minimal Implementation Prior to October 1, 2015 . There are about 1.1 billion credit and debit cards in use in the United States. At the time of the transition, estimates of the share of cards with EMV chips stood between 7% and 15%. Some believe that issuers would have had to replace, on average, about 2 million cards every day until the deadline to achieve 100% transition. Despite the slow start, some experts have predicted that by the beginning of 2016, 90%-95% of cards could be chip cards. About 33% of POS machines are now EMV compliant and that figure would have to increase significantly before the benefits of the chip cards can be realized. Transaction Verification: PIN versus Signature. Despite initial resistance from the retail community, which asserted that PIN verification would be far more likely to reduce fraud, card issuers largely decided to implement chip-and-signature. This could change, however. First, in a June 2015 speech, Federal Reserve System Governor Jerome H. Powell expressed his support for the use of PINs. Then, on November 17, 2015, nine state attorneys general asked leaders at companies including MasterCard, Visa, Discover Financial Services, Bank of America, Capital One, Citigroup, American Express, and JP Morgan Chase—who have collectively begun the nationwide transition to a chip-and-signature card—to move to full chip and PIN technology as soon as possible. This latest renewed interest could indicate a possible shift in the future. Dual Debit Applications . Visa and MasterCard use one proprietary debit processing application, and the major PIN debit networks use another. After lengthy negotiations, both sides finally agreed to cross-license their applications in July 2013, resolving most of the technical issues hampering transition planning. This issue is no longer a matter of contention. Debit Transaction Fees: Delay in Regulatory Certainty . In 2010, as part of a larger financial reform law, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) was charged with developing rules setting maximum transaction fees ("interchange fees") that merchants can be charged for debit card transactions. In addition, the law specified the framework the FRB was to use in developing those rules. The rules went into effect in October 2011, but the National Retail Federation, representing merchants, appealed the ruling, stating that it believed the fee ceiling had been set too high. In July 2013, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.) rejected the FRB's regulations, stating that the agency had set the cap too high on debit-card transactions, and that it had disregarded congressional intent in its proceeding. However, in March 2014, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and upheld the FRB's rules. The merchants again appealed the decision, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing for a writ of certiorari in August 2014. On January 20, 2015, the Court denied the merchants' petition, allowing the FRB's original rules to go into effect. Because of the long-running court case and the other problems described, card issuers lost more than three years of planning time to meet the October 2015 deadline for debit cards (credit cards are unaffected by the fee structure under consideration by the Court). Some issuers were thought to be hesitant to replace their stripe-based debit cards until the issue was resolved. The delay has the potential to cause a lag between when chip-based credit cards are issued and chip-based debit cards are issued. Issuing debit and credit chip cards simultaneously was cited by the FRB as a key to maximizing the benefits of chip cards in reducing fraud: Based on the experiences of chip-and-PIN migrations in other countries, it is imperative that all card-based products should be migrated at, or near, the same time to have a positive impact on reducing face-to-face fraud within a country's borders. As witnessed in Canada, migrating credit before debit resulted in a significant increase in fraud perpetrated with debit cards, ultimately resulting in a minimal reduction of total card fraud. If the United States migrates to chip-and-PIN without market consensus, agreement, or in a timely and concerted effort; those issuers, networks, or merchants who are slow to migrate will see increased fraud levels and the impact on overall fraud levels could be minimal. Ultimately, it remains to be seen what impact the court case will have on debit card replacement. | Consumer financial card fraud due to data breaches of card information is an ongoing problem in the United States. The majority of breaches are carried out against point-of-sale (POS) systems, and are facilitated by what many consider to be the weak link in the U.S. retail sales payment process: the continued use of magnetic stripe cards (also referred to as stripe-and-signature cards). These cards are still what most U.S. consumers think of when referring to financial cards. In much of the rest of the world, cards that provide a much higher level of security for conducting sales transactions have been used for many years: EMV cards, named for the coalition of card brands Europay, MasterCard, and Visa (the EMV Coalition or EMVCo) that developed the specifications for the system in the 1990s. EMV cards store card information on an embedded microchip and are more commonly called chip cards. With these cards, instead of swiping and signing to make a payment, the cardholder inserts the card into the POS machine, then either enters a personal identification number (PIN) or signs to verify the transaction. On October 1, 2015, the liability for fraudulent transactions involving magnetic stripe cards shifted to the entity—card issuer (e.g., bank, credit union) or merchant—that had not yet made the transition. The transition makes U.S.-issued cards compatible with POS systems and automated teller machines in much of the rest of the world. On October 1, 2016, a new liability shift will occur: automated teller machines (ATM) that accept MasterCard branded cards must be EMV operational. ATMs that accept Visa-branded cards have an additional year to be operational. The 114th Congress may examine the transition and its effectiveness to determine whether any legislative action is needed, especially if major breaches continue to occur despite the transition. |
The package arrived at the building in Tribeca in Lower Manhattan that houses Mr. De Niro’s production company and restaurant. It was similar to those discovered a day earlier and was also believed to contain an explosive device, officials said.
On Wednesday, in the center of Manhattan, the Time Warner Center, an elegant office and shopping complex, was evacuated because of a pipe bomb sent to CNN, which has its New York offices there. It was addressed to John O. Brennan, a critic of Mr. Trump who served as Mr. Obama’s C.I.A. director.
None of the devices harmed anyone, and it was not immediately clear whether any of them could have. One law enforcement official said investigators were examining the possibility that they were hoax devices that were constructed to look like bombs but would not have exploded.
The F.B.I. said the devices were similar to one found Monday at the home of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and liberal donor, in a New York City suburb. ||||| Cesar Altieri Sayoc, the mail bomb suspect arrested Friday, has struggled for years with “a lack of comprehension of reality,” his former lawyer told CNN.
Attorney Ronald S. Lowy said Sayoc’s mother and sisters have urged him to seek medical treatment, but he has refused.
“He thinks there’s nothing wrong with him,” Lowy said shortly after meeting with the suspect’s family.
Sayoc has been estranged from the family for the past several years, Lowy said, and his mother “can’t understand his (Sayoc's) behavior or views."
Though FBI searched the mother’s home on Friday, Lowy predicted it would be “a waste of time” since Sayoc hadn’t visited the residence for at least three years.
Lowy said the closest he came to getting treatment for Sayoc was in 2004 during a drug case that involved steroids. He said he negotiated with prosecutors to have it charged as a narcotics case so his client could get court mandated-treatment.
It was not immediately clear whether he actually received such treatment.
Lowy, who said he now represents Sayoc’s mother and two sisters, said they are struggling to come to terms with the allegations.
“It’s a very emotional time for them,” he said. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Jonathan Dienst, Tom Winter, Pete Williams, Alex Johnson, Andrew Blankstein, Minyvonne Burke and Corky Siemaszko
Pipe bombs sent to several prominent critics of President Donald Trump and to CNN's New York newsroom triggered a nationwide investigation and bipartisan condemnation on Wednesday.
The targets included former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and former CIA Director John Brennan, officials and investigators said.
Early Wednesday night, federal and local authorities were investigating a suspicious package "similar in appearance" to the earlier packages at a postal facility in south Los Angeles addressed to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., the FBI said. Los Angeles police said that the facility was evacuated before a bomb squad rendered the package safe and that the investigation had been turned over to the FBI.
It was the second package addressed to Waters to have been uncovered, the FBI said. The first was discovered in Maryland.
The earlier bombs — like the explosive device that was found Monday in the mailbox of George Soros' home in Bedford, New York — were all made with PVC pipe, which X-rays indicated likely contained shrapnel, three senior law enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the matter told NBC News. They included a low explosive or a pyrotechnic, as in fireworks, as well as timers — likely digital alarm clocks — to set off the detonators, the sources said.
Multiple senior bomb technicians briefed on the case said the aspiring bomber had all of the components needed to set off a successful explosion. No arrests have been made.
An X-ray image of one of the pipe bombs addressed to CNN and prominent critics of President Donald Trump provided by law enforcement officials briefed on the case. NBC News
The package addressed to Clinton was discovered on Tuesday near the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York, a suburb of New York City. The one addressed to Obama was intercepted Wednesday in Washington, they said.
The mail bombing targets:
Former President Barack Obama
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former Attorney General Eric Holder
Former CIA Director John Brennan
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
Billionaire George Soros
The package addressed to Brennan misspelled his name and was sent to the wrong network. It was discovered Wednesday at the Manhattan offices of CNN, even though he is a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. The newsroom was immediately evacuated, and the New York police bomb squad was summoned.
Speaking Wednesday night at the University of Texas, Brennan said he had "full confidence in my former law enforcement and intelligence colleagues to get to the bottom of this and take the appropriate actions."
"If I and others are being targeted because we are speaking out and we're living up to our responsibilities as citizens, I think that is a very unfortunate turn of events," he said.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio described the packages at a news conference as "clearly an act of terror."
At the same news conference, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said one of the packages was addressed to him and had been sent to his office. But the FBI said Cuomo's office hadn't received an explosive device, and a spokesman for Cuomo said the package contained computer files on the Proud Boys, a far-right hate group, some of whose members were recently arrested in Manhattan.
New York police outside the Time Warner Center in New York on Wednesday. Richard Drew / AP
Saying he was acting "out of an abundance of caution," Cuomo dispatched 100 members of the National Guard to beef up the already tight security at key New York City crossings and the airports and in the subway system.
A suspected explosive device received at the CNN bureau in New York City on Wednesday. NBC News
The devices were in manila packages that bore stamps and signatures with the address of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., whose name also was misspelled, three senior law enforcement officials said.
Holder's package was mailed to the wrong address, according to law enforcement officials, and it wound up being sent back to Wasserman Schultz's address, where it was intercepted by the Secret Service.
"We will not be intimidated by this attempted act of violence," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. "This appalling attack on our democracy must be vigorously prosecuted, and I am deeply disturbed by the way my name was used.
Speaking in Florida, Clinton thanked the Secret Service, saying it "intercepted the package addressed to us long before it made its way to our home."
"But it is a troubling time," she said. "And it's a time of deep divisions, and we have to do everything we can to bring our country together. We also have to elect candidates who will try to do the same."
The spate of suspicious packages came two days after a similar device was found in Soros' mailbox. Like the other targets, Soros has been a harsh critic of Trump.
In Washington, Trump vowed to "bring those responsible for these despicable acts to justice."
"In these times, we have to unify, we have to come together and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message, that acts of political violence have no place of any kind in the United States of America," he said. "I am extremely angry, upset, unhappy about what we witnessed, and we'll get to the bottom of it."
Earlier, Vice President Mike Pence thanked the Secret Service, the FBI and local law enforcement, saying that the "attempted attacks" against Obama, Clinton and CNN were "cowardly" and that those responsible for the packages "will be brought to justice."
Trump quickly weighed in with agreement on Twitter, retweeting his vice president.
Law enforcement officials said the device in Soros' mailbox was detonated as a precaution, and no one was injured. Soros, a business investor and Holocaust survivor, was reportedly not at home at the time, and he declined to comment.
One of his sons, Alexander, wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times that before Trump was elected, the hate directed at his father "was largely confined to the extremist fringes, among white supremacists and nationalists who sought to undermine the very foundations of democracy."
"But with Donald Trump's presidential campaign things got worse," he wrote. "A genie was let out of the bottle, which may take generations to put back in."
One of the suspicious packages. Addresses have been removed to protect privacy. FBI
Jonathan Dienst, Tom Winter, Corky Siemaszko and Minyvonne Burke reported from New York. Alex Johnson and Andrew Blankstein reported from Los Angeles. Pete Williams reported from Washington. ||||| Cesar Altieri Sayoc, the mail bomb suspect arrested Friday, has struggled for years with “a lack of comprehension of reality,” his former lawyer told CNN.
Attorney Ronald S. Lowy said Sayoc’s mother and sisters have urged him to seek medical treatment, but he has refused.
“He thinks there’s nothing wrong with him,” Lowy said shortly after meeting with the suspect’s family.
Sayoc has been estranged from the family for the past several years, Lowy said, and his mother “can’t understand his (Sayoc's) behavior or views."
Though FBI searched the mother’s home on Friday, Lowy predicted it would be “a waste of time” since Sayoc hadn’t visited the residence for at least three years.
Lowy said the closest he came to getting treatment for Sayoc was in 2004 during a drug case that involved steroids. He said he negotiated with prosecutors to have it charged as a narcotics case so his client could get court mandated-treatment.
It was not immediately clear whether he actually received such treatment.
Lowy, who said he now represents Sayoc’s mother and two sisters, said they are struggling to come to terms with the allegations.
“It’s a very emotional time for them,” he said. ||||| A suspected mail bomb that arrived at a district office of Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Wednesday scrambled law enforcement, including the FBI, to the Sunrise location as authorities investigated four suspected explosive devices sent to the Obamas, the Clintons, liberal billionaire George Soros and CNN’s office in New York.
But Wasserman Schultz’s package differed in this regard: It only got there because the address to which it was originally sent was incorrect. It had been sent to the office of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. So it was delivered to the congresswoman’s Sunrise office, which was listed as the return address.
The bomb scare was one of five involving “potentially destructive devices” sent across the country to Democratic standard bearers and a news outlet, according to the FBI, raising tensions throughout the nation.
Later Wednesday, police were investigating a piece of mail addressed to Wasserman Schultz at her district office in Aventura City Hall. The building was evacuated out of an abundance of caution, the congresswoman said.
Be the first to know. No one covers what is happening in our community better than we do. And with a digital subscription, you'll never miss a local story. SIGN ME UP!
All five packages — which were mailed in manila envelopes, stuffed in bubble wrap and stamped six times — listed Wasserman Schultz’s Sunrise office as the return address, the FBI said.
The packages were sent to the Manhattan offices of CNN, the Washington, D.C., home of former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama, the New York home of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and to the New York home of Democratic megadonor and philanthropist Soros.
The New York Times reported that the device found inside Soros’ mailbox was “constructed from a length of pipe about six inches long filled with explosive powder” and that it was detonated by bomb squad technicians.
The newspaper also reported that the device mailed to Soros was similar to those sent to the Obamas, Clintons and to CNN. Each package was affixed with computer-printed address labels and six “Forever” stamps and had a return address of “DEBBIE WASSERMAN SHULTZ,” misspelling the congresswoman’s name.
The FBI said the explosive devices will be taken to their Quantico, Virginia, headquarters to be examined. There have been no reports of injuries. The only reported detonation was carried out by law enforcement. Sunrise Police said the package sent to Wasserman Schultz’s office was turned over to the FBI after being “rendered” safe.
Two of the suspicious packages that used the return address for the Sunrise office of U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“This investigation is of the highest priority for the FBI. We have committed the full strength of the FBI’s resources and, together with our partners on our Joint Terrorism Task Forces, we will continue to work to identify and arrest whoever is responsible for sending these packages,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “We ask anyone who may have information to contact the FBI. Do not hesitate to call; no piece of information is too small to help us in this investigation.”
Wasserman Schultz said she was “deeply disturbed” by the use of her name on suspect packages.
“We will not be intimidated by this attempted act of violence,” she said. “This appalling attack on our democracy must be vigorously prosecuted.”
The congresswoman said she has been in close contact with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that are investigating the package found at her Sunrise office. She urged anyone with useful tips to contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI.
“Today, my staff and I will hug each other and our loved ones tightly, and tomorrow get back to work serving the people I was elected to represent,” she said.
The Sunrise office building where Wasserman Schultz has her office was evacuated just before 10:30 a.m., and explosives technicians with the Broward Sheriff’s Office, the Sunrise Police Department and the FBI were at the scene.
Federal investigators from the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in South Florida, New York and Washington, D.C., on Wednesday began looking into any similarities in the potentially explosive devices. They were also trying to track where the packages came from and gather forensic evidence and DNA.
“Each device is unique to that bomb-maker,” said one federal official not authorized to speak about the investigation. “[But] when someone does something like this, it’s usually one person.”
Sunrise Police Officer Chris Piper said the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service were taking the lead in determining if the package sent to Sunrise contained explosives.
“They are taking certain protocols to make sure that the package is safe for delivery,” he said. “The FBI will be taking the package and assuming the role, taking it to the laboratory.”
The package sent to CNN, which also contained an envelope with white powder, was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, who revoked his security clearance earlier this year. CNN published a photo of the manila envelope it received containing the explosive device. Whoever sent the envelope misspelled both Brennan’s and Wasserman Schultz’s names, and the congresswoman’s address. CNN reported the package was sent by courier.
A similar package, intended for California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, was intercepted at a congressional mail screening facility in Maryland, ABC News reported.
“What we saw here today was an effort to terrorize,” New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio said during a news conference. This clearly is an act of terror attempting to undermine our free press and leaders of this country through acts of violence.”
Other congressional offices in South Florida were on alert but as of Wednesday evening none had reported receiving suspicious packages.
“This kind of targeted hate and violence has no place in our country and will not be tolerated,” said Florida Democratic Party Chair Terrie Rizzo. “This isn’t about politics, this is about national security and our number one concern is the safety of Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and first responders called to these scenes. Unfortunately, we have seen some candidates for office use highly divisive and toxic rhetoric during this cycle. Today’s greatly disturbing events are a reminder that everyone needs to tone it down in the last two weeks and focus on the issues. That’s the type of campaign Floridians deserve.”
President Donald Trump addressed the threats Wednesday during a White House gathering on the opioid crisis. Trump called for the nation to “come together” and “unify.”
He said he was getting steady updates and that the “full weight of the government” is being deployed to find the perpetrator. He called the sending of the bombs “egregious conduct.”
“The safety of the American people is my highest and absolute priority,” said Trump. “We have to unify. We have to come together.... Acts or threats of political violence of this kind have no place in the United States of America.”
Wasserman Schultz scrapped a planned appearance with Clinton at a fundraiser for congressional candidate Donna Shalala in Coral Gables Wednesday.
Police blocked off streets leading to U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office Wednesday after a suspicious package was found. Jimena Tavel [email protected]
Clinton addressed the scare during the fundraiser and thanked the Secret Service for intercepting the explosive sent to her home in Chappaqua, New York.
“Many of you and others across our country have asked about me and my family and I’m very grateful for that,” she said. “We are fine thanks to the men and women of the Secret Service who intercepted the package addressed to us long before it made its way to our home.”
She continued: “Every day we’re grateful for their service and commitment and obviously never more than today. But it is a troubling time isn’t it? It’s a time of deep divisions and we have to do everything we can to bring our country together.”
Herald staff writers David Smiley, Jay Weaver, Jimena Tavel, and McClatchy Washington Bureau reporter Alex Daugherty contributed to this story. | First George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and CNN's NYC headquarters, now Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Maxine Waters. A Democratic aide confirmed to BuzzFeed that a suspicious package intercepted at a Capitol Hill sorting facility was addressed to Waters. The Miami Herald reports Broward County, Florida, police have confirmed a suspicious package arrived at the former Democratic National Committee chair's Sunrise office and is being investigated. But there's a twist: The Washington Post reports the devices sent to Clinton, Soros, and Obama were contained in manila envelopes and featured typed addresses. The law enforcement official it spoke with said the return address bore the name of "a known public official" who was not thought to be involved. In a twist, NBC News spoke with three law enforcement officials who say the return address was Schultz's. Sources who spoke to CNN and the New York Times also said some of the packages had Schultz's name and address on the return label. Now CNN reports the package that arrived at Schultz's office was actually addressed to Eric Holder but featured an incorrect address. As such, it was returned to sender—and the listed sender was Schultz. |
By Carl Macek - May - 1978 RALPH MCQUARRIE
Production Illustration and Planet and Satellite Art "My inspiration comes to me like bubbles rising in a champagne bottle. I lay down and rest. The ideas come from somewhere inside me and rise slowly to the conscious level. Then I awake and paint my pictures." Nestled in a neat studio in the heart of Los Angeles, Ralph McQuarrie works creating wildly beautiful paintings and sketches which depict alien creatures and wholly original landscapes and civilizations. His work on George Lucas' STAR WARS was seen in many of the matte paintings and also felt in much of the set design. McQuarrie worked closely with George Lucas to visualize the script in a series of dramatic paintings which have since been published as The Star Wars Portfolio by Ballentine Books.
Ralph McQuarrie had always wanted to be an artist. Even as a child in Montana, Ralph was exercising his artistic drive by going to summer school at the age of six to learn how to draw and work with modeling clay. Fifteen years later he became a commercial artist. His work as a technical illustrator lasted, off and on, for the next twenty years. He eventually zeroed-in on the aerospace industry. As Ralph put it, "I was always interested in military aircraft and rockets. I was kind of engineering oriented." He eventually got involved in films, first by doing some theatrical one-sheet posters and later by working on preproduction paintings. His association with George Lucas seems to have fulfilled a certain desire to create fabulously detailed yet totally alien visions.
A soft-spoken, gentle man, Ralph McQuarrie is quite lucid about his art and its relationship to the elements of science fiction and fantasy. This interview, one of the few granted by McQuarrie, should serve to point out not only the detail and creative input present in his art but to define an artist engaged in a lifelong project of finding the right outlet for his varied talents.
After completing his work on STAR WARS, McQuarrie did pre-production designs and paintings for GALACTICA, and is now hard at work designing and painting new creatures, new cultures, new contraptions, new civilizations and new adventures that will launch the production of STAR WARS II.
How did you get involved in films?
I worked for the Boeing company until 1965. I began to feel like getting back into commercial illustration, not just doing art for the aircraft industry. I used to do story illustrations for Kaiser Graphic Arts in the fifties, but I wasn't very happy there. I was really interested in fine arts, but I didn't know how to get started and how to survive at it, so I had to keep going back to work at something. About 1965 I came to Los Angeles. I had a little money saved, and just sat around my little house in Venice working, just sort of dreaming and developing ideas. It was something I had wanted to do for a long time, without having any end in mind. No results, no money, no place to sell it - no nothing - just doing what I wanted to do. But I got a call soon enough from some people who were interested in having me work for them. They had a project to animate the Apollo flights for CBS News and they wanted an illustrator that could paint rockets. I was a pretty good Tenderer and I'd been recommended by someone at Boeing. I went to work for them for quite a few years, off and on, doing those Apollo flights. Working there, I got interested in movies and started thinking about making some of my own. I borrowed a friend's camera, I did storyboards, the whole bit. I also did some storyboards for an educational film as well as promotional work. That got me meeting people in the film business.
None of these contacts were in feature films until I met Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins, who had been working for George Lucas on THX 1138 [Barwood is credited for the titles and animation]. They had a script which was interesting. People still think it is a good script. It was called STAR DANCE. [Barwood and Robbins also had a film called CLEARWATER in preproduction at Universal in 1974, "a science fiction tale set in the year 2215 AD telling of the conflicts between the survivors who populate a devastated Earth. . ." I was asked to do some paintings for them, nice big paintings of some of the key scenes, like I would do later for George. For them I did a vehicle which was supposed to go out on this grassy planet surface, and aliens in space suits. The film didn't get done. Now they are working on other projects. Anyway, Hal and Matthew introduced me to George Lucas, about two years before he actually approached me to work on STAR WARS. George mentioned at the time we first met that he wanted to look at some of my slides. He said he was interested in doing a science fiction film - he didn't call it STAR WARS at that time - with a kind of comic book subject matter. When he got ready to do the film he came and talked to me, which was a big surprise because he had done AMERICAN GRAFFITI in the meantime, which was very successful. Naturally I agreed to do what he wanted.
What kind of assignment did you get?
George wanted me to do what I did for Hal, just support his script with visuals. George felt that it was the kind of script that people weren't very impressed with. The idea seemed kind of funky. He envisioned the picture as a real visual experience, much more so than a story. It wasn't true science fiction. George called it a science fantasy, and even the fantasy aspect was non-traditional. He had a lot of ideas. He had comic book pages and other source material he wanted me to see. Once I got to work he liked what I was doing, and he would come by every once in a while to check up on the work. My ideas seemed to be in line with his. George was very specific about most of the work.
How many paintings did you do initially for George?
I think we had something like four when we first went in with paintings to Fox. We used the two robots coming across the desert, the light sabre duel, the Stormtroopers in the hall with drawn light sabres and the attack on the Death Star.
What function does a preproduction painting serve? Does it give the filmmaker a vision of his concept or does it merely serve to sell his idea to a studio?
I think it did both for George. He liked these paintings and they embodied what he was interested in putting across on the screen. I think it gave him a chance to develop his ideas at his leisure, so to speak, rather than working in the heat of production where you've got a lot of people involved and money's being spent at great rates. Then he would've had to struggle with production designers and all kinds of craftsmen. I don't think that he necessarily felt he had to engage an expensive production designer at this preliminary stage because he had his own ideas. George could have drawn everything himself, literally! He draws quite well, laboriously and a little bit crudely, but he can draw.
Lucas gave you a few images, from comic books and other sources and you took the ball from there?
Not exactly. George had very specific ideas, the Darth Vader character for instance. George described him as someone in an airtight garment with a lot of wrapping and black bands and folds kind of fluttering. He said, "Darth Vader will be coming-in like the wind, kind of sneaky, yet big and impressive."
Then Lucas worked closely with you in creating the environment and designing how the people would look?
Yes. In the course of our conversations about the plot we came up with some interesting problems. One of the first actions called for in the early script was Empire troopers burning through the outer shell of the spacecraft that Luke and 3P0 were in, and then we realized that the air would escape. The people in the passageway would have to be equipped with some sort of spacesuit. That's why those masks were installed. In the discussions we thought we could use "breath masks." George coined the phrase, and he said they might be kind of ornate. I didn't know how ornate, or what the nature of ornateness would be in this universe, so I gave them a technical look with tubing coming forward that might support the way they are put together and the way the air comes down through them, with vents, etc.
Are you referring to Darth Vader's mask and Luke's snorkel device in one of your preliminary paintings?
Exactly.
Looking at the artwork in the offices of The Star Wars Corporation, it seems that you provided not only fully rendered paintings but also numerous sketches and designs.
George would give me a specific project. He would have been happy to let me go ahead and do something on everything in the picture, and I almost did. Although my renderings were not always used. Most of the art I drew was used in some form however. John Barry [the English production designer] picked up things that I had in my paintings and used them with a great deal of flair and amplification - his ultimate Death Star architecture, and so forth. He did a lovely job of staging this stuff.
There is a great deal of architectural or structural design in your paintings.
I wanted to make these paintings as close to what would be on the screen as possible. That was a product of, or a result of our wish to make the people at Fox feel that we had a picture that was going to have a quality image, one that wasn't going to be trashy science fiction, because it did have a comic book script. It was going to be a real polished product. Maybe not like 2001, but .we didn't feel that we had to polish our props as much as they did because we were going to have a very fast-moving picture and objects weren't going to be on screen as long, or used throughout the whole picture as they were in 2001.
How many paintings did you actually complete?
I think there are about 21 or 22. All of them were done before the film was even started. In other words, before a production designer was hired. The day John Barry came on was the day I really got off the project and ceased working on designs and paintings for the film. I then started working on the matte paintings and on other projects.
Do you feel that Lucas and his crew attempted to capture your visual designs on film?
Yes, they did, the ones that George liked. Those paintings were a result of our efforts to get down on paper what George wanted, so that they were available when he needed them. Anything that was done later, like Joe Johnston's work, was done in terms of our preliminary efforts.
It is noticeable in your work that changes took place in the characters themselves. A good example is Darth Vader. Your initial drawings were sleek, almost effeminate, with curving lines rather than bold geometric patterns.
I'm not so fond of the lines they gave Vader's helmet and his mask. I think it did more to enhance his great size and to keep his head up - a lifting look rather than a jutting down look that I gave him. It really works better in that sense.
Your concept of C3P0 looks like the robot in METROPOLIS.
That's right, and that is what George was after. He said if it was just like the METROPOLIS robot it would be okay. But I wanted it to look male - not clumsy, and not a big robot clomping around. With 3P0 I did a lot of sketches and I think I made him quite elegant.
Your Wookiee seems less hairy. There is one painting in which it looks rather different than the actual Chewbacca.
At the time I did the painting George really liked the lemur eyes, little rubber teeth, and so forth. Chewbacca was kind of frightening, more so than he was in the film. I think the way it had to play on the screen, Chewbacca was ultimately better looking, almost cute.
What about your early painting of Luke Skywalker as a girl?
That was really quite a major plot change that George had to go through. There are a lot of major shifts in the plot. George just couldn't do all that he wanted to do. Fox thought there should be some romantic interest. I think this is why George made Luke a girl. Then Han Solo would be the robust hero and we could have a little tension between the two characters. That was okay, but at some point George decided to make Luke a boy again and bring in the Princess as a third character.
How did you go about visualizing the alien landscapes and situations, like the Cantina sequence for example?
George wanted this kind of rough, little edge-of-town kind of place, a sort of clay adobe structure. He thought at the time that he might even find a location that would fit his needs. I thought, in the back of my mind, that this place should have little alcoves, little places back in the dark. But I also wanted a central area. As an illustrator, I like to have something for a focus, to spotlight. So I thought of the Cantina as being a central hall which is fairly high, with a skylight and daylight filtering down, dirty light through dirty windows. As you sat back it is very dark and you looked into the bright light, this lonely diffused daylight where the action takes place, filtered with hazy smoke. My first painting was fine, George liked it, but he thought it needed a few little touches to make it look less like a resting place and more like a place that was also part of a society that was highly technological.
Were you dissatisfied with any of the work you produced for George Lucas?
Not dissatisfied, not in terms of my paintings. I would like to be as good a hardware designer as Joe Johnston, but he filled that niche and that was a good place for him. He will ultimately paint as well as I can. We are two different people, but we're quite similar in many ways.
Was there anything that you wanted to do in the paintings you were unable to get approval for?
George gave me specific assignments on most of the scenes that I would paint. He would say, "I'd like to have a shot of this, or I'd like to have a shot of that. If you see anything else, if you want to do something on other aspects and get time, go ahead." So there were a number of scenes that I did on my own, that weren't in the script.
What is important to you as an artist?
I love color. I like subtle color schemes that aren't really splashy. I think I'm very sensitive to color. My mother told me I could name the colors before I could say anything else. I was interested in color as a child, before I can even remember anything else. I will take a scene that I like and decide about the entrance of light. The desert scene is a good example with its raking light. I would never choose to make it high noon because it doesn't look as interesting. But when you've got a raking light, when a moon will stand out in the sky, and with the long shadows, and the warmth from the light which unifies the painting, that is what I like to do. There is also a high clarity to your work. You really define your subject.
I get interested in the forms, and I sculpt what I'm thinking about to see how objects are formed. I don't let the details go by. I want everything defined that is out there. Some people say to me, don't worry about that stuff, it's the overall effect that counts. But to my way of thinking, the overall effect is the result of all those details. I realize that a lot of little detail doesn't help that much. You can paint rather loosely and still get the effect of all the detail, which I try to do as much as possible. I try not to get bogged-down and do it all. I like paintings that define a dreamlike subject very convincingly. You are convinced that you're there and yet it's a strange place. TM & © Lucasfilm Ltd.
INTERVIEWS HOME ||||| Ralph McQuarrie's pre-production painting of a light saber fight for "Star Wars," set in the corridors of the Death Star, features an earlier concept of Darth Vader. / Lucasfilm Ltd.
(CBS News) Ralph McQuarrie, the artist whose conceptual paintings were instrumental in designing the landmark "Star Wars" films, has died at age 82.
The announcement was made on his official website, ralphmcquarrie.com.
A commercial artist and designer whose career included stints at Boeing and Kaiser Graphic Arts and creating animations of Apollo space flights for CBS News, McQuarrie created the concept art that was crucial in winning 20th Century Fox's approval to put George Lucas' "Star Wars" in production.
The success of his "Star Wars" paintings launched a late feature film career for McQuarrie that included helping design such classics as "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "E.T.: The Extra-terrestrial," "Back to the Future," "Cocoon," "Total Recall," and the original TV series "Battlestar Galactica."
"I am deeply saddened by the passing of such a visionary artist and such a humble man," George Lucas said in a statement. "Ralph McQuarrie was the first person I hired to help me envision Star Wars. His genial contribution, in the form of unequaled production paintings, propelled and inspired all of the cast and crew of the original 'Star Wars' trilogy. When words could not convey my ideas, I could always point to one of Ralph's fabulous illustrations and say, 'Do it like this.'"
"In many ways, he was a generous father to a conceptual art revolution that was born of his artwork, and which seized the imaginations of thousands and propelled them into the film industry. In that way, we will all be benefiting from his oeuvre for generations to come," Lucas said.
"Beyond that, I will always remember him as a kind and patient, and wonderfully talented, friend and collaborator."
"Star Wars" art by Ralph McQuarrie
Following his work on Apollo TV newscasts, McQuarrie came into contact with Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins, who had worked with Lucas on that director's first feature film, "THX-1138," about designing a science fiction film. That project never materialized, but through their work Lucas met with McQuarrie and asked him to design what ultimately became "Star Wars."
Even after the success of "American Graffiti," Lucas could not find a buyer for his script for "Star Wars" - science fiction at that time being thought box office poison.
"George felt that it was the kind of script that people weren't very impressed with," McQuarrie told Cinefantastique magazine in 1978. "The idea seemed kind of funky. He envisioned the picture as a real visual experience, much more so than a story. It wasn't true science fiction. George called it a science fantasy, and even the fantasy aspect was non-traditional."
Lucas provided McQuarrie with comic book illustrations and other source material, but McQuarrie contribution was to make the alien worlds, species, spaceships and costumes tactile.
He created the look of robots and light sabers, (C-3PO was inspired in part by the robot of "Metropolis"), stormtroopers and Darth Vader, the Death Star and TIE-Fighter dogfights, and other crucial elements.
"I wanted to make these paintings as close to what would be on the screen as possible," McQuarrie told Cinefantastique. "That was a product of, or a result of our wish to make the people at Fox feel that we had a picture that was going to have a quality image, one that wasn't going to be trashy science fiction . . . It was going to be a real polished product."
McQuarrie's nearly two-dozen illustrations proved crucial in getting the backing of 20th Century Fox to go into production, though there were variations from the final product given the early pre-production stage - the fact, for example, that Luke Skywalker is depicted as a girl.
"Fox thought there should be some romantic interest - I think this is why George made Luke a girl," McQuarrie recalled. "Then Han Solo would be the robust hero and we could have a little tension between the two characters. That was okay, but at some point George decided to make Luke a boy again and bring in the Princess as a third character."
In addition to film work, McQuarrie also designed book covers (notably for science fiction) and advertising.
For more info: | Ralph McQuarrie, the artist who was instrumental in shaping the Star Wars universe—down to the look of characters like Darth Vader, Chewbacca, and R2-D2—has died at the age of 82, reports CBS News. In addition to working at Boeing and creating Apollo space flight animations for CBS News, McQuarrie designed the concept art that George Lucas used to sell Star Wars to 20th Century Fox. "I wanted to make these paintings as close to what would be on the screen as possible," McQuarrie once told Cinefantastique. "That was a product of, or a result of our wish to make the people at Fox feel that we had a picture that was going to have a quality image, one that wasn't going to be trashy science fiction. ... It was going to be a real polished product." Because of his success with Star Wars, McQuarrie would go on to produce art for many of the biggest movies of the 1980s, including Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET, Back to the Future, and Cocoon. "I am deeply saddened by the passing of such a visionary artist and such a humble man," George Lucas wrote in a statement. "When words could not convey my ideas, I could always point to one of Ralph's fabulous illustrations and say, 'Do it like this.'" You can check out more of Ralph McQuarrie's art at his personal website. |
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 30: A fallen tree rests atop a convenience store in the Shaw neighborhood after heavy storms in the Washington, DC region June 30, 2012 in Washington, DC. The storm has left more than a million people in the greater Washington, DC area without power. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The D.C. area is struggling to recover after a massive storm that resulted in at least 16 deaths and left more than 1.5 million people without power.
Check closings and cancellations here.
Raw Video: Transformer Fire in Pr. George's County
Watch raw video of firefighters battling a transformer fire in Prince George's County. (Published Saturday, June 30, 2012)
Check morning commute information here.
Shomari Stone's Storm Damage Recap
Shomari Stone recaps the early coverage of the severe storm damage. (Published Saturday, June 30, 2012)
Here's the very latest.
Comcast said Monday evening that its outages are mostly related to commercial power outages, and Comcast service should be restored as power is restored.
A downed tree blocked the southbound lanes of the George Washington Memorial Parkway at Overlook Park in Arlington Monday evening. Traffic was diverted to VA 123 (Chain Bridge Road).
Citing the disruption caused by the weather and the need to keep resources focused on recovery, Montgomery County canceled the Mid-County Sparkles! Fireworks display planned for Einstein High School in Kensington and the Germantown Glory fireworks scheduled at the Maryland SoccerPlex in the South Germantown Recreational Park.
A boil water advisory for Falls Church Water Utility customers in Tysons, Vienna and Dunn Loring was lifted Monday afternoon.
Federal agencies in the D.C. area will be open Tuesday, but non-emergency employees have the option for unscheduled leave or telework.
VDOT lifted HOV on I-66 inside the Beltway for the afternoon.
Prince George’s County Government announces Liberal Leave Policy will be in effect for non-essential Prince George’s County Employees for Monday.
Fairfax County Government is open Monday, however employees have been granted unscheduled leave. Emergency service personnel should report as scheduled. Fairfax County Public Schools operating status will be updated online at www.fcps.edu. The Fairfax County Circuit Court, General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court are closed.
Loudoun County Government will be open Monday but on unscheduled leave for non essential personnel. Emergency personnel and essential employees are expected to report on time.
Prince George's County Public Schools will operate under Code Yellow on Monday, meaning schools are closed. All offices are closed. Emergency personnel only must report to work. All evening activities are canceled.
Federal agencies will be open Monday. Employees have the option for unscheduled leave or unscheduled telework. Those eligible must notify their supervisors. They may use annual leave, earned compensatory time off, earned credit hours, or leave without pay; or as permitted by their agency's policies, procedures, and collective bargaining agreements, telework from home on a non-telework day, if the employee has a telework agreement in place that is approved for unscheduled telework. Emergency employees are expected to report to their worksite on time unless otherwise directed by their agencies.
Virginia has recorded its seventh death related to Friday's storms. Spokeswoman Corinne Geller of the Virginia State Police told the Associated Press that the state medical examiner has concluded a traffic death Friday night in Montgomery County, Va., was storm related. The other deaths all resulted from falling trees.
Falls Church will institute liberal leave for employees Monday.
In a statement, Verizon acknowledged that a "power issue in one of our Arlington facilities" was responsible for 911 service outages in Fairfax and Prince William counties, as well as in Manassas and Manassas Park.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has declared liberal leave for all non-essential state employees on Monday. Employees must notify their supervisors if they intend to take liberal leave.
All scheduled programs and activities in Montgomery County Public Schools, including summer camp programs, are canceled for Monday and Tuesday.
Merrifield is no longer on the boil water advisory list.
Fort Belvoir, left without power to much of its facilities, will operate with a staff of emergency-essential employees on Monday, the Associated Press reported. Those who are not emergency or essential employees should contact their supervisor regarding their duty status. The Commissary remains closed. The installation remains largely without power, with crews working around the clock to clear fallen trees and debris.
D.C. Public Schools has canceled all summer school classes scheduled for Monday. Only essential personnel are required to report to school. Schools will also not be open for use by other community-based organizations or programs. DCPS administrative sites will remain open and administrative employees should report to work as usual.
Residents of Tysons Corner, Dunn Loring, Vienna, and Merrifeld are advised to continue boling their water through Monday night. It is expected that the water will be properly tested by that time.
Charles County has extended its Waldorf ice distribution until 2 p.m. Each person can receive up to two bags of ice and must show proof of county residence.
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett told reports Sunday afternoon that the Monday morning commute "would be a challenge." Leggett urged commuters to leave for work early and, where possible, carpool.
WSSC lifted mandatory water restrictions at noon Sunday but encouraged customers to be conscious of their water usage. Power was restored to most pumping stations and distribution is near normal. Customers who experience discolored water or low pressure should flush cold water lines for five minutes, set single-lever faucets to fun the cold water, flush refrigerator water lines for five minutes and make sure washing machine water is running clear before washing clothing.
Potomac Edison has announced that its customers can receive one bag of ice and two gallons of water for no charge at an Martin's food store in Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Howard, Montgomery and Washington counties.
Ice is also being given away at area Harris Teeter stores.
The Charles County Department of Emergency Services will be distributing free ice to county residents between 9 a.m. and noon Sunday. Distribution will take place at #7 Jay Gould Court, Unit 1 off Industrial Park Drive in Waldorf. Each person can receive up to two bags of ice and must show proof of residence in the county.
PEPCO released a statement Sunday morning say that it had restored power to its high-voltage transmission lines and substations, as well as to all water pumping plants. The utility also said that crews from Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, and Missouri had been called in to help with the restoration work.
Falls Church Water Utility customers are now being advised to purify tap water by boiling or adding bleach before drinking or cooking. The suggestion comes after a drop in water pressure in Tysons and Vienna, which may have led to contaminants entering the water.
110 members of the Virginia National Guard in Fredericksburg are preparing for possible storm recovery operations.
Maryland has declared a state of emergency in an executive order signed by Governor Martin O'Malley: "An emergency exists in all counties and Annapolis City, Baltimore City, and Ocean City," reads the order, which also notes that 840,000 Maryland citizens are without power and additional storms and extreme temperatures are expected. The order will give O'Malley the ability to access emergency resources and activate the Maryland National Guard, if necessary.
"It could take about a week" for all Pepco customers to have electricity again, the utility company said today. Pepco has announced a plan to restore power to more than 443,000 customers. Crews from Florida, Georgia, Missouri and Oklahoma will be arriving Monday to assist area workers. Pepco has also asked for help from Canada and the Northeastern U.S.
Water restrictions remain in place and are mandatory for all WSSC customers, residential and commercial in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties after the storms knocked out power to two water filtration plants and other facilities. Some customers are experiencing discolored water. WSSC said this is common after a powerful storm. Sediment inside the pipes can be stirred up causing the water to become discolored. While this water is safe to drink, WSSC does not recommend using discolored water to prepare baby formula. Washing machines should be used sparingly during mandatory water restrictions and WSSC does not recommend washing clothes with discolored water.
BGE has restored service to 150,000 customers. However, BGE expects restoration activities to continue deep into next week.
D.C. Police have confirmed that a man was electrocuted during Friday night's storm. The man was found in the 3000 block of Woodland Drive in Northwest and was pronounced dead at a local hospital. A woman who was with him also suffered burns to her body.
The city of Alexandria has declared a local emergency due to the widespread power outages and excessive heat.
Fairfax County officials tweeted that the county's 9-1-1 system is "partially restored." If residents can't get through, they are asked to call (703) 691-3680 or report an emergency at their police or fire station.
The District of Columbia has declared a state of emergency in the wake of the storm and in the face of this weekend's heat wave. As of 6:00 a.m. Monday morning, over 46,000 people were still without power in the District.
In regards to the 911 outages in Fairfax County and elsewhere, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova called it a "total failure." Officials don't know the specific cause, but believe it stems from the Verizon Command Center in Arlington, Va.
The following is a statement from Verizon on phone outages across the area: "The severe storms that hit the Washington metropolitan area Friday night – and the resulting power outages that have affected much of the region – have also affected services for some Verizon customers. Our operations teams are working to restore services as quickly as possible, and we appreciate customers’ patience as we do so."
Montgomery County 311 is now operational. Call 311 from land lines within the county. Use 240-777-0311 from a cell or when calling from outside the county.
The body of a 71-year-old Silver Spring woman was discovered after a tree apparently feel through the roof of her home and onto her bed. This was the second storm-related death reported in Maryland. Kevin Alan Obrien, 25, died in Anne Arundel County after a tree fell on a car.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell declared a state of emergency Saturday morning, saying that the result of the storms was the largest non-hurricane power outage in Virginia history.
McDonnell also confirmed that six people had been killed by falling trees in Virginia.
PEPCO officials said it would take at least 7 days to restore power to customers in D.C., Montgomery County, and Prince George's County.
Power companies say that some people could be without power for days after Friday's storm system produced hurricane-force winds across the region. For the latest power outage numbers, go here.
More than 100 homes were damaged by fallen trees in Fairfax County, according to officials there.
The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) has issued mandatory water restrictions for Montgomery and Prince George's County due to a power failure at WSSC's two water filtration plants. Customers have been asked to stop all outdoor water use and use water indoors only as necessary.
The entire town of La Plata, Md. is expected to be without power for at least several hours.
Power outages have closed all the campuses of Northern Virginia Community College, as well as Montgomery College in Maryland. A power failure at George Mason University has cancelled classes and closed the University's administrative offices until further notice.
Amtrak service between Washington D.C. and Philadelphia has been suspended until at least noon Saturday.
Spectators and volunteers were turned away from Congressional Country Club, where the third round of the AT&T National will take place with a delayed two-tee start Saturday afternoon.
The Smithsonian Folklife Festival is closed Saturday due to storm damage.
West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has declared a state of emergency after more than 500,000 customers were left without power in 27 counties.
Several cooling centers will be open in D.C.
Fairfax County's 9-1-1 system is not currently working; residents are asked to report emergencies in person at their nearest fire or police station.
Viewer Storm Images
Get the latest weather from NBCWashington.com:
Download our NEW free weather apps for iPad and iPhone. You can also follow us on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for our e-mail newsletters.
Copyright Associated Press / NBC4 Washington ||||| Workers use a golf cart to carry branches from a tree that fell onto the 14th fairway at Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Md., Saturday, June 30, 2012, after a strong storm blew through overnight.... (Associated Press)
Violent storms that swept the eastern U.S. left at least nine people dead, authorities said Saturday, while more than two million people were without power overnight on one of the hottest days on record.
Six people were reported killed in Virginia, including a 90-year-old woman asleep in bed when a tree slammed into her home. Two young cousins in New Jersey were killed when a tree fell on their tent while camping.
Police in Maryland said a man was killed when a tree fell onto his car.
Hundreds of thousands in Washington, D.C., and other areas were still largely without power _ and without air conditioning _ Saturday as temperatures were expected to reach above 100 degrees (40 degrees Celsius) across the region.
On Friday, the nation's capital reached 104 degrees (40 degrees Celsius) _ topping a record of 101 (38 degrees Celsius) set in 1934.
As of 1 a.m. Saturday, Pepco was reporting 406,000 power outages in the District of Columbia and Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland.
"We have more than half our system down," said Pepco spokeswoman Myra Oppel. "This is definitely going to be a multi-day outage."
Amtrak suspended its service from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia, at least until mid-morning.
High winds also toppled three cargo trucks on Interstate 75 in Ohio.
___
Associated Press writers Norman Gomlak in Atlanta and Rebecca Miller in Philadelphia contributed to this report. | The violent storms that battered the eastern US last night have taken a heavy toll: Authorities say at least nine people are dead. NBC Washington reports that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell joined West Virginia in declaring a state of emergency this morning and confirmed that six people in his state were killed by falling trees. He also put the scope of the power outage into perspective, saying it was the largest non-hurricane outage in Virginia's history. Two young cousins in New Jersey were killed when a tree fell on their tent while camping, and police in Maryland said a man was killed when a tree fell onto his car. Hundreds of thousands in Washington, DC, remain without power, with temperatures projected to top 100 degrees. The AP notes that Amtrak halted DC-to-Philly service this morning. |
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has endorsed a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians, urging the Supreme Court to strike down California’s voter-passed law barring same-sex marriage as well as laws in at least the seven other states that already provide civil unions.
“Tradition, no matter how long established, cannot by itself justify a discriminatory law,” the administration said in a brief filed with the high court late Thursday. “Prejudice may not be the basis for differential treatment under the law.”
The administration’s argument struck a legal middle ground – giving the justices a way to overturn California’s Proposition 8 without upsetting the laws in all states that currently ban same-sex marriage. Gay-rights advocates have asked the court to strike down all laws nationwide that bar same-sex couples from marrying, but many legal analysts have doubted that a majority of the justices would go that far.
TIMELINE: Gay marriage through the years
Rather than argue for a nationwide ruling, the brief filed by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argues that bans on same-sex marriage cannot stand at least in states that already have granted same-sex couples nearly all the rights of marriage. To give those rights while withholding the status of marriage would amount to discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation, and that cannot be justified under the Constitution, the brief says.
“The designation of marriage,” the brief notes, “conveys a message to society that domestic partnerships or civil unions cannot match.”
That legal argument, if the justices adopt it, would apply not only to California, but to seven other states that allow civil unions but not gay marriage. Those are Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island, the brief says.
GRAPHIC: Black turnout for Obama in 2008 boosted Prop. 8
In addition, the government argued, laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation should be treated skeptically by the courts, much as laws that discriminate by gender. That standard, if adopted, ultimately could invalidate other states’ laws against same-sex marriage.
The administration was not required to get involved in the California case, but gay rights groups lobbied it heavily to do so. The groups also have orchestrated a series of briefs on their side by business leaders, prominent Republicans and others. Although the government’s brief did not go as far as gay-rights advocates have done, it won immediate praise from those organizations.
Unlike most other outside groups, the views of the solicitor general’s office often have particular weight with the justices, although the court could decide the case on several other grounds.
The decision to file a brief comes after several weeks of hesitation and internal debate. It marks the latest step in President Obama’s self-described “evolution” on the issue of same-sex marriage. When he initially ran for president in 2008, he did not support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, although he also opposed Prop. 8, which California voters approved that year. In recent weeks, Obama increasingly has referred to same-sex marriage as an issue of civil rights.
Other administration officials have taken the same stance. In a television interview to be aired next week, for example, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said that he saw marriage equality as “really the latest civil-rights issue.”
“It is the question of whether or not American citizens are going to be treated with equal protection of the laws,” Holder said in the interview with ABC News.
White House officials have been at pains to present the decision of whether to weigh in on the Proposition 8 case as one made at the Justice Department.
“The president obviously has expressed an opinion in the past on this issue as a matter of policy, but when it comes to legal and constitutional issues around it, that's a jurisdiction that resides at the Department of Justice,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
Privately, however, senior administration officials have made clear that on such a weighty policy issue, they would act based on the president’s wishes.
The case before the court will be the first to directly confront the justices with the question of whether the U.S. Constitution gives gays and lesbians a right to marry.
Judges in several states had upheld gay marriage under their state constitutions, and the California Supreme Court did the same in 2008. But that fall, the state’s voters narrowly approved Prop. 8, which changed the state constitution to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
The case before the high court began shortly afterward when two same-sex couples sued in federal court in San Francisco, arguing that excluding them from marrying violated their rights to liberty and equal treatment. ||||| The Obama administration on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to rule in the case of California’s Proposition 8 that same-sex marriage should be required in eight more states, beyond the nine that already permit it, although it stopped short of explicitly calling for the Justices to extend the right to the entire nation. [Editor’s note: Directly below this post is a shorter discussion of today’s filing in Plain English.]
Here was the government’s key argument why the Golden State’s ban on same-sex marriage fails the constitutional test the administration suggested: “California’s extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8.” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., filed the brief shortly after 6:30 p.m. Thursday. California is one of the eight states that would be covered by that argument.
Much of the logic of the government’s brief — its first entry into the controversy over the 2008 ballot measure — could be read to support a right to marriage equality in every state, but it did not endorse that idea explicitly.
The historic document, though, could give the Court a way to advance gay marriage rights, without going the full step — now being advocated by two California couples who have been challenging Proposition 8 since 2009 — of declaring that marriage should be open to all same-sex couples as a constitutional requirement.
Administration sources said that President Obama was involved directly in the government’s choice of whether to enter the case at all, and then in fashioning the argument that it should make. Having previously endorsed the general idea that same-sex individuals should be allowed to marry the person they love, the President was said to have felt an obligation to have his government take part in the fundamental test of marital rights that is posed by the Proposition 8 case. The President could take the opportunity to speak to the nation on the marriage question soon.
In essence, the position of the federal government would simultaneously give some support to marriage equality while showing some respect for the rights of states to regulate that institution. What the brief endorsed is what has been called the “eight-state solution” — that is, if a state already recognizes for same-sex couples all the privileges and benefits that married couples have (as in the eight states that do so through “civil unions”) those states must go the final step and allow those couples to get married. The argument is that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality when both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are entitled to the same marital benefits, but only the opposite-sex couples can get married.
“The Court can resolve this case,” the new brief said, “by focusing on the particular circumstances presented by California law and the recognition it gives to committed same-sex relationships, rather than addressing the equal protection issue under circumstances not present here.” That final phrase was the brief’s strongest indication that the administration is not yet ready to take a firm position on whether the “fundamental right to marry” that the Court has recognized repeatedly is a right that should be open also to same-sex couples.
The eight states that apparently would be covered by the argument the Solicitor General has now made are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island.
Beyond those eight, nine other states already recognize full marriage rights for same-sex couples. Three have done so as a result of state court rulings (Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts). Five have done so by state legislatures’ passage of equality laws (Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington), and one by voter-approved ballot measures (Maine). The legislatively approved equality laws in Maryland and Washington were ratified last November by voters in statewide balloting. Washington, D.C., also allows same-sex marriages.
The Solicitor General’s brief ticked off all of the arguments put forth by the defenders of Proposition 8, and contended that none of them can withstand scrutiny in the face of the simple fact that California recognizes same-sex couples living in committed relationships as the same as opposite-sex couples — except for civil marriage itself.
By that approach, the document said, “Proposition 8’s withholding of the designation of marriage is not based on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and child-rearing — [the defenders’] central claimed justification for the initiative — but instead on impermissible prejudice. . . . Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.”
While this argument, if accepted by the Court, would be enough to scuttle Proposition 8, it might not go far enough to nullify bans on same-sex marriage in states that do not extend marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples. But that gap might be filled, at some time in the future, if the Court were to endorse the government’s basic contention that laws that treat gays and lesbians less favorably should be judged by a more rigorous constitutional standard.
An all-out constitutional attack on California’s Proposition 8 — an ambitious attempt to create full marriage equality nationwide — has been under way in the federal courts since May 2009, when two same-sex couples denied marriage licenses in California filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The two couples are Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami of Burbank.
As the case unfolded, the federal government was never involved. Once it reached the Supreme Court at the end of last July, the question whether the Obama administration would take a position promptly arose. The brief filed Thursday evening provided the government’s answer.
The brief recommended that the Court, for the first time, apply a tough constitutional standard to Proposition 8 — the standard that goes by the technical name “heightened scrutiny.” It means that such a law must serve an important government interest, and be effective in doing so.
Applying that test to California and the other states that now withhold marriage itself from only one group of couples when all couples who share a committed relationship are entitled to the other benefits of marriage, the administration argued that this amounts to a form of discrimination based on sexual orientation and thus cannot stand.
In the other same-sex marriage case that is now moving forward at the Court, involving the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, the administration is using that same constitutional test in urging the Court to nullify a key section of DOMA — Section 3.
That section and Proposition 8 are quite different in scope: DOMA Section 3 bars federal marital benefits to same-sex couples who are already married under their own state’s law, while Proposition 8 flatly bans same-sex marriage throughout the state. In the court cases around the country challenging DOMA, the administration has not had to address the scope of the right to marry, because the couples challenging that provision already are legally married. But that right is at the core of the Proposition 8 case and, if the government was to enter that case at all, it had to deal with that directly.
Some legal observers have noted that, if the more rigorous constitutional test the government now proposes is applied even to states that now forbid same-sex marriage, they would have difficulty passing that test. Indeed, a federal judge who dissented in the DOMA case that the Court is reviewing made just that point.
The administration brief did not take an explicit position on how its standard might apply to states that do not now provide civil unions or other broad marriage-like rights as the eight non-marriage states do. But the logic of its constitutional test might, in fact, jeopardize same-sex marriage bans as a general proposition.
The challenge to Proposition 8 has led to two lower court rulings — one by a federal district judge in San Francisco, in a sweeping decision declaring that marriage is a government benefit that constitutionally must be open to all couples, gay and straight, and one by the Ninth Circuit Court, in a significantly narrower decision holding simply that a state cannot once grant a right to marry, as California did for a brief period, and then take it away.
The administration brief argued that the Ninth Circuit ruling should be upheld, but on the different ground that Proposition 8 fails because it withholds only the civil right of marriage from couples who otherwise share all of the benefits of marriage.
One curious facet of the new government brief is that it took no position on the question of whether the Court has the authority to decide the validity of Proposition 8. When the Court agreed to hear that case, it told the lawyers also to be prepared to argue whether or not the backers of that measure had a legal right, under Article III, to file their appeal.
If the sponsors did not have that right, the Court would have no jurisdiction to rule on their appeal. The administration appeared to have chosen to leave that issue to be debated by others filing briefs in that case. The two same-sex couples who are continuing to pursue their challenge to Proposition 8 do make that argument as part of their brief, already filed, and several other briefs being filed by groups not directly involved in the case will be advancing that argument, too.
Almost inevitably after filing such a significant brief, the United States will ask permission to participate in the oral argument on March 26 over the fate of Proposition 8.
The Solicitor General’s brief justified the federal government’s first move into the Proposition 8 case by arguing that “the denial of the right to marry to same-sex marriage,” and the constitutionality of that denial raises in both that case and in the DOMA lawsuit the core question of what constitutional standard should govern laws that draw such distinctions.
Moreover, the brief said, some of the arguments that backers of Proposition 8 have advanced also have been made in support of DOMA.
Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, U.S. endorses limited gay marriage right, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 28, 2013, 6:27 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/u-s-endorses-limited-gay-marriage-right/ | The Obama administration has ramped up its fight for gay marriage at the Supreme Court ahead of two big cases in late March. The Justice Department today issued a legal brief urging the court to strike down California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, reports the Los Angeles Times. The ban violates the Constitution's equal-protection clause, argues the brief. “Tradition, no matter how long established, cannot by itself justify a discriminatory law,” it says. “Prejudice may not be the basis for differential treatment under the law.” At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston notes that the brief does not explicitly call for a right to gay marriage nationwide, instead focusing on why the California ban is wrong. "The historic document, though, could give the Court a way to advance gay marriage rights, without going the full step ... of declaring that marriage should be open to all same-sex couples as a constitutional requirement." The government did not have to weigh in on the Prop 8 case because it is not directly involved, notes the New York Times. (It had no choice on the second case, that one dealing with a narrower issue involving the Defense of Marriage Act.) But it did so anyway, asserting that "the designation of marriage conveys a message to society that domestic partnerships or civil unions cannot match.” |
Because of such emergencies as natural disasters, hazardous material spills, and riots, all levels of government have had some experience in preparing for different types of disasters and emergencies. Preparing for all potential hazards is commonly referred to as the “all-hazards” approach. While terrorism is a component within an all-hazards approach, terrorist attacks potentially impose a new level of fiscal, economic, and social dislocation within this nation’s boundaries. Given the specialized resources that are necessary to address a chemical or biological attack, the range of governmental services that could be affected, and the vital role played by private entities in preparing for and mitigating risks, state and local resources alone will likely be insufficient to meet the terrorist threat. Some of these specific challenges can be seen in the area of bioterrorism. For example, a biological agent released covertly might not be recognized for a week or more because symptoms may only appear several days after the initial exposure and may be misdiagnosed at first. In addition, some biological agents, such as smallpox, are communicable and can spread to others who were not initially exposed. These characteristics require responses that are unique to bioterrorism, including health surveillance, epidemiologic investigation, laboratory identification of biological agents, and distribution of antibiotics or vaccines to large segments of the population to prevent the spread of an infectious disease. The resources necessary to undertake these responses are generally beyond state and local capabilities and would require assistance from and close coordination with the federal government. National preparedness is a complex mission that involves a broad range of functions performed throughout government, including national defense, law enforcement, transportation, food safety and public health, information technology, and emergency management, to mention only a few. While only the federal government is empowered to wage war and regulate interstate commerce, state and local governments have historically assumed primary responsibility for managing emergencies through police, fire-fighting, and emergency medical personnel. The federal government’s role in responding to major disasters is generally defined in the Stafford Act, which requires a finding that the disasters is so severe as to be beyond the capacity of state and local governments to respond effectively before major disaster or emergency assistance from the federal government is warranted. Once a disaster is declared, the federal government—through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—may reimburse state and local governments for between 75 and 100 percent of eligible costs, including response and recovery activities. There has been an increasing emphasis over the past decade on preparedness for terrorist events. After the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway system on March 20, 1995, and the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, the United States initiated a new effort to combat terrorism. In June 1995, Presidential Decision Directive 39 was issued, enumerating responsibilities for federal agencies in combating terrorism, including domestic terrorism. Recognizing the vulnerability of the United States to various forms of terrorism, the Congress passed the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (also known as the Nunn-Lugar- Domenici program) to train and equip state and local emergency services personnel who would likely be the first responders to a domestic terrorist event. Other federal agencies, including those in the Department of Justice, Department of Energy, FEMA and Environmental Protection Agency, have also developed programs to assist state and local governments in preparing for terrorist events. The attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the subsequent attempts to contaminate Americans with anthrax, dramatically exposed the nation’s vulnerabilities to domestic terrorism and prompted numerous legislative proposals to further strengthen our preparedness and response. During the first session of the 107th Congress, several bills were introduced with provisions relating to state and local preparedness. For instance, the Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism Act of 2001, which you co sponsored, Mr. Chairman, proposes the establishment of a Council on Domestic Preparedness to enhance the capabilities of state and local emergency preparedness and response. The funding for homeland security increased substantially after the attacks. According to documents supporting the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget request, about $19.5 billion in federal funding for homeland security was enacted in fiscal year 2002. The Congress added to this amount by passing an emergency supplemental appropriation of $40 billion dollars. According to the budget request documents, about one- quarter of that amount, nearly $9.8 billion, was dedicated to strengthening our defenses at home, resulting in an increase in total federal funding on homeland security of about 50 percent, to $29.3 billion. Table 1 compares fiscal year 2002 funding for homeland security by major categories with the president’s proposal for fiscal year 2003. We have tracked and analyzed federal programs to combat terrorism for many years and have repeatedly called for the development of a national strategy for preparedness. We have not been alone in this message; for instance, national commissions, such as the Gilmore Commission, and other national associations, such as the National Emergency Management Association and the National Governors Association, have advocated the establishment of a national preparedness strategy. The attorney general’s Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism Crime and Technology Plan, issued in December 1998, represents one attempt to develop a national strategy on combating terrorism. This plan entailed a substantial interagency effort and could potentially serve as a basis for a national preparedness strategy. However, we found it lacking in two critical elements necessary for an effective strategy: (1) measurable outcomes and (2) identification of state and local government roles in responding to a terrorist attack. In October 2001, the president established the Office of Homeland Security as a focal point with a mission to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. While this action represents a potentially significant step, the role and effectiveness of the Office of Homeland Security in setting priorities, interacting with agencies on program development and implementation, and developing and enforcing overall federal policy in terrorism-related activities is in the formative stages of being fully established. The emphasis needs to be on a national rather than a purely federal strategy. We have long advocated the involvement of state, local, and private-sector stakeholders in a collaborative effort to arrive at national goals. The success of a national preparedness strategy relies on the ability of all levels of government and the private sector to communicate and cooperate effectively with one another. To develop this essential national strategy, the federal role needs to be considered in relation to other levels of government, the goals and objectives for preparedness, and the most appropriate tools to assist and enable other levels of government and the private sector to achieve these goals. Although the federal government appears monolithic to many, in the area of terrorism prevention and response, it has been anything but. More than 40 federal entities have a role in combating and responding to terrorism, and more than 20 federal entities in bioterrorism alone. The complex relationships this creates in the area of bioterrorism, as they existed prior to the recent creation of the Office of Homeland Security, are illustrated by the chart contained in appendix II. One of the areas that the Office of Homeland Security will be reviewing is the coordination among federal agencies and programs. Concerns about coordination and fragmentation in federal preparedness efforts are well founded. Our past work, conducted prior to the creation of the Office of Homeland Security, has shown coordination and fragmentation problems stemming largely from a lack of accountability within the federal government for terrorism-related programs and activities. There had been no single leader in charge of the many terrorism- related functions conducted by different federal departments and agencies. In fact, several agencies had been assigned leadership and coordination functions, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FEMA, and the Office of Management and Budget. We previously reported that officials from a number of agencies that combat terrorism believe that the coordination roles of these various agencies are not always clear. The recent Gilmore Commission report expressed similar concerns, concluding that the current coordination structure does not provide the discipline necessary among the federal agencies involved. In the past, the absence of a central focal point resulted in two major problems. The first of these is a lack of a cohesive effort from within the federal government. For example, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Transportation have been overlooked in bioterrorism-related policy and planning, even though these organizations would play key roles in response to terrorist acts. In this regard, the Department of Agriculture has been given key responsibilities to carry out in the event that terrorists were to target the nation’s food supply, but the agency was not consulted in the development of the federal policy assigning it that role. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration was involved with issues associated with the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, but it was not involved in the selection of all items procured for the stockpile. Further, the Department of Transportation has responsibility for delivering supplies under the Federal Response Plan, but it was not brought into the planning process and consequently did not learn the extent of its responsibilities until its involvement in subsequent exercises. Second, the lack of leadership has resulted in the federal government’s development of programs to assist state and local governments that were similar and potentially duplicative. After the terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City, the federal government created additional programs that were not well coordinated. For example, FEMA, the Department of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services all offer separate assistance to state and local governments in planning for emergencies. Additionally, a number of these agencies also condition receipt of funds on completion of distinct but overlapping plans. Although the many federal assistance programs vary somewhat in their target audiences, the potential redundancy of these federal efforts warrants scrutiny. In this regard, we recommended in September 2001 that the president work with the Congress to consolidate some of the activities of the Department of Justice’s Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support under FEMA. State and local response organizations believe that federal programs designed to improve preparedness are not well synchronized or organized. They have repeatedly asked for a one-stop “clearinghouse” for federal assistance. As state and local officials have noted, the multiplicity of programs can lead to confusion at the state and local levels and can expend precious federal resources unnecessarily or make it difficult for them to identify available federal preparedness resources. As the Gilmore Commission report notes, state and local officials have voiced frustration about their attempts to obtain federal funds and have argued that the application process is burdensome and inconsistent among federal agencies. Although the federal government can assign roles to federal agencies under a national preparedness strategy, it will also need to reach consensus with other levels of government and with the private sector about their respective roles. Clearly defining the appropriate roles of government may be difficult because, depending upon the type of incident and the phase of a given event, the specific roles of local, state and federal governments and of the private sector may not be separate and distinct. Numerous discussions have been held about the need to enhance the nation’s preparedness, but national preparedness goals and measurable performance indicators have not yet been developed. These are critical components for assessing program results. In addition, the capability of state and local governments to respond to catastrophic terrorist attacks is uncertain. At the federal level, measuring results for federal programs has been a longstanding objective of the Congress. The Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (commonly referred to as the Results Act). The legislation was designed to have agencies focus on the performance and results of their programs rather than on program resources and activities, as they had done in the past. Thus, the Results Act became the primary legislative framework through which agencies are required to set strategic and annual goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to which goals are met. The outcome-oriented principles of the Results Act include (1) establishing general goals and quantifiable, measurable, outcome-oriented performance goals and related measures; (2) developing strategies for achieving the goals, including strategies for overcoming or mitigating major impediments; (3) ensuring that goals at lower organizational levels align with and support general goals; and (4) identifying the resources that will be required to achieve the goals. A former assistant professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government, now the senior director for policy and plans with the Office of Homeland Security, noted in a December 2000 paper that a preparedness program lacking broad but measurable objectives is unsustainable. This is because it deprives policymakers of the information they need to make rational resource allocations, and program managers are prevented from measuring progress. He recommended that the government develop a new statistical index of preparedness,incorporating a range of different variables, such as quantitative measures for special equipment, training programs, and medicines, as well as professional subjective assessments of the quality of local response capabilities, infrastructure, plans, readiness, and performance in exercises. Therefore, he advocated that the index should go well beyond the current rudimentary milestones of program implementation, such as the amount of training and equipment provided to individual cities. The index should strive to capture indicators of how well a particular city or region could actually respond to a serious terrorist event. This type of index, according to this expert, would then allow the government to measure the preparedness of different parts of the country in a consistent and comparable way, providing a reasonable baseline against which to measure progress. In October 2001, FEMA’s director recognized that assessments of state and local capabilities have to be viewed in terms of the level of preparedness being sought and what measurement should be used for preparedness. The director noted that the federal government should not provide funding without assessing what the funds will accomplish. Moreover, the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget request for $3.5 billion through FEMA for first responders—local police, firefighters, and emergency medical professionals—provides that these funds be accompanied by a process for evaluating the effort to build response capabilities, in order to validate that effort and direct future resources. FEMA has developed an assessment tool that could be used in developing performance and accountability measures for a national strategy. To ensure that states are adequately prepared for a terrorist attack, FEMA was directed by the Senate Committee on Appropriations to assess states’ response capabilities. In response, FEMA developed a self-assessment tool—the Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR)—that focuses on 13 key emergency management functions, including hazard identification and risk assessment, hazard mitigation, and resource management. However, these key emergency management functions do not specifically address public health issues. In its fiscal year 2001 CAR report, FEMA concluded that states were only marginally capable of responding to a terrorist event involving a weapon of mass destruction. Moreover, the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposal acknowledges that our capabilities for responding to a terrorist attack vary widely across the country. Many areas have little or no capability to respond to a terrorist attack that uses weapons of mass destruction. The budget proposal further adds that even the best prepared states and localities do not possess adequate resources to respond to the full range of terrorist threats we face. Proposed standards have been developed for state and local emergency management programs by a consortium of emergency managers from all levels of government and are currently being pilot tested through the Emergency Management Accreditation Program at the state and local levels. Its purpose is to establish minimum acceptable performance criteria by which emergency managers can assess and enhance current programs to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters and emergencies. For example, one such standard is the requirement that (1) the program must develop the capability to direct, control, and coordinate response and recovery operations, (2) that an incident management system must be utilized, and (3) that organizational roles and responsibilities shall be identified in the emergency operational plans. Although FEMA has experience in working with others in the development of assessment tools, it has had difficulty in measuring program performance. As the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget request acknowledges, FEMA generally performs well in delivering resources to stricken communities and disaster victims quickly. The agency performs less well in its oversight role of ensuring the effective use of such assistance. Further, the agency has not been effective in linking resources to performance information. FEMA’s Office of Inspector General has found that FEMA did not have an ability to measure state disaster risks and performance capability, and it concluded that the agency needed to determine how to measure state and local preparedness programs. Our previous work on federal programs suggests that the choice and design of policy tools have important consequences for performance and accountability. Governments have at their disposal a variety of policy instruments, such as grants, regulations, tax incentives, and regional coordination and partnerships, that they can use to motivate or mandate other levels of government and private-sector entities to take actions to address security concerns. The design of federal policy will play a vital role in determining success and ensuring that scarce federal dollars are used to achieve critical national goals. Key to the national effort will be determining the appropriate level of funding so that policies and tools can be designed and targeted to elicit a prompt, adequate, and sustainable response while also protecting against federal funds being used to substitute for spending that would have occurred anyway. The federal government often uses grants to state and local governments as a means of delivering federal programs. Categorical grants typically permit funds to be used only for specific, narrowly defined purposes. Block grants typically can be used by state and local governments to support a range of activities aimed at achieving a broad national purpose and to provide a great deal of discretion to state and local officials. Either type of grant can be designed to (1) target the funds to states and localities with the greatest need, (2) discourage the replacement of state and local funds with federal funds, commonly referred to as “supplantation,” with a maintenance-of-effort requirement that recipients maintain their level of previous funding, and (3) strike a balance between accountability and flexibility. More specifically: Targeting: The formula for the distribution of any new grant could be based on several considerations, including the state or local government’s capacity to respond to a disaster. This capacity depends on several factors, the most important of which perhaps is the underlying strength of the state’s tax base and whether that base is expanding or is in decline. In an August 2001 report on disaster assistance, we recommended that the director of FEMA consider replacing the per-capita measure of state capability with a more sensitive measure, such as the amount of a state’s total taxable resources, to assess the capabilities of state and local governments to respond to a disaster. Other key considerations include the level of need and the costs of preparedness. Maintenance of effort: In our earlier work, we found that substitution is to be expected in any grant and, on average, every additional federal grant dollar results in about 60 cents of supplantion. We found that supplantation is particularly likely for block grants supporting areas with prior state and local involvement. Our recent work on the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant found that a strong maintenance of effort provision limits states’ ability to supplant. Recipients can be penalized for not meeting a maintenance-of-effort requirement. Balance accountability and flexibility: Experience with block grants shows that such programs are sustainable if they are accompanied by sufficient information and accountability for national outcomes to enable them to compete for funding in the congressional appropriations process. Accountability can be established for measured results and outcomes that permitting greater flexibility in how funds are used while at the same time ensuring some national oversight. Grants previously have been used for enhancing preparedness and recent proposals direct new funding to local governments. In recent discussions, local officials expressed their view that federal grants would be more effective if local officials were allowed more flexibility in the use of funds. They have suggested that some funding should be allocated directly to local governments. They have expressed a preference for block grants, which would distribute funds directly to local governments for a variety of security-related expenses. Recent funding proposals, such as the $3.5 billion block grant for first responders contained in the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget, have included some of these provisions. This matching grant would be administered by FEMA, with 25 percent being distributed to the states based on population. The remainder would go to states for pass-through to local jurisdictions, also on a population basis, but states would be given the discretion to determine the boundaries of sub-state areas for such a pass-through—that is, a state could pass through the funds to a metropolitan area or to individual local governments within such an area. Although the state and local jurisdictions would have discretion to tailor the assistance to meet local needs, it is anticipated that more than one- third of the funds would be used to improve communications; an additional one-third would be used to equip state and local first responders, and the remainder would be used for training, planning, technical assistance, and administration. Federal, state and local governments share authority for setting standards through regulations in several areas, including infrastructure and programs vital to preparedness (for example, highways, water systems, public health). In designing regulations, key considerations include how to provide federal protections, guarantees, or benefits while preserving an appropriate balance between federal and state and local authorities and between the public and private sectors (for example, for chemical and nuclear facilities). In designing a regulatory approach, the challenges include determining who will set the standards and who will implement or enforce them. Five models of shared regulatory authority are: Fixed federal standards that preempt all state regulatory action in the Federal minimum standards that preempt less stringent state laws but permit states to establish standards that are more stringent than the federal; Inclusion of federal regulatory provisions not established through preemption in grants or other forms of assistance that states may choose to accept; Cooperative programs in which voluntary national standards are formulated by federal and state officials working together; Widespread state adoption of voluntary standards formulated by quasi- official entities. Any one of these shared regulatory approaches could be used in designing standards for preparedness. The first two of these mechanisms involve federal preemption. The other three represent alternatives to preemption. Each mechanism offers different advantages and limitations that reflect some of the key considerations in the federal-state balance. To the extent that private entities will be called upon to improve security over dangerous materials or to protect vital assets, the federal government can use tax incentives to encourage and enforce their activities. Tax incentives are the result of special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, or tax rates in the federal tax laws. Unlike grants, tax incentives do not generally permit the same degree of federal oversight and targeting, and they are generally available by formula to all potential beneficiaries who satisfy congressionally established criteria. Regional Coordination and Intergovernmental Partnerships of government and the private sector) facilitates the maximizing of Promoting partnerships between critical actors (including different levels resources and also supports coordination on a regional level. Partnerships could encompass federal, state, and local governments working together to share information, develop communications technology, and provide mutual aid. The federal government may be able to offer state and local governments assistance in certain areas, such as risk management and intelligence sharing. In turn, state and local governments have much to offer in terms of knowledge of local vulnerabilities and resources, such as local law enforcement personnel, available to respond to threats in their communities. Since the events of September 11th, local officials have emphasized the importance of regional coordination. Regional resources, such as equipment and expertise, are essential because of proximity, which allows for quick deployment, and experience in working within the region. Large- scale or labor-intensive incidents quickly deplete a given locality’s supply of trained responders. Some cities have spread training and equipment to neighboring municipal areas so that their mutual aid partners can help. These partnerships afford economies of scale across a region. In events that require a quick response, such as a chemical attack, regional agreements take on greater importance because many local officials do not think that federal and state resources can arrive in sufficient time to help. Mutual aid agreements provide a structure for assistance and for sharing resources among jurisdictions in response to an emergency. Because individual jurisdictions may not have all the resources they need to respond to all types of emergencies, these agreements allow for resources to be deployed quickly within a region. The terms of mutual aid agreements vary for different services and different localities. These agreements may provide for the state to share services, personnel, supplies, and equipment with counties, towns, and municipalities within the state, with neighboring states, or, in the case of states bordering Canada, with jurisdictions in another country. Some of the agreements also provide for cooperative planning, training, and exercises in preparation for emergencies. Some of these agreements involve private companies and local military bases, as well as local government entities. Such agreements were in place for the three sites that were involved on September 11th— New York City, the Pentagon, and a rural area of Pennsylvania—and provide examples of some of the benefits of mutual aid agreements and of coordination within a region. With regard to regional planning and coordination, there may be federal programs that could provide models for funding proposals. In the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act, the federal government established a comprehensive cooperative process for transportation planning. This model of regional planning continues today under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21, originally ISTEA) program. This model emphasizes the role of state and local officials in developing a plan to meet regional transportation needs. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) coordinate the regional planning process and adopt a plan, which is then approved by the state. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, as increasing demands are placed on budgets at all levels of government, it will be necessary to make sound choices to maintain fiscal stability. All levels of government and the private sector will have to communicate and cooperate effectively with each other across a broad range of issues to develop a national strategy to better target available resources to address the urgent national preparedness needs. Involving all levels of government and the private sector in developing key aspects of a national strategy that I have discussed today - a definition and clarification of the appropriate roles and responsibilities, an establishment of goals and performance measures, and a selection of appropriate tools— is essential to the successful formulation of the national preparedness strategy and ultimately to preparing and defending our nation from terrorist attacks. This completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-2834, or Paul Posner at (202) 512-9573. Other key contributors to this testimony include Jack Burriesci, Matthew Ebert, Colin J. Fallon, Thomas James, Kristen Sullivan Massey, Yvonne Pufahl, Jack Schulze, and Amelia Shachoy. Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and Long-Term National Needs. GAO-02-160T. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 2001. Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001. Homeland Security: Need to Consider VA’s Role in Strengthening Federal Preparedness. GAO-02-145T. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001. Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach. GAO-02-150T. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001. Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation’s Issues. GAO-01-1158T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Considerations for Investing Resources in Chemical and Biological Preparedness. GAO-01-162T. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations. GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Antiterrorism Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Comments on H.R. 525 to Create a President’s Council on Domestic Preparedness. GAO-01-555T. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Observations on Options to Improve the Federal Response. GAO-01-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National Strategy. GAO-01-556T. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2001. Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make Progress in Coordinating Preparedness and Response. GAO-01-15. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams Provide Varied Capabilities; Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination. GAO-01- 14. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2000. Combating Terrorism: Need to Eliminate Duplicate Federal Weapons of Mass Destruction Training. GAO/NSIAD-00-64. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2000. Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Threat of Chemical and Biological Terrorism. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-50. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of Chemical and Biological Attack. GAO/NSIAD-99-163. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs. GAO/T-NSIAD-99-181. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Analysis of Potential Emergency Response Equipment and Sustainment Costs. GAO-NSIAD-99-151. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Use of National Guard Response Teams Is Unclear. GAO/NSIAD-99-110. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Observations on Federal Spending to Combat Terrorism. GAO/T-NSIAD/GGD-99-107. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Program Focus and Efficiency. GAO-NSIAD-99-3. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 1998. Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program. GAO/T-NSIAD-99-16. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 1998. Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and Target Program Investments. GAO/NSIAD-98-74. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 1998. Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better Management and Coordination. GAO/NSIAD-98-39. Washington, D.C.: December 1, 1997. Bioterrorism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Role in Public Health Protection. GAO-02-235T. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2001. Bioterrorism: Review of Public Health and Medical Preparedness. GAO- 02-149T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001. Bioterrorism: Public Health and Medical Preparedness. GAO-02-141T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001. Bioterrorism: Coordination and Preparedness. GAO-02-129T. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2001. Bioterrorism: Federal Research and Preparedness Activities. GAO-01- 915. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001. Chemical and Biological Defense: Improved Risk Assessments and Inventory Management Are Needed. GAO-01-667. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001. West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness. GAO/HEHS-00-180. Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2000. Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of Chemical and Biological Attacks. GAO/NSIAD-99-163. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999. Chemical and Biological Defense: Program Planning and Evaluation Should Follow Results Act Framework. GAO/NSIAD-99-159. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Observations on Biological Terrorism and Public Health Initiatives. GAO/T-NSIAD-99-112. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 1999. | Federal, state, and local governments share responsibility in preparing for catastrophic terrorist attacks. Because the national security threat is diffuse and the challenge is intergovernmental, national policymakers need a firm understanding of the interests, capacity, and challenges when formulating antiterrorism strategies. Key aspects of this strategy should include a definition and clarification of the appropriate roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local entities. GAO's has found fragmentation and overlap among federal assistance programs. More than 40 federal entities have roles in combating terrorism, and past federal efforts have resulted in a lack of accountability, a lack of cohesive effort, and duplication of programs. This situation has led to confusion, making it difficult to identify available federal preparedness resources and effectively partner with the federal government. Goals and performance measures should be established to guide the nation's preparedness efforts. For the nation's preparedness programs, however, outcomes have yet to be defined in terms of domestic preparedness. Given the recent and proposed increases in preparedness funding, real and meaningful improvements in preparedness and establishing clear goals and performance measures are critical to ensuring a successful and a fiscally responsible effort. The strategy should include a careful choice of the most appropriate tools of government to best achieve national goals. The choice and design of policy tools, such as grants, regulations, and partnerships, can enhance the government's ability to (1) target areas of highest risk to better ensure that scarce federal resources address the most pressing needs, (2) promote shared responsibility by all parties, and (3) track and assess progress toward achieving national goals. |
The Anti-Spyware Coalition (ASC) defines spyware as "technologies deployed without appropriate user consent and/or implemented in ways that impair user control over (1) material changes that affect their user experience, privacy, or system security; (2) use of their system resources, including what programs are installed on their computers; and/or (3) collection, use, and distribution of their personal or other sensitive information. The main issue for Congress over spyware is whether to enact new legislation specifically addressing spyware, or to rely on industry self-regulation and enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice under existing law. Opponents of new legislation argue that industry self-regulation and enforcement of existing laws are sufficient. They worry that further legislation could have unintended consequences that, for example, limit the development of new technologies that could have beneficial uses. Supporters of new legislation believe that current laws are inadequate, as evidenced by the growth in spyware incidents. Advocates of legislation want specific laws to stop spyware. For example, they want software providers to be required to obtain the consent of an authorized user of a computer ("opt-in") before any software is downloaded onto that computer. Skeptics contend that spyware is difficult to define and consequently legislation could have unintended consequences, and that legislation is likely to be ineffective. One argument is that the "bad actors" are not likely to obey any opt-in requirement, but are difficult to locate and prosecute. Also, some are overseas and not subject to U.S. law. Other arguments are that one member of a household (a child, for example) might unwittingly opt-in to spyware that others in the family would know to decline, or that users might not read through a lengthy licensing agreement to ascertain precisely what they are accepting. In many ways, the debate over how to cope with spyware parallels the controversy that led to unsolicited commercial electronic mail ("spam") legislation. Whether to enact a new law, or rely on enforcement of existing law and industry self-regulation, were the cornerstones of that debate as well. Congress chose to pass the CAN-SPAM Act ( P.L. 108-187 ). Questions remain about that law's effectiveness. Such reports fuel the argument that spyware legislation similarly cannot stop the threat. In the case of spam, FTC officials emphasized that consumers should not expect any legislation to solve the spam problem—that consumer education and technological advancements also are needed. The same is true for spyware. Software programs that include spyware may be sold or available for free ("freeware"). They may be on a disk or other media, downloaded from the Internet, or downloaded when opening an attachment to an electronic mail (e-mail) message. Typically, users have no knowledge that spyware is on their computers. Because the spyware is resident on the computer's hard drive, it can generate pop-up ads, for example, even when the computer is not connected to the Internet. One example of spyware is software products that include, as part of the software itself, a method by which information is collected about the use of the computer on which the software is installed, such as web browsing habits. Some of these products may collect personally identifiable information (PII). When the computer is connected to the Internet, the software periodically relays the information back to another party, such as the software manufacturer or a marketing company. Another oft-cited example of spyware is "adware," which may cause advertisements to suddenly appear on the user's monitor—called "pop-up" ads. In some cases, the adware uses information that the software obtained by tracking a user's web browsing habits to determine shopping preferences, for example. Some adware companies, however, insist that adware is not necessarily spyware, because the user may have permitted it to be downloaded onto the computer because it provides desirable benefits. Spyware also can refer to "keylogging" software that records a person's keystrokes. All typed information thus can be obtained by another party, even if the author modifies or deletes what was written, or if the characters do not appear on the monitor (such as when entering a password). Commercial key logging software has been available for some time. In the context of the spyware debate, the concern is that such software can record credit card numbers and other personally identifiable information that consumers type when using Internet-based shopping and financial services, and transmit that information to someone else. Thus it could contribute to identity theft. Spyware remains difficult to define, however, in spite of the work done by groups such as the ASC and government agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As discussed below, this lack of agreement is often cited by opponents of legislation as a reason not to legislate. Opponents of anti-spyware legislation argue that without a widely agreed-upon definition, legislation could have unintended consequences, banning current or future technologies and activities that, in fact, could be beneficial. Some of these software applications, including adware and keylogging software, do, in fact, have legitimate uses. The question is whether the user has given consent for it to be installed. A report on spyware law enforcement by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) summarizes active and resolved spyware cases at the federal and state levels. Additionally, the FTC maintains its own list of cases. The FTC has consumer information on spyware that includes a link to file a complaint with the commission through its "OnGuard Online" website. The FTC has also issued a consumer alert about spyware that lists warning signs that might indicate a computer is infected with spyware. The FTC alert listed the following clues: a barrage of pop-up ads a hijacked browser—that is, a browser that takes you to sites other than those you type into the address box a sudden or repeated change in your computer's Internet home page new and unexpected toolbars new and unexpected icons on the system tray at the bottom of your computer screen keys that don't work (for example, the "Tab" key that might not work when you try to move to the next field in a web form) random error messages sluggish or downright slow performance when opening programs or saving files. The FTC alert also offered preventive actions consumers can take: update your operating system and web browser software download free software only from sites you know and trust don't install any software without knowing exactly what it is minimize "drive-by" downloads by ensuring that your browser's security setting is high enough to detect unauthorized downloads don't click on any links within pop-up windows don't click on links in spam that claim to offer anti-spyware software install a personal firewall to stop uninvited users from accessing your computer. Finally, the FTC alert advised consumers who think their computers are infected to get an anti-spyware program from a vendor they know and trust; set it to scan on a regular basis, at startup and at least once a week; and delete any software programs detected by the anti-spyware program that the consumer does not want. In March 2004, Utah became the first state to enact spyware legislation. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, by January 2009, at least 15 states had enacted spyware legislation: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Washington. No legislative action has been taken at this time. No legislative action on spyware. During the 110 th Congress, two bills were introduced in the House of Representatives and one bill was introduced in the Senate; the House held two hearings. The "SPY ACT" was introduced by Representative Towns on February 8, 2007, and a hearing on it was held by the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on March 15, 2007. This bill would make it unlawful to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices to take unsolicited control of computer, modify computer settings, collect personally identifiable information, induce the owner or authorized user of the computer to disclose personally identifiable information, induce the unsolicited installation of computer software, and/or remove or disable a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology. This bill would also require the FTC to submit two reports to Congress. The first report would be on the use of cookies in the delivery or display of advertising; the second would be on the extent to which information collection programs were installed and in use at the time of enactment. H.R. 964 was reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 24, 2007, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 7, 2007. No further action was taken. The "I-SPY" Act was introduced by Representative Lofgren on March 14, 2007, and a hearing on it was held by the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on May 1, 2007. This bill would amend the federal criminal code to impose a fine and/or prison term of up to five years for intentionally accessing a protected computer without appropriate authorization by causing a computer program or code to be copied onto the protected computer and intentionally using that program or code in furtherance of another federal criminal offense. The bill would impose a fine and/or prison term of up to two years if the unauthorized access was for the purpose of—— intentionally obtaining or transmitting personal information with intent to defraud or injure a person or cause damage to a protected computer intentionally impairing the security protection of a protected computer with the intent to defraud or injure a person or damage such computer. H.R. 1525 was reported by House Committee on the Judiciary, where it was reported on May 21, 2007, and then referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 23, 2007. No further action was taken. The Counter Spy Act was introduced by Senator Pryor on June14, 2007. This bill would prohibit unauthorized installation on a protected computer of "software that takes control of the computer, modifies the computer's settings, or prevents the user's efforts to block installation of, disable, or uninstall software." It also would prohibit the installation of "software that collects sensitive personal information without first providing clear and conspicuous disclosure ... and obtaining the user's consent. Additionally, S. 1625 would prohibit installation of software that "causes advertising windows to appear (popularly known as adware) unless: (1) the source is clear and instructions are provided for uninstalling the software; or (2) the advertisements are displayed only when the user uses the software author's or publisher's website or online service." This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 14, 2007, and a hearing was held on June 11, 2008. No further action was taken. Federal Trade Commission "Microsite" on Spyware [web page]. Available online at http://www.ftc.gov/ bcp/ edu/ microsites/ spyware/ index.html . Anti-Spyware Coalition [web page]. Available online at http://www.antispywarecoalition.org . 109 th Congress Two bills passed the House on May 23, 2005— H.R. 29 (Bono) and H.R. 744 (Goodlatte)—both of which were very similar to legislation that passed the House in the 108 th Congress. Three bills were introduced in the Senate— S. 687 (Burns), which is similar to legislation that was considered in 2004, but did not reach the floor ( S. 2145 ); S. 1004 (Allen); and S. 1608 (Smith). S. 687 and S. 1608 were ordered reported from the Senate Commerce Committee in 2005. At the markup that favorably reported S. 687 , the committee rejected Senator Allen's attempt to substitute the language of his bill ( S. 1004 ) for the text of S. 687 . S. 687 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under general Orders, Calendar no. 467, on June 12, 2006. S. 1608 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, on April 19, 2006. 108 th Congress The House passed two spyware bills in the 108 th Congress— H.R. 2929 and H.R. 4661 . The Senate Commerce Committee reported S. 2145 (Burns), amended, December 9, 2004 ( S.Rept. 108-424 ). None of these bills cleared that Congress. The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on Communications held a hearing on spyware on March 23, 2004. The House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on April 29, 2004. The House passed two spyware bills ( H.R. 2929 and H.R. 4661 ) and the Senate Commerce Committee reported S. 2145 , but there was no further action. | The term "spyware" generally refers to any software that is downloaded onto a computer without the owner's or user's knowledge. Spyware may collect information about a computer user's activities and transmit that information to someone else. It may change computer settings, or cause "pop-up" advertisements to appear (in that context, it is called "adware"). Spyware may redirect a web browser to a site different from what the user intended to visit, or change the user's home page. A type of spyware called "keylogging" software records individual keystrokes, even if the author modifies or deletes what was written, or if the characters do not appear on the monitor. Thus, passwords, credit card numbers, and other personally identifiable information may be captured and relayed to unauthorized recipients. Some of these software programs have legitimate applications the computer user wants. They obtain the moniker "spyware" when they are installed surreptitiously, or perform additional functions of which the user is unaware. Users typically do not realize that spyware is on their computer. They may have unknowingly downloaded it from the Internet by clicking within a website, or it might have been included in an attachment to an electronic mail message (e-mail) or embedded in other software. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has produced a consumer alert on spyware. The alert provides a list of warning signs that indicate that a computer might be infected with spyware and advice on what to do if it is. Additionally, the FTC has consumer information on spyware that includes a link to file a complaint with the commission through its "OnGuard Online" website. Several states have passed spyware laws, but there was no specific federal law and no legislation introduced in the 111th Congress. |
This report compares selected recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors (PCCWW), often called the Dole-Shalala Commission in reference to its co-chairs, and the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC). The recommendations presented are those that relate to the transition of injured servicemembers from military service to civilian life and/or veteran status. This report does not examine certain other recommendations, such as those in the VDBC report regarding benefits for survivors of deceased servicemembers, or regarding evaluation of presumptive disability , i.e., establishing service connection for certain long-term health effects of hazardous exposures. Congress, the two commissions, and others have determined that certain programs and systems that involve both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are particularly problematic in providing continuity and quality of care and services to injured servicemembers. In January 2008, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ). Titles XVI and XVII of the act address matters related to the care and treatment of servicemembers and former servicemembers (i.e., veterans) who were wounded, or who contracted an illness, while serving on active duty. Among the problems addressed in the act are the efficient maintenance and transfer of servicemembers' health and benefits records between the departments, and the separate evaluations of disability by each department. Efforts to address these and other transition problems were already under way in both departments, partly in response to the recommendations of the PCCWW, the VDBC, and several other commissions or task forces. These legislative and administrative actions constitute the first wave of responses to the recommendations of these bodies. Further congressional and administrative actions are anticipated. As this report is limited to a comparison of the final recommendations of the PCCWW and the VDBC, it will not be updated. The commissions were given different charges. The PCCWW was established by Executive Order 13426 in March 2007, and was to focus on the needs of a specific population, namely, seriously injured servicemembers returning from combat theaters in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). The commission was asked to look broadly at services and benefits provided by all relevant Cabinet departments—principally the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA)—as well as the private sector, and at a broad slate of services and benefits, including health care, disability, traumatic injury, education, employment, and other benefits. The PCCWW was to study individuals' experiences as servicemembers and, for those who were retired or separated from military service, their transition from military to civilian and/or veteran status, problems in providing services and benefits across that transition, and subsequent experiences in civilian life. Though the PCCWW's recommendations were to apply narrowly to seriously injured OEF/OIF servicemembers, it could prove difficult, politically and administratively, to implement the recommendations in this fashion. Doing so could run counter to existing policies, such as compensating service-connected disabilities equally whether or not they are combat related, and prioritizing groups of veterans to receive VA health care. The VDBC was established in Title XV of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-136 ) to study benefits provided to veterans and their survivors to compensate for service-connected disabilities and deaths. The VDBC was to consider these benefits regardless of the time or manner in which a disability or death occurred, and whether it occurred during a conflict or during peace time. While the VDBC examined certain transition issues for injured OEF/OIF servicemembers who were retired or separated from military service, this was not its principal focus. The VDBC examined services and benefits for veterans across their life spans, making a more comprehensive assessment of the full complement of veterans' benefits than did the PCCWW, but a less comprehensive assessment of DOD services, benefits, authorities and policies. The PCCWW made six broad recommendations, each with several specific action steps directed to the Congress, DOD and/or VA, and published a matrix of the 23 action steps in its main report. The six broad recommendations are as follows: 1. Implement comprehensive recovery plans for returning injured servicemembers. 2. Restructure the military and veterans disability and compensation systems. 3. Improve care for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). 4. Strengthen support for families. 5. Transfer patient information across the DOD and VA systems. 6. Support Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) until its closure. The VDBC made 113 recommendations , also directed to the Congress, DOD and/or VA, designating 13 of them as priority recommendations. Recommendations were made in the following broad categories: disability evaluation and compensation; determining eligibility for benefits; appropriateness of the benefits; appropriateness of the level of benefits; survivors and dependents; disability claims administration; transition; and establishing an executive oversight group to implement recommendations. The attached Table 1 compares selected action steps from the PCCWW and recommendations from the VDBC that relate to the transition of injured servicemembers from military service to civilian life and/or veteran status. Since the PCCWW focused on these individuals, all of its action steps are discussed, and the table is organized according to the PCCWW's six broad recommendations. The table does not include all of the VDBC recommendations, but only those that relate to the transition of injured servicemembers or that are otherwise comparable to recommendations of the PCCWW. Each table entry notes the entity (Congress, DOD and/or VA) to whom the recommendation is directed. Bracketed notations show the relevant numbered recommendation(s) from the PCCWW and VDBC respectively. Because the commissions had distinct charges and areas of emphasis, head-to-head comparison of their recommendations must be made with care. For example, the commissions largely agreed on the proposed end point for a revised disability compensation system, namely, that DOD would evaluate the fitness of injured servicemembers for continued duty, while VA would evaluate for disability compensation. But the commissions differed in their priorities for implementing this revised system, reflecting their focus on different populations. When comparing PCCWW and VDBC recommendations, it must be borne in mind that unless otherwise stated, PCCWW recommendations would apply, at least initially, only to injured OEF/OIF servicemembers and veterans, while VDBC recommendations would apply to all servicemembers or veterans, including those from previous conflicts, who are otherwise eligible for the service or benefit being discussed. The following CRS Reports discuss the variety of DOD and VA programs and benefits that are addressed by the commissions and referred to in this report: CRS Report RL33991, Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers , by [author name scrubbed] et al.; CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RS22366, Military Support to the Severely Disabled: Overview of Service Programs , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33449, Military Retirement, Concurrent Receipt, and Related Major Legislative Issues , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33985, Veterans' Benefits: Issues in the 110th Congress , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33993, Veterans' Health Care Issues , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33113, Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability Benefit Programs , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33323, Veterans Affairs: Benefits for Service-Connected Disabilities , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RS22666, Veterans Benefits: Federal Employment Assistance , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RS22804, Veterans' Benefits: Pension Benefit Programs , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL34371, "Wounded Warrior" and Veterans Provisions in the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL34169, The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , by [author name scrubbed] et al.; CRS Report RL31760, The Family and Medical Leave Act: Legislative and Regulatory Activity , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL34055, Walter Reed Army Medical Center: Realignment Under BRAC 2005 and Options for Congress , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. | This report compares selected recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors (PCCWW), often called the Dole-Shalala Commission in reference to its co-chairs, and the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC). The VDBC was established in 2004 to study veterans' benefits in a broad context. The PCCWW was established in 2007 following reports of problems among injured servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with medical rehabilitation and access to benefits. The PCCWW was charged to focus specifically on the needs of these individuals. The recommendations presented in this report are those that relate to the transition of injured servicemembers from military service to civilian life and/or veteran status. This report does not examine certain other recommendations, such as those in the VDBC report regarding benefits for survivors of deceased servicemembers, or regarding evaluation of presumptive disability, i.e., establishing service connection for certain long-term health effects of hazardous exposures. As this report is limited to a comparison of the final recommendations of the PCCWW and the VDBC, it will not be updated. |
University of Pennsylvania's Personalized Cellular Therapy for Leukemia Receives FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation
"Our early findings reveal tremendous promise for a desperate group of patients, many of whom have been able to return to their normal lives at school and work after receiving this new, personalized immunotherapy," said Carl June, MD Penn research team's leader, Carl June, MD, the Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy in the department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine in the Perelman School of Medicine and director of Translational Research in the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Receiving the FDA's Breakthrough Designation is an essential step in our work with Novartis to expand this therapy to patients across the world who desperately need new options to help them fight this disease." Read more... ||||| CAR T-Cell Therapy: Engineering Patients’ Immune Cells to Treat Their Cancers
On this page:
For years, the cornerstones of cancer treatment have been surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Over the last decade, targeted therapies like imatinib (Gleevec®) and trastuzumab (Herceptin®)—drugs that target cancer cells by homing in on specific molecular changes seen primarily in those cells—have also emerged as standard treatments for a number of cancers.
Enlarge Illustration of the components of second- and third-generation chimeric antigen receptor T cells. (Adapted by permission from the American Association for Cancer Research: Lee, DW et al. The Future Is Now: Chimeric Antigen Receptors as New Targeted Therapies for Childhood Cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 2012;18(10); 2780–90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1920)
And now, despite years of starts and stutter steps, excitement is growing for immunotherapy—therapies that harness the power of a patient’s immune system to combat their disease, or what some in the research community are calling the “fifth pillar” of cancer treatment.
One approach to immunotherapy involves engineering patients’ own immune cells to recognize and attack their tumors. And although this approach, called adoptive cell transfer (ACT), has been restricted to small clinical trials so far, treatments using these engineered immune cells have generated some remarkable responses in patients with advanced cancer.
For example, in several early-stage trials testing ACT in patients with advanced acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who had few if any remaining treatment options, many patients’ cancers have disappeared entirely. Several of these patients have remained cancer free for extended periods.
Equally promising results have been reported in several small trials involving patients with lymphoma.
These are small clinical trials, their lead investigators cautioned, and much more research is needed.
But the results from the trials performed thus far “are proof of principle that we can successfully alter patients’ T cells so that they attack their cancer cells,” said one of the trial's leaders, Renier J. Brentjens, M.D., Ph.D., of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York.
“A Living Drug”
Adoptive cell transfer is like “giving patients a living drug,” continued Dr. Brentjens.
That’s because ACT’s building blocks are T cells, a type of immune cell collected from the patient’s own blood. After collection, the T cells are genetically engineered to produce special receptors on their surface called chimeric antigen receptors (CARs). CARs are proteins that allow the T cells to recognize a specific protein (antigen) on tumor cells. These engineered CAR T cells are then grown in the laboratory until they number in the billions.
The expanded population of CAR T cells is then infused into the patient. After the infusion, if all goes as planned, the T cells multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill cancer cells that harbor the antigen on their surfaces.
Although adoptive cell transfer has been restricted to small clinical trials so far, treatments using these engineered immune cells have generated some remarkable responses in patients with advanced cancer.
This process builds on a similar form of ACT pioneered by Steven Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., and his colleagues from NCI’s Surgery Branch for patients with advanced melanoma.
The CAR T cells are “much more potent than anything we can achieve” with other immune-based treatments being studied, said Crystal Mackall, M.D., of NCI’s Pediatric Oncology Branch (POB).
Even so, investigators working in this field caution that there is still much to learn about CAR T-cell therapy. But the early results from trials like these have generated considerable optimism.
CAR T-cell therapy eventually may “become a standard therapy for some B-cell malignancies” like ALL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Dr. Rosenberg wrote in a Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology article.
A Possible Option Where None Had Existed
More than 80 percent of children who are diagnosed with ALL that arises in B cells—the predominant type of pediatric ALL—will be cured by intensive chemotherapy.
For patients whose cancers return after intensive chemotherapy or a stem cell transplant, the remaining treatment options are “close to none,” said Stephan Grupp, M.D., Ph.D., of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the lead investigator of a trial testing CAR T cells primarily in children with ALL. This treatment may represent a much-needed new option for such patients, he said.
Trials of CAR T cells in adults and children with leukemia and lymphoma have used T cells engineered to target the CD19 antigen, which is present on the surface of nearly all B cells, both normal and cancerous.
In the CHOP trial, which is being conducted in collaboration with researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, all signs of cancer disappeared (a complete response) in 27 of the 30 patients treated in the study, according to findings published October 16 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Nineteen of the 27 patients with complete responses have remained in remission, the study authors reported, with 15 of these patients receiving no further therapy and 4 patients withdrawing from the trial to receive other therapy.
According to the most recent data from a POB trial that included children with ALL, 14 of 20 patients had a complete response. And of the 12 patients who had no evidence of leukemic cells, called blasts, in their bone marrow after CAR T-cell treatment, 10 have gone on to receive a stem cell transplant and remain cancer free, reported the study’s lead investigator, Daniel W. Lee, M.D., also of the POB.
[The CAR T cells are] much more potent than anything we can achieve [with other immune-based treatments being studied].
—Dr. Crystal Mackall
“Our findings strongly suggest that CAR T-cell therapy is a useful bridge to bone marrow transplant for patients who are no longer responding to chemotherapy,” Dr. Lee said.
Similar results have been seen in phase I trials of adult patients conducted at MSKCC and NCI.
In findings published in February 2014, 14 of the 16 participants in the MSKCC trial treated to that point had experienced complete responses, which in some cases occurred 2 weeks or sooner after treatment began. Of those patients who were eligible, 7 underwent a stem cell transplant and are still cancer free.
The NCI-led trial of CAR T cells included 15 adult patients, the majority of whom had advanced diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Most patients in the trial had either complete or partial responses, reported James Kochenderfer, M.D., and his NCI colleagues.
“Our data provide the first true glimpse of the potential of this approach in patients with aggressive lymphomas that, until this point, were virtually untreatable,” Dr. Kochenderfer said. [NCI Surgery Branch researchers have also reported promising results from one of the first trials testing CAR T cells derived from donors, rather than the patients themselves, to treat leukemia and lymphoma.]
Other findings from the trials have been encouraging, as well. For example, the number of CAR T cells increased dramatically after infusion into patients, as much as 1,000-fold in some individuals. In addition, after infusion, CAR T cells were detected in the central nervous system, a so-called sanctuary site where solitary cancer cells that have evaded chemotherapy or radiation may hide. In two patients in the NCI pediatric trial, the CAR T-cell treatment eradicated cancer that had spread to the central nervous system.
If CAR T cells can persist at these sites, it could help fend off relapses, Dr. Mackall noted.
Managing Unique Side Effects
CAR T-cell therapy can cause several worrisome side effects, perhaps the most troublesome being cytokine-release syndrome.
The infused T cells release cytokines, which are chemical messengers that help the T cells carry out their duties. With cytokine-release syndrome, there is a rapid and massive release of cytokines into the bloodstream, which can lead to dangerously high fevers and precipitous drops in blood pressure.
Cytokine-release syndrome is a common problem in patients treated with CAR T cells. In the POB and CHOP trials, patients with the most extensive disease prior to receiving the CAR T cells were more likely to experience severe cases of cytokine-release syndrome.
For most patients, trial investigators have reported, the side effects are mild enough that they can be managed with standard supportive therapies, including steroids.
The research team at CHOP noticed that patients experiencing severe reactions all had particularly high levels of IL-6, a cytokine that is secreted by T cells and macrophages in response to inflammation. So they turned to two drugs that are approved to treat inflammatory conditions like juvenile arthritis: etanercept (Enbrel®) and tocilizumab (Actemra®), the latter of which blocks IL-6 activity.
The patients had “excellent responses” to the treatment, Dr. Grupp said. “We believe that [these drugs] will be a major part of toxicity management for these patients.”
The other two teams subsequently used tocilizumab in several patients. Dr. Brentjens agreed that both drugs could become a useful way to help manage cytokine-release syndrome because, unlike steroids, they don’t appear to affect the infused CAR T cells’ activity or proliferation.
Improving the Process
Even with these encouraging preliminary findings, more research is needed before CAR T-cell therapy becomes a routine option for patients with ALL.
“We need to treat more patients and have longer follow-up to really say what the impact of this therapy is [and] to understand its true performance characteristics,” Dr. Grupp said.
We need to treat more patients and have longer follow-up to really say what the impact of this therapy is [and] to understand its true performance characteristics.
—Dr. Stephan Grupp
Several other trials testing CAR T cells in children and adults are ongoing and, with greater interest and involvement from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector, more trials testing CAR T cells are being planned.
Researchers are also studying ways to improve on the positive results obtained to date, including refining the process by which the CAR T cells are produced.
Research groups like Dr. Brentjens’ are also working to make a superior CAR T cell, including developing a better receptor and identifying better targets.
For example, Dr. Lee and his colleagues at NCI have developed CAR T cells that target the CD22 antigen, which is also present on most B cells, although in smaller quantities than CD19. The CD22-targeted T cells, he believes, could be used in concert with CD19-targeted T cells as a one-two punch in ALL and other B-cell cancers. NCI researchers hope to begin the first clinical trial testing the CD22-targeted CAR T cells in November 2014.
Based on the success thus far, several research groups across the country are turning their attention to developing engineered T cells for other cancers, including solid tumors like pancreatic and brain cancers.
The stage has now been set for greater progress, Dr. Lee believes.
NCI investigators, for example, “now have a platform to plug and play better CARs into that system, without a lot of additional R&D time,” he continued. “Everything else should now come more rapidly.” ||||| WOODS CROSS — Fighting an aggressive and often deadly form of leukemia with the HIV virus? It's an experimental treatment that's giving a Utah family hope for the future.
In early 2012, Marshall Jensen was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. At the time, he had only been married to his wife, A.J., for a year.
“They were a young couple. They weren’t married very long. They had a brand new little baby when all of this started,” said Lindsay Wright, who lives in the couple’s Woods Cross neighborhood.
For the last three years, Jensen and his family have traveled around the country for surgeries, treatments and procedures to fight his leukemia. But the cancer returned after several treatments, leaving little hope.
“At one point his goal was just to make it to his 30th birthday,” another neighbor said.
Then Jensen learned about Dr. Carl June and his team of researchers at Penn Medicine. They’ve spent two decades developing a breakthrough experimental treatment that kills cancer in otherwise incurable leukemia patients.
"It felt right; and we didn't know how we were going to get out there, what we were going to do, but it worked,” Jensen said. “By God's grace I was able to come back."
Perhaps even more amazing than the turnaround is what June's therapy uses to fight the cancer: HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
"It's a disabled virus," June explained. "But it retains the one essential feature of HIV, which is the ability to insert new genes into cells.”
It felt right; and we didn't know how we were going to get out there, what we were going to do, but it worked. ... By God's grace I was able to come back. –Marshall Jensen, cancer survivor
In June's therapy, billions of T-cells are taken from the cancer patient's body. The T-cells are then taken into the lab where the DNA in the cells is altered with a harmless form of the HIV virus. The altered cells — now programmed to recognize, target and kill the cancer — are then placed back into the patient's body.
June said the cells, which he refers to as "serial killers," stay dormant in the body unless the cancer returns.
With his cancer in remission, Jensen returned home Thursday to a celebration organized by his neighbors.
“It really has been an experience that we have all been a part of, instead of just them battling it by themselves,” a neighbor said.
The group tied yellow ribbons around the neighborhood to symbolize hope for Jensen and his continued recovery. They say his strength has strengthened everyone around him, and they're all hoping he's now home to stay.
“It truly feels like a miracle, it really does,” Wright said.
Amazingly, nine of the 12 cancer patients who received June's treatment, including Jensen, are in either full or partial remission.
The next step in June’s research will be to use gene therapy to fight other cancers. He said trials are set to start this summer for patients with pancreatic cancer.
Email: [email protected]
Contributing: Jordan Ormond
×
Photos
Related Stories | A Utah man's leukemia is in remission after facing an unusual enemy: HIV. Marshall Jensen spent years trying to find a treatment for his acute lymphoblastic leukemia, to little avail. Finally, he met with a team at the University of Pennsylvania, where recent work has achieved stunning results against the disease. The researchers used an unusual technique to address the leukemia, removing billions of T-cells from Jensen's body and treating their DNA with a harmless form of HIV. "It felt right," Jensen tells KSL. "We didn't know how we were going to get out there, what we were going to do, but it worked. By God's grace I was able to come back." Dr. Carl June explains the treatment: "It's a disabled virus," he says, "but it retains the one essential feature of HIV, which is the ability to insert new genes into cells.” The treatment prompted the T-cells, returned to Jensen's body, to begin identifying and destroying cancer on their own; in short, after "reprogramming," they become "leukemia-specific killers," June says in a University of Pennsylvania video. The reprogrammed cells then enter a dormant phase, waking up if the cancer comes back, KSL reports. Jensen is far from the only success story in what some are calling the "fifth pillar" of cancer treatment, cancer.gov reports. A recent study showed a 90% remission rate among those receiving similar treatment. |
Mr. Sessions insisted there was nothing nefarious about his two meetings with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, even though he did not disclose them to the Senate during his confirmation hearing and they occurred during the heat of the race between Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Mr. Trump, whom Mr. Sessions was advising on national security.
In his account on Thursday of the more substantive meeting, which took place in his Senate office on Sept. 8, Mr. Sessions described Mr. Kislyak as one of a parade of envoys who seek out lawmakers like him to glean information about American policies and promote the agendas of their governments.
“Somehow, the subject of Ukraine came up,” Mr. Sessions said, recalling that the meeting grew testy after the ambassador defended Russia’s conduct toward its neighbor and heaped blame on everybody else. “I thought he was pretty much of an old-style, Soviet-type ambassador,” Mr. Sessions said, noting that he declined a lunch invitation from Mr. Kislyak.
Mr. Sessions’s decision to recuse himself was one of his first public acts as attorney general. He said he made the decision after consulting with Justice Department officials, and he denied misleading Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, when he said in his confirmation hearing that he had not met with Russian officials about the Trump campaign.
“In retrospect,” Mr. Sessions told reporters, “I should have slowed down and said, ‘But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, and that would be the ambassador.’ ” ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201703/3091/1155968404_5345639518001_5345635105001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Sessions recuses himself from Trump-Russia probe The attorney general is removing himself following reports he met twice with the Russian ambassador during Trump's campaign.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday that he will recuse himself from any investigations related to campaigns for president, including any probe into contacts between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian officials.
“I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign,” Sessions told reporters Thursday at a news conference at the Justice Department.
Story Continued Below
Sessions, who maintained support from Trump himself, said he consulted senior Justice Department staff for their “candid and honest opinion about what I should do.”
“My staff recommended recusal,” he said. “They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation. I have studied the rules and considered their comments and evaluation. I believe those recommendations are right and just.”
In a statement following his remarks, Sessions noted that his recusal goes for “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaign for president of the United States.”
He added, however, “This announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any investigation or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation.”
A growing number of Republicans had called on Sessions to recuse himself — and Democratic leaders had insisted he resign altogether — after reports emerged Wednesday that Sessions had met twice with the Russian ambassador last year despite testifying during his confirmation hearing that he had no communications with Russians during the campaign, amplifying the Trump administration’s Russia problem.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News on Thursday evening, Sessions said that in the coming days he plans to to file a supplement to the Senate record to clarify that he did meet with the Russian ambassador.
“I will definitely make that a part of the record,” he said.
While talking with Carlson, he said he didn’t recall much specific about his conversation with the ambassador, apart from a disagreement about Ukraine policy. He said they didn’t discuss the presidential campaign in a “meaningful way.”
Trump himself offered his support via a statement released later on Thursday night, saying the attorney general "did not say anything wrong."
"He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional," Trump continued, before blasting Democrats for "overplaying their hand," and decrying the "illegal leaks of classified and other information."
Sessions insisted Thursday that his statements at the hearing were “honest and correct” because his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were not related to the campaign but to official matters related to his service as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The attorney general, however, who was until three weeks ago a U.S. senator from Alabama, said he could not rule out the possibility the campaign came up when the Russian diplomat visited Sessions' Capitol Hill office in September.
“I don’t recall,” Sessions told reporters. “Most of these ambassadors are pretty gossipy and this was in the campaign season, but I don’t recall any specific political discussions.”
Sessions said his memories of the discussion were somewhat vague, although he suggested there was little chance of skullduggery because of the presence of two staffers from his office at the meeting. The pair are retired Army colonels, he noted.
Sessions said he remembered Kislyak being “pretty much of an old-style Soviet-type ambassador” and denying any Russian wrongdoing in Ukraine. The exchange, he said, grew somewhat tense after Kislyak blamed the unrest in Ukraine on “everyone else.”
“It got to be a little bit of a testy conversation at that point,” Sessions said.
Sessions said he was preparing to send the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter clarifying his answers on Russia. He also said he regretted not mentioning the meetings. “In retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, ‘But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times,’” the attorney general added.
After riding high on Trump’s well-received first address to Congress on Tuesday, the White House found itself mired once again in the scandal over whether Trump campaign officials had frequent contact with Russian officials last year, as officials from President Barack Obama’s administration were looking into allegations that the Russian government was engaging in cyberattacks to try to tilt the election Trump’s way.
Calls for Sessions to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s investigation into ties between Trump and Russia had snowballed, following a Washington Post report Wednesday night exposing multiple meetings between Sessions and Kislyak during the campaign. Those meetings, one of which occurred during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, came amid an alleged effort by Russia to aid Trump’s campaign, for which Sessions was a prominent surrogate.
During a Thursday afternoon tour of an aircraft carrier in Newport News, Virginia, Trump responded to a reporter's shouted question, saying that he had “total” confidence in Sessions. Asked if he knew about Sessions’ conversations with the Russian ambassador, Trump said, “I wasn't aware,” and asked if Sessions should recuse himself, the president responded, “I don’t think so.”
Sessions did not disclose his meetings with the ambassador when asked about connections between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign during his confirmation hearings. In fact, he told Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that “I did not have communications with the Russians.” In a set of written answers for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sessions said he had not been in contact with Russian officials regarding the 2016 campaign.
Aboard the aircraft carrier, Trump said Sessions “probably did” tell the truth in his testimony to Franken and Leahy.
“This is the latest attack against the Trump administration by partisan Democrats. [Attorney] General Sessions met with the ambassador in an official capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is entirely consistent with his testimony,” a White House official said. “It’s no surprise Sen. Al Franken is pushing this story immediately following President Trump's successful address to the nation.”
In an interview with Fox News, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Sessions “did his job” and had been “100 percent straight” with the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. He said Democrats were guilty of “continuing to push a false narrative for political purposes.”
“Look, there’s nothing to recuse himself [from],” Spicer added. “He was 100 percent straight with the committee, and I think that people who are choosing to play partisan politics with this should be ashamed of themselves.”
When Sessions was asked why he recused himself despite Trump and Spicer saying he should not, the attorney general said they were not familiar with the ethics standards involved.
“I feel like they don’t know the rules, the ethics rules. Most people don’t,” he said. “But when you evaluate the rules, I feel like ... I should not be involved investigating a campaign I had a role in.”
A spokeswoman for Russia's foreign ministry, speaking to CNN on Thursday morning, said Kislyak is a “world-class diplomat” who has “communicated with his American colleagues through decades on different fields.” She said CNN had accused Kislyak of being a Russian spy and warned the network to “stop spreading lie[s] and false news” as she walked away from her interviewer.
In a brief exchange Thursday morning with a reporter from NBC News, Sessions himself had said he would recuse himself “whenever it’s appropriate” but denied that he had discussed the campaign with Russian officials. “I have not met with any Russians at any time to discuss any political campaign, and those remarks are unbelievable to me and are false,” he said.
But a senior national security official from the Obama administration said ties between Trump and Russia were a source of grave concern for the outgoing administration in its final days. The official said he had no specific information that Sessions was among those interfacing with the Kremlin on behalf of the incoming administration, but he said former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign over misstatements to Vice President Mike Pence and others about conversations with the Russian ambassador, was not acting alone.
“It seems pretty clear that [Flynn] was not a rogue here,” the senior official said. “I don’t believe that Flynn was the only person promising things to the Russians, communicating to them what would happen once the Trump administration came in.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, on Thursday called for Sessions to step down, saying the senator had not met "his own rigorous standard" for "complete and truthful testimony."
Schiff complained earlier Thursday following a briefing by FBI Director James Comey that the bureau was withholding information regarding its probe into the Kremlin’s efforts to interfere in last year’s election.
“I would say at this point we know less than a fraction of what the FBI knows,” Schiff told reporters following the briefing. “I appreciate we had a long briefing and testimony from the director today, but in order for us to do our investigation in a thorough and credible way, we're gonna need the FBI to fully cooperate, to be willing to tell us the length and breadth of any counterintelligence investigations they are conducting.”
As the furor over Sessions grew, about 150 people gathered outside the Justice Department to demanded that he step down.
“Lock him up! Perjury is a crime. Sessions resign!” protesters chanted. Those turning out to call for Sessions’ exit heard from several Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Nydia Velazquez, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Sheila Jackson Lee.
The demonstrators cheered as Lee said, incorrectly, that House Speaker Paul Ryan had just called on Sessions to recuse himself from the probe into alleged Russian tampering with the U.S. election.
“Not enough,” Lee declared. “We will be sending a letter to president Trump asking him to seek the resignation of his attorney general or fire him right on the spot.”
Even after Sessions announced his recusal, it wasn’t enough for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who accused him of perjury while calling for his resignation.
His “narrow recusal and his sorry attempt to explain away his perjury are totally inadequate,” she said a statement. “Attorney General Sessions’ lies to the Senate and to the American people make him unfit to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of our country. He must resign immediately.”
Republicans, in contrast, scoffed at the idea of a resignation. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he had recommended recusal to Sessions earlier Thursday.
“First and foremost, any talk of resignation is nonsense,” Grassley said in a statement. “There’s little doubt that alleged conflicts, no matter how flimsy and regardless of whether or not they are based in fact, will be used against him to discredit him and any potential investigation into alleged conversations between the campaign and the Russian government. So, his actions today were the right thing to do.”
At a press conference Thursday morning, Ryan had said Sessions need not recuse himself unless he becomes the subject of an investigation, at which point the attorney general would “of course” step aside. The speaker said he had seen no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian government officials during the 2016 campaign.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter Thursday to Comey, the FBI director, and U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips, seeking a criminal investigation into Sessions. The letter, signed by every Democrat on the panel, suggested Sessions may have been in violation of perjury and lying to Congress laws and asked the FBI for a briefing on its investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia.
The Democrats said Sessions’ rationales for meeting Kislyak “appear to be disingenuous at best as the questions put to him did not in any way ask if the meeting was campaign related.”
“This is obviously a very serious matter,” they wrote.
Henry C. Jackson contributed to this story.
Sessions under fire over Russia meetings poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201703/3539/1155968404_5345187457001_5345175869001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" ||||| President Trump said he has "total" confidence in Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions in his first public comments since reports emerged that Sessions failed to disclose meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last year.
But that confidence could be undermined given that Trump also indicated he did not know about the meetings before they were reported by the Washington Post on Wednesday night.
"I wasn't aware," Trump said in response to shouted questions from reporters as he toured the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, stationed in Newport News, Va.
As to whether Sessions spoke truthfully in his Senate confirmation hearing, when he denied under oath having meetings with Russians, Trump said, "I think he probably did."
Trump also said, "I don't think so," when asked whether Sessions should recuse himself from an FBI investigation of Russian meddling in the election. ||||| WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Thursday he would stay out of any probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election but maintained he did nothing wrong by failing to disclose he met last year with Russia’s ambassador.
Sessions, a longtime U.S. senator who was an early and high-ranking player in President Donald Trump’s campaign before becoming the country’s top law enforcement official, announced the decision after several fellow Republicans in Congress suggested the move would be appropriate.
“I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign,” Sessions told reporters at a hastily arranged news conference.
Sessions said he had been weighing recusal - ruling himself out from any role in the investigations - even before the latest twist of the controversy over ties between Trump associates and Russia that has dogged the early days of the Trump presidency.
The president backed Sessions, saying Democrats had politicized the issue and calling the controversy a “total witch hunt.”
Sessions’ announcement did nothing to quell concerns among congressional Democrats, a number of whom called for Sessions to step down.
Trump and Republicans who control Congress are trying to move past early administration missteps and focus on issues important to them, including immigration, tax cuts and repealing the Obamacare healthcare law.
U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last year that Russia hacked and leaked Democratic emails during the election campaign as part of an effort to tilt the vote in Trump’s favor. The Kremlin has denied the allegations.
Sessions denied he had contact with Russian officials when he was asked directly during his Senate confirmation hearing to become attorney general whether he had exchanged information with Russian operatives during the election campaign.
He told reporters he was “honest and correct” in his response, although he acknowledged he “should have slowed down” and mentioned he had met with the ambassador in his role as a senator.
“I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign,” Sessions said, adding he felt he should not be involved in investigating a campaign in which he had had a role.
In a statement on Thursday night, Trump said Sessions “did not say anything wrong. He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional.”
Sessions’ meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak were disclosed on Wednesday night by the Washington Post. Sessions received Kislyak in his Senate office in September and also met him in July at a Heritage Foundation event at the Republican National Convention that was attended by about 50 ambassadors.
Trump fired national security adviser Michael Flynn last month after disclosures that Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak before Trump took office and that Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.
The recusal means Sessions, a powerful member of Trump’s inner circle, will not be briefed on details of any probe. Should the Federal Bureau of Investigation decide to move forward with charges, Sessions would not be in a position to weigh in on whether the Department of Justice should take the case.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., March 2, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
CALLS TO RESIGN
House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi urged Sessions to resign and said “his narrow recusal and sorry attempt to explain away his perjury” were inadequate.
Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Sessions’ explanation for failing to tell the Senate about his meetings “is simply not credible.” He called on Sessions to step down and said the Justice Department should name an independent prosecutor to investigate Russian interference.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee asked the FBI to launch a criminal investigation into Sessions’ statements to Congress about his communication with Russian officials.
Sessions is one of many “subjects” of a government investigation of any contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, two U.S. officials familiar with the probe said.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Sessions was not now a “target” of the probe by the FBI, the Treasury Department, the CIA and the National Security Agency.
The investigation, one of the officials said, had a number of subjects because of the numerous contacts between associates of Trump, including Flynn, and the Russian Embassy in Washington as well as Russian and some Ukrainian businessmen and companies.
At least two other officials in Trump’s campaign said they also spoke with the Russian ambassador at a conference on the sidelines of the July convention last July, USA Today reported on Thursday.
Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner also met with Kislyak in December at Trump Tower in New York, an administration official said on Thursday, confirming a report in the New Yorker.
While there is nothing legally wrong with such meetings, the reported contacts raise questions about the White House’s repeated statements that it knew of no further contacts with Russian officials beyond those by Flynn.
Slideshow (4 Images)
Trump has accused officials in former Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration of trying to discredit him with questions about Russia contacts. The White House dismissed the disclosure of the Sessions meetings as a partisan attack, saying his contacts with the ambassador had been as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Trump called frequently during his campaign for improved relations with Russia, drawing criticism from Democrats and some Republicans. Ties with Russia have been deeply strained in recent years over Moscow’s military interference in Ukraine, military support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and President Vladimir Putin’s intolerance of political dissent.
With his administration on the defensive over Russia, Trump’s enthusiasm seems to have cooled, and his top foreign policy advisers have begun talking tougher about Moscow.
The Russian Embassy in Washington, shrugging off the uproar, said on Thursday it was in regular contact with “U.S. partners.” | Following the revelation that Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador twice last year and failed to disclose it during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general, Sessions has said he will recuse himself from any investigation having to do with alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, Politico reports. According to the New York Times, Sessions says he met with Sergey Kislyak around the same time Russia is suspected of hacking the Clinton campaign. He says he doesn't recall if they spoke about Trump or the election. Sessions denies any wrongdoing, saying he met with Kislyak in his role as a senator, not as an aide to the Trump campaign, Reuters reports. Sessions' recusal means he won't be able to play a part in the Justice Department's decision to take the case if the FBI brings Russia-related charges against the Trump administration. His announcement came shortly after President Trump made his first public comments on the situation; per the Los Angeles TImes, Trump said he has "total confidence" in Sessions, who "probably did" answer honestly during his confirmation hearing. But Trump says he "wasn't aware" of the meetings between Sessions and Kislyak. Trump also said he did not believe Sessions should recuse himself. Kislyak is the same person former national security adviser Michael Flynn met with, eventually leading to his resignation after lying to Vice President Pence about it. |
Every four years, on January 20 at noon, the President-elect is sworn in as President of the United States. Pursuant to the Constitution, the next presidential inauguration is set for Friday, January 20, 2017. Each year prior to an inauguration, Congres s authorizes the creation of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (Joint Inaugural Committee). The Joint Inaugural Committee is responsible for the planning and execution of the swearing-in ceremony and for hosting an inaugural luncheon for the President and Vice President at the U.S. Capitol. The 2017 Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies was authorized by the 114 th Congress (2015-2017) when S.Con.Res. 28 was agreed to on February 3, 2016. Pursuant to the concurrent resolution, the Joint Inaugural Committee consists of three Senators, appointed by the President of the Senate, and three Representatives, appointed by the Speaker of the House. The resolution further authorizes the committee "to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States." This report provides a history of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, including committee membership, staffing, and inaugural activities. In 1901, Congress established the first Joint Inaugural Committee for the inauguration of President William McKinley. Supervision of inaugural ceremonies prior to 1901 was conducted by the Senate. Sole responsibility for inaugural preparation and supervision had been a Senate function because of its standing as a continuing legislative body, while the House must organize anew at the beginning of each Congress. The relevance of this consideration was particularly evident during the times when the President was inaugurated on March 4, the same day a new Congress convened. There is no evidence indicating that the House seriously challenged this reasoning until 1901. The Senate and House first agreed on a joint resolution calling for the creation of a Joint Inaugural Committee "consisting of three Senators and three Representatives ... to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States" in 1901. The resolution called for the members of the joint committee "to be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives respectively." Most of the limited House debate favoring creation of a Joint Inaugural Committee was not primarily based on a desire to have the chamber become an equal partner in planning the ceremonies. Instead, the concern that triggered the initial discussion was a feeling among certain House Members that they had historically been discriminated against with regard to their seating at the rear of the inaugural platform. The issue was first raised in February 1885, when Representative Roger Q. Mills introduced a resolution proposing that the House "decline to take any part" in that year's inaugural ceremonies because the Senate committee appointed to arrange the inaugural ceremonies had declined to give House Members their proper place. Following a relatively short debate, the Mills resolution was rejected by a 185 to 55 margin. That year, nevertheless, the Speaker of the House appointed three Members of the House to cooperate with the Senate inaugural committee. The trio, however, had virtually no involvement in the ceremonies. On the eve of the next inaugural (1889), Representative Newton C. Blanchard revived the issue of what he called the "inferior position assigned the members of the House and to members-elect" at the inaugural ceremonies. Blanchard's resolution declared that the place assigned to "members of the House of Representatives and members-elect" at the inauguration of the President "should be equal and similar to that of members of the Senate." Look at the official program, he told his House colleagues, and you "will see that a place is assigned to the members of the Senate at least three degrees higher in honor and dignity than the place assigned to members of the House of Representatives." The Senate Inaugural Committee had also given Senators five tickets for the inaugural platform while providing Representatives with only two tickets. At the conclusion of Blanchard's remarks, the resolution was adopted, but at his suggestion was not communicated to the Senate: I did not think [it] proper to include in the resolution any direction that it should be communicated to the Senate. I considered it the proper and perhaps the more dignified course to simply assert the principle that the House of Representatives have a right to an equal share in these arrangements with the Senate, and to let that go on record as the judgment of the House, so that in the future, when arrangements are to be made for other inaugurations of Presidents, the Senate will take cognizance of the fact that this protest and this declaration of the principle involved and of the rights of the House was adopted by this House of Representatives. More than a decade would pass before the issue of House involvement in the inaugural ceremonies reemerged. When the question was revisited in 1901, a different strategy was used. Representative John Dalzell, who led the effort, focused on modifying the joint resolution appropriating funds for the inaugural ceremony. He proposed that when the House Appropriations Committee reported the funding resolution, which had originated in the Senate, it include language calling for an inaugural program adopted by a joint committee of the Senate and House, rather than just the Senate. The subsequently reported resolution stipulated that the Secretary of the Senate, as well as the Clerk of the House, were authorized to pay expenses associated with the inauguration of the President. The same day, Representative Henry H. Bingham introduced a resolution, which was immediately agreed to, authorizing the creation of a joint inaugural committee "consisting of three Senators and three Representatives, to be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House, respectively." Following conference committee deliberations on the funding resolution, the Senate agreed to appropriation language approved by the House as well as the House resolution calling for the creation of the first joint inaugural committee. On February 3, 2016, the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies was authorized for the 2017 inauguration. S.Con.Res. 28 , the resolution creating the Joint Inaugural Committee, is identical, except for the date, to previous authorizing resolutions: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE. There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the "joint committee") consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on January 20, 2017. SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE. The joint committee— (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to carry out its responsibilities. Since 1901, when the first Joint Inaugural Committee was authorized, membership on the committee has consisted of three Senators and three Members of the House of Representatives. Currently, appointments to the committee are made by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House respectively. Appointments are generally for the length of committee activities. For House committee members, however, reappointment is necessary because an intervening election occurs between initial appointment and the inaugural ceremony. The need to reappoint committee members does not generally apply to the Senate, unless a Senate committee member leaves the chamber in the intervening election. Senate membership on the Joint Inaugural Committee is appointed by the President of the Senate, pursuant to authority granted in the authorizing resolution. Past practice has been for the President of the Senate to appoint the chair and ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate majority leader. For the 2017 inauguration, the President of the Senate appointed Senate Rules and Administration Committee chair Roy Blunt and the committee's Ranking Member Charles Schumer along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Table 1 lists all Senators on the Joint Inaugural Committee since 1901. House membership on the Joint Inaugural Committee is appointed by the Speaker of the House, pursuant to authority granted in the authorizing resolution. Past practice has been for the Speaker to appoint himself or herself, along with the House majority leader and minority leader. For the 2017 inauguration, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan appointed himself, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Table 2 lists the House Members on the Joint Inaugural Committee since 1901, including the reappointment or replacement of committee members in the following Congress, when necessary. From time to time, a House Member appointed to serve on the Joint Inaugural Committee has not been reelected or has resigned from the House leadership, retired, or died in office. In such an instance, the Speaker has appointed another Representative to the committee in his or her place. Traditionally, the Speaker replaces the departing committee member with his or her House leadership replacement. For example, during the 88 th Congress (1963-1964), Representative Charles A. Halleck served as the House minority leader. At the end of the 88 th Congress, Representative Halleck stepped down as minority leader and was replaced by Representative Gerald R. Ford. In January 1965, when Congress convened for the 89 th Congress (1965-1966), the Speaker reappointed the Joint Inaugural Committee, substituting Representative Ford for Representative Halleck. Although none of the measures establishing the Joint Inaugural Committee have specified a process for selecting the committee chair, a Senator has always presided over committee activities. Through the end of World War II, the Senate traditionally provided the chair for each joint committee. In recent decades, however, the chairmanship of permanent joint committees has typically rotated between the chambers. Nevertheless, no House Member has ever chaired a temporary inaugural panel. Table 3 lists the chairs of the Joint Inaugural Committee between 1901 and 2017, and their institutional positions in the Senate at the time of the inauguration. For 20 of the 30 inaugurations between 1901 and 2017, either the chair of the Senate Committee on Rules (1901-1945) or the chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (1949-2012) has also chaired the Joint Inaugural Committee. On eight occasions (1901, 1929, 1933, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1969, and 1981), as noted in Table 3 , the chairs of the Joint Inaugural Committee have been Senators drawn from other institutional positions. The chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee in 1901, 1929, 1933, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1969, and 1981, was a Senator other than the chair of the Senate Committee on Rules or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The following section summarizes each of these instances. The 1901 Joint Inaugural Committee chair, Senator Marcus A. Hanna, was the chair of the Senate Committee on Relations with Canada in the 56 th Congress (1899-1901). Senator Hanna was a close political confidant of President William McKinley, having served as his national party chair and campaign manager in the 1896 election. The Committee on Rules was represented on the Joint Inaugural Committee by Senator John C. Spooner, who was committee chair. For the 1929 inauguration, Senator George H. Moses served as the chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee. Senator Moses was the third-ranking Republican on the Committee on Rules and chair of the Committee on Post Office and Post Roads. The two other Senators on the Joint Inaugural Committee were also members of the Committee on Rules. Senator Frederick Hale was the second-ranking Republican on the committee, and Senator Lee S. Overman was the ranking Member. The composition of the 1933 inaugural committee was complicated by the 1932 election, when party control of the Senate switched from the Republicans to the Democrats. The incumbent, 72 nd Congress (1931-1933)—with a Republican Senate majority—ended its term "just prior to noon" on Inauguration Day. Senator Joseph T. Robinson, chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee, had been ranking minority Member of the Committee on Rules in the 72 nd Congress. At the time of the inauguration, however, he had become majority leader of the Senate for the 73 rd Congress (1933-1934). Senator George H. Moses, the chair of the Committee on Rules for the 72 nd Congress, was also a member of the inaugural committee, although his term of office ended minutes prior to the inauguration. The other Senator, Frederick Hale, was the second-ranking Republican on the Committee on Rules in the 72 nd Congress. Party control shifted in the Senate as a result of the 1952 elections. On January 6, 1953, when the Republicans assumed control of the Senate, Senator Styles Bridges succeeded Senator Carl T. Hayden as chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee for the 83 rd Congress (1953-1954). Senator Bridges also served as President pro tempore of the Senate and was chair of the Appropriations Committee in the 83 rd Congress. Senator Bridges never served on the Committee on Rules and Administration. After relinquishing the chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee, Senator Hayden, who was chair of the Rules and Administration Committee in the 82 nd Congress (1951-1952) and ranking Member of this committee for the 83 rd Congress (1953-1954), continued to serve as a member of the Joint Inaugural Committee. Senator Styles Bridges returned as chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee for President Dwight D. Eisenhower's second inauguration. Even though the Democrats were the majority party in the 85 th Congress (1957-1958), Senator Bridges was designated chair of the committee and was the only Republican appointee. Senator Theodore F. Green, chair of the Committee on Rules and Administration, also served on the Joint Inaugural Committee. For President John F. Kennedy's inauguration in 1961, Senator John J. Sparkman served as chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee. At that time, Senator Sparkman served as chair of the Committee on Small Business, and had never served on the Committee on Rules and Administration. Senator Sparkman had previously served as a member of the Joint Inaugural Committee for the second inauguration of President Eisenhower in 1957. Senator Carl T. Hayden, the other Democratic member, also served as the second-ranking majority member of the Committee on Rules and Administration. In the 91 st Congress (1969-1970), Senator Everett M. Dirksen was the Senate minority leader and ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee when he was appointed chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee. Senator Dirksen had served as minority leader since the 86 th Congress (1959-1960), and had served as a member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee in the 82 nd Congress (1951-1952) as well as the 87 th Congress (1961-1962). He had not served on a previous inaugural committee. Representing the Committee on Rules and Administration was its chair, Senator B. Everett Jordan. As a result of the 1980 elections, party control in the Senate switched from the Democrats to the Republicans. Senator Claiborne Pell, the chair of the Committee on Rules and Administration, had been chosen chair of the Joint Inaugural Committee prior to the election. On January 6, 1981, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 2, to amend the concurrent resolution of the prior Congress that set up the Joint Inaugural Committee and to expand its membership to four Senators and four Representatives. Named to the additional Senate slot and serving as the new chair was Mark Hatfield, the ranking minority Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration in the 96 th Congress (1979-1980). The other three Senators, Howard H. Baker, Robert C. Byrd, and Claiborne Pell, also were members of the Committee on Rules and Administration. For 22 of the 29 inaugurations between 1901 and 2013, the party controlling the Senate at the time of the inauguration was also the party of the President-elect. This was not the case in 1933, 1957, 1969, 1973, 1989, and 1997. In the first four instances, a Joint Inaugural Committee member from the Senate minority party was chosen to be the chair (or co-chair) of the Joint Inaugural Committee. In the latter two inaugurations, a member of the Senate majority party (and not a member of the President-elect's party) chaired the Joint Inaugural Committee. See the Appendix for a full list of the members of the Joint Inaugural Committee on Inauguration Day since 1901. Although the Senate and House have had equal membership on the Joint Inaugural Committee for more than a century, the committee has always been chaired by a Senator. Additionally, the panel has always included at least one member of Senate Committee on Rules (1901-1945), or the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (1949-2009). The repeated involvement of members of the Senate Rules Committee or the Committee on Rules and Administration in the work of the Joint Inaugural Committee reflects some of the key responsibilities assigned to the committee. Since 1947, pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the Rules and Administration Committee—under Senate Rule XXV—has had jurisdiction over "[f]ederal elections generally, including the election of the President, Vice President, and Members of the Congress." Rule XXV further gives the committee authority over matters relating to the "payment of money out of the contingent fund of the Senate or creating a charge upon the same," thereby granting the panel authority over the miscellaneous costs (e.g., Capitol Police security costs) associated with the inauguration. Prior to 1947, the precise legislative responsibilities of committees were not enumerated in Senate rules. Committee jurisdictions were determined by committee name and by precedent. Measures establishing the Joint Inaugural Committee have never authorized the employment of specialized staff. Between 1901 and 1992, Congress approved two quadrennial funding resolutions for the inauguration—one covering the expenses associated with the inaugural ceremonies, which stipulated the amount of funds being appropriated for the Joint Inaugural Committee to make arrangements for the official ceremony on Capitol Hill; and the other providing funds for the District of Columbia to maintain public order and provide fire protection. The funds appropriated for the Joint Inaugural Committee were used to construct the inaugural platform, to prepare seating for those attending the swearing-in of the President and Vice President, and to reimburse other entities for salaries and expenses incurred in arranging the inaugural ceremonies. Only since 1996 have the funds appropriated for the Joint Inaugural Committee included specific language authorizing the committee to reimburse the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for staff detailed to assist in the inaugural preparations. For the 2009 inauguration the resolution provided the following: That the compensation of any employee of the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate who has been designated to perform service with respect to the inaugural ceremonies of 2009 shall continue to be paid by the Committee on Rules and Administration, but the account from which such staff member is paid may be reimbursed for the services of the staff member (including agency contributions when appropriate) out of funds made available under this heading. While the appropriations language prior to 1996 did not specify the use of Rules and Administration staff, William Cochrane, the staff director of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee for many years, is known to have served also as executive director of the Joint Inaugural Committee, or consultant to it, for the inaugurations from 1973 through 1985. The Joint Inaugural Committee has traditionally been responsible for two major inaugural activities: arranging the swearing-in ceremony and hosting an inaugural luncheon. These two functions are coordinated with the President-elect's inaugural committee, and both occur at the U.S. Capitol. In 1801, President-elect Thomas Jefferson became the first President to take the oath of office at the newly completed Capitol building. On March 2, 1801, President-elect Jefferson wrote to the Senate proposing the date, time, and place of his swearing-in ceremony. "I beg leave, through you, to inform the honorable Senate of the United States that I propose to take the oath which the Constitution prescribes to the President of the United States, before he enters on the execution of his office, on Wednesday, the 4 th instant, at 12 o'clock, in the Senate Chamber." Since that time, the presidential and vice presidential oath of office has usually been administered at the U.S. Capitol. Oversight of the inaugural platform's construction is one of the Joint Inaugural Committee's primary responsibilities. The platform is designed to hold more than 1,600 people—including the President and Vice President-elect, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, the outgoing President and Vice President, former Presidents, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, governors, and other dignitaries. The platform is built from scratch for each inauguration by the Architect of the Capitol, and is fully American with Disabilities Act compliant. Beginning in 1981, for President Ronald Reagan's first inauguration, the inaugural ceremony has been held on the West Front Steps of the Capitol. Prior to 1981, outdoor inaugural ceremonies were held on the East Front of the Capitol. The ceremony was moved to the West Front because it "could accommodate more visitors." Following the inaugural ceremony, the Joint Inaugural Committee hosts a luncheon for the President and Vice President in National Statuary Hall. "Often featuring cuisine reflecting the home states of the new President and Vice-President, ... the Luncheon program includes speeches, gift presentations ... , and toasts to the new administration." The luncheon has been held quadrennially, in its current form, since 1953. The tradition of hosting a luncheon, however, dates to 1897. The luncheon is generally a multiple course meal that features a specific painting displayed behind the dais. For President Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009, the luncheon featured the painting "View of Yosemite Valley" by Thomas Hill. Since 1901, when the first Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies was authorized, both the House and Senate have played a prominent role in the organization and execution of the inaugural ceremony. While prior to 1901, the Senate organized the inauguration and invited Members of the House to participate, today the House and Senate both have a formal role in celebrating the transition of power from one President to the next. The House and Senate, through the Joint Inaugural Committee, organize and implement the arrangements for the 2017 presidential and vice presidential inauguration. Pursuant to S.Con.Res. 28 and S.Con.Res. 29 in the 114 th Congress (2015-2016), the 2017 inaugural ceremony will be held at the U.S. Capitol, with the swearing-in ceremony on the West Front Steps and special events held in the Rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center. | Every four years, at noon on January 20, the President-elect is sworn in as President of the United States. The year before the inauguration, Congress establishes the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. The Joint Inaugural Committee is responsible for the planning and execution of the swearing-in ceremony and hosting an inaugural luncheon for the President and Vice President at the U.S. Capitol. Pursuant to S.Con.Res. 28 and S.Con.Res. 29 in the 114th Congress (2015-2016), the 2017 inaugural ceremony will be held at the U.S. Capitol, with the swearing-in ceremony on the West Front Steps and special events held in the Rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center. The tradition of authorizing a Joint Inaugural Committee dates to 1901 for the inauguration of President William McKinley. At that time, the House and Senate authorized that inaugural expenses be paid by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate and created a committee of three Representatives and three Senators appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Since 1901, the Joint Inaugural Committee has been authorized quadrennially. On February 3, 2016, Congress authorized the Joint Inaugural Committee for the 2017 Inauguration. Representing the Senate on the 2017 Joint Inaugural Committee are Senator Roy Blunt, chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader; and Senator Charles Schumer, ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Representing the House of Representatives are Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. This report provides historical information on the Joint Inaugural Committee, including the committee's origin, membership, leadership, staffing, and inaugural activities. |
GENEVA Two-thirds of the world's population under 50 have the highly infectious herpes virus that causes cold sores around the mouth, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday, in its first estimate of global prevalence of the disease.
More than 3.7 billion people under the age of 50 suffer from the herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), usually after catching it in childhood, according to a the WHO study.
That is in addition to 417 million people in the 17-49 age range who have the other form of the disease, HSV-2, which causes genital herpes.
HSV-1 normally causes mouth ulcers rather than genital infection, but it is becoming an increasing cause of genital infection too, mainly in rich countries.
That is because improved hygiene in rich countries is lowering HSV-1 infection rates in childhood, leaving young people more at risk of catching it via oral sex when they become sexually active.
HSV-2 can increase the risk of catching and spreading HIV, the disease that causes AIDS. Little is known about any link between HSV-1 and HIV/AIDS, although it can lead to other serious complications such as encephalitis.
"We really need to accelerate the development of vaccines against herpes simplex virus, and if a vaccine designed to prevent HSV-2 infection also prevented HSV-1, it would have far reaching benefits," said Sami Gottlieb, a WHO medical officer.
Nathalie Broutet, also a WHO medical officer, said the U.S. National Institutes of Health and companies including GlaxoSmithKline Plc were involved in trials to determine whether a therapeutic or preventative vaccine was preferable.
Gottlieb said GSK had previously abandoned a vaccine trial after finding the product was not effective against HSV-2, although it did show some efficacy against HSV-1.
"That was interesting and promising and gave a proof of concept that these vaccines can be developed. There's a lot of work ongoing and we're hopeful that we'll have an HSV vaccine in the future," she said.
Several phase-1 and phase-2 trials were underway, she said. Genocea Biosciences Inc recently dropped work on a pneumonia vaccine in favor of its more promising work on genital herpes.
(Reporting by Tom Miles; Editing by Gareth Jones) ||||| Two-thirds of the world's population has the virus that causes cold sores, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.
That's 3.7 billion people under the age of 50 with the pesky and incurable herpes virus.
But it causes more than cold sores.
The herpes simplex 1 virus (HSV-1) can also cause sores on the genitals — and oral sex is becoming a leading way it's being transmitted, the WHO reported in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS ONE.
"The global burden of HSV-1 infection is huge," the WHO research team writes.
"An estimated 140 million people aged 15-49 years were calculated to have prevalent genital HSV-1 infection globally in 2012," they wrote.
That means two kinds of incurable herpes viruses are causing sexually transmitted infections in the populations.
HSV-2 is traditionally called genital herpes, and it's the kind most people think of as causing sexually transmitted infections. HSV-1, while annoying and sometimes painful, is usually caught in childhood and often via kisses.
"The new estimates highlight the crucial need for countries to improve data collection for both HSV types and sexually transmitted infections in general," said Dr. Marleen Temmerman, director of WHO's Department of Reproductive Health and Research.
In the Americas, WHO estimates that 49 percent of women, or 178 million women, have HSV-1 and 39 percent of men, or 142 million, do.
That's the region with the lowest rates. In Africa, 87 percent of people have HSV-1 while it's close to 60 percent in Southeast Asia.
Both viruses cause painful and recurring blisters and both can spread even if someone doesn't have skin blisters. Both can be treated with the same antiviral drugs but the drugs just control the virus - they cannot cure an infection.
At least once scientific study suggests that humans caught herpes viruses from chimpanzees. ||||| Abstract Background Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) commonly causes orolabial ulcers, while HSV-2 commonly causes genital ulcers. However, HSV-1 is an increasing cause of genital infection. Previously, the World Health Organization estimated the global burden of HSV-2 for 2003 and for 2012. The global burden of HSV-1 has not been estimated. Methods We fitted a constant-incidence model to pooled HSV-1 prevalence data from literature searches for 6 World Health Organization regions and used 2012 population data to derive global numbers of 0-49-year-olds with prevalent and incident HSV-1 infection. To estimate genital HSV-1, we applied values for the proportion of incident infections that are genital. Findings We estimated that 3709 million people (range: 3440–3878 million) aged 0–49 years had prevalent HSV-1 infection in 2012 (67%), with highest prevalence in Africa, South-East Asia and Western Pacific. Assuming 50% of incident infections among 15-49-year-olds are genital, an estimated 140 million (range: 67–212 million) people had prevalent genital HSV-1 infection, most of which occurred in the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific. Conclusions The global burden of HSV-1 infection is huge. Genital HSV-1 burden can be substantial but varies widely by region. Future control efforts, including development of HSV vaccines, should consider the epidemiology of HSV-1 in addition to HSV-2, and especially the relative contribution of HSV-1 to genital infection.
Citation: Looker KJ, Magaret AS, May MT, Turner KME, Vickerman P, Gottlieb SL, et al. (2015) Global and Regional Estimates of Prevalent and Incident Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infections in 2012. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0140765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140765 Editor: Neal A. DeLuca, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UNITED STATES Received: August 12, 2015; Accepted: September 30, 2015; Published: October 28, 2015 This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Funding: This work was funded by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/hrp/en/). WHO commissioned the study, advised as required during the study, co-ordinated data requests, helped with redrafts, and approved the manuscript submission. KJL had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. KJL received funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Evaluation of Interventions, Health Protection Scotland and Sexual Health 24 during the course of this study. ASM received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH P01-A1-030731-23) during the study. These funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) is a highly infectious virus which is primarily transmitted by oral-oral contact and causes orolabial herpes (notably “cold sores”) in those infected[1]. The virus is highly prevalent and endemic throughout the world[2,3]. The majority of HSV-1 infections occur during childhood and infection is never cleared[1], with lifelong potential for symptomatic or asymptomatic viral shedding episodes[4,5]. In rare cases, infection can lead to more serious complications, such as encephalitis. In developed country settings, HSV-1 is the most common identified cause of sporadic encephalitis in children and adults[6,7]. HSV-2, by contrast, is almost entirely sexually transmitted, and is therefore most closely associated with genital herpes[1]. However, HSV-1 has the potential to be transmitted through oral sex to cause genital infection[1]. In a number of developed settings (e.g., the USA, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand) there is evidence that the proportion of first episode genital herpes that is due to HSV-1 has increased, particularly among young people[8–13]. It is thought that decreases in rates of childhood infection over time[14], combined with increases in the frequency of oral sex in these populations, are driving this trend[15]. Women are more likely to acquire genital herpes than men, and this holds true for both HSV-1 and HSV-2[9,11,16,17]. The natural history of genital infection differs for the two viral types. Although first episode genital herpes is clinically indistinguishable between HSV-1 and HSV-2, subsequent recurrences are milder and much less frequent for HSV-1[5,18,19]. Neonatal herpes, a rare but devastating illness with high morbidity and mortality, can be caused by both HSV-1 and HSV-2[20]. However, a study of more than 58,000 live births showed that when mothers shed genital HSV at delivery, HSV-1 may be more likely than HSV-2 to be transmitted to the neonate[21]. In one study in Canada from 2000–2003, 63% of neonatal herpes cases were due to HSV-1[22]. This is one of a growing number of epidemiological studies that suggests that the impact of HSV-1 genital infections is widely underappreciated. It is known that HSV-2 increases HIV susceptibility and infectiousness[23–28]. The association between HSV-1 and HIV is unknown. Determining the proportion of HSV-1 infection that is oral versus genital is difficult. Standard type-specific serological tests measure the presence of IgG antibodies to distinguish HSV-1 and HSV-2 infections, but can only tell us whether an individual is infected and not the site of infection[29]. Viral shedding (both symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurring at the site of infection can be detected by a variety of methods. However, viral shedding is episodic. This means that viral shedding studies may not detect viral presence without multiple samples being taken from each person over time[30]. Nevertheless, type-specific viral detection studies remain the most accurate way to assess the site of infection. Quantifying the overall burden of HSV-1 infection, the burden of genital HSV-1, and the relative contribution of HSV-1 versus HSV-2 to genital herpes allows us to appropriately target prevention and treatment resources and tailor prevention counselling. In addition, such data can guide appropriate development of future interventions. The World Health Organization (WHO) has generated estimates of the global burden of HSV-2 twice: for 2003[16] and for 2012[17]. The global burden of HSV-1 infection has never been estimated to our knowledge. In this paper we present first WHO estimates of the burden of prevalent (existing) and incident (new) HSV-1 infection in 0–49 year olds for 2012 both globally and by WHO region. We also estimate the burden of genital HSV-1 infection in those aged 15–49 years.
Methods The method of estimation was multi-step and very similar to the method used to generate HSV-2 prevalence and incidence[16,17]. First we searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reporting HSV-1 prevalence (any language) published from 2005 onwards that met our selection criteria. For search terms used see S1 Document. HSV-1 prevalence was defined as the percentage of individuals with type-specific IgG antibodies to HSV-1 cross-sectionally. Reference lists of key publications were also searched. Data from publications published before 2005 and extracted previously[3,16] were included if the selection criteria were met. The key inclusion criteria were: some detail of study location and some information on age. Studies were excluded if participants were selected on the basis of having a medical condition. The rationale for this was that prevalence in such individuals may not be generalizable to the general population. For further details of the selection criteria see S1 Document. Only prevalence values from general populations were retained for the analyses. Data from specialised study populations such as men who have sex with men, STI clinic attendees and commercial sex workers were not used. Studies where enrolment was based on a particular minority subpopulation, for example, elderly Latino people in the Sacramento area, USA, were also not used. Specific regional criteria for use in the estimates were also applied depending on data availability by sex and study year for each region. In particular, only those prevalence values from studies from 2000 onwards were used, except for Africa and South-East Asia, where prevalence values from 1995 onwards were used due to poor data availability. Next we pooled raw HSV-1 prevalence values for general populations by age for each of the 6 WHO regions (and by sex where data availability permitted this). The WHO regions are as follows: the Americas, Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia and Western Pacific (S1 Table). Pooling was done for the following age ranges: 0–4; 5–9; 10–14; 15–19; 20–24; 25–29; 30–34; 35–39; 40–44 and 45–49 years. A sample size of 20 or more was required for pooling. All prevalence values were adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity prior to pooling[31–33]. Lastly we fitted a model[34] to the pooled HSV-1 prevalence values to estimate smoothed HSV-1 prevalence and calibrate HSV-1 incidence, which were then applied to population sizes for 2012[35] to generate the regional burdens of HSV-1 infection at any site. We estimated the burden of genital HSV-1 infection by assigning values for the proportion of incident HSV-1 infections from age 15 years that are genital from existing literature. This proportion is difficult to determine, and to our knowledge, only two studies have been carried out to estimate it. In a prospective US study of HSV-2 seronegative individuals aged 17–79 years who were “high-risk” or in HSV-2 serodiscordant relationships, 19 had incident HSV-1 infections, of which 12 were symptomatic and the site of infection could be determined. Overall, 50% (6/12) of symptomatic incident HSV-1 infections were associated with genital lesions; the remaining symptomatic individuals had either orolabial lesions or pharyngitis[36]. In a more recent study of HSV seronegative women aged 18–30 years in the control arm of the HERPEVAC Trial for Women in the USA, with 127 total incident HSV-1 infections, 85% (28/33) of symptomatic incident HSV-1 infections were associated with either genital disease or both oral and genital disease[13]. We found no studies to estimate this proportion outside of the USA. Uncertainty bounds around the estimates were computed which accounted for uncertainty in the underlying prevalence data. For a detailed description of the model and estimates calculation see S1 Document.
Ethics Statement It was not necessary to seek ethical approval for this study as this study is an analysis of existing published prevalence data and as such did not involve human participants directly. Correspondingly, no patient records or patient information were accessed.
Discussion An estimated 3709 million people globally aged 0–49 years were infected with prevalent HSV-1 in 2012. Assuming 50% of incident infections among 15-49-year-olds are genital, an estimated 140 million people were infected with prevalent genital HSV-1. The number of HSV-1 infections was highest for Africa, South-East Asia and Western Pacific, which had the largest population sizes. However, the majority of genital HSV-1 infections were in the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific, where HSV-1 infection continued to increase after adolescence. The prevalence of genital HSV-1 was highest for the Americas, which had the lowest HSV-1 prevalence on entering adolescence of all 6 regions. Taken together with estimates of HSV-2 infection among adults globally, which were all considered to be genital, our new estimates of HSV-1-associated genital infection suggested that 544 million people had genital infection due to either viral type worldwide in 2012, assuming half of incident HSV-1 infections in adults are genital. This figure could be as high as 633 million people, if 85% of incident HSV-1 infections in adults are genital, as suggested in a recent prospective study(13). It is unclear how much of this infection is recognized, as only about 10–20% of HSV-2 infections are diagnosed[14,38,39] and the analogous proportion for HSV-1 is unknown. In adults and adolescents, genital herpes due to HSV-1 is associated with less frequent symptomatic disease recurrences than HSV-2[5,18,19]. Thus, disease burden will vary by region not only by the number of people with genital herpes, but also the relative proportions caused by HSV-2 versus HSV-1. Although the burden of genital HSV-2 is high in Africa and moderate in South-East Asia, the available data suggest that genital HSV-1 is currently less likely to be an important public health problem in these regions. This is because HSV-1 acquisition here appeared to be high prior to adolescence and thus sexual debut, thereby protecting individuals in these regions from genital disease. However, the prevalence data on which the estimates were based were extremely sparse. For Africa, only one pooled prevalence estimate was available, with the remainder of the prevalence data for fitting coming from single studies. Genital HSV-1 could be much higher than estimated if HSV-1 infection continued after adolescence in these regions. Additionally, regional estimates could mask very different patterns of infection, including higher genital HSV-1, in individual countries or in specific settings. Our estimates of HSV-1 are considerably hampered by small numbers of studies across all regions, and by issues of small sample size, quality of data and generalizability within studies. Estimates of the burden of genital HSV-1 are severely hampered by lack of data on the proportion of incident HSV-1 infection from adolescence that is genital. We attempted to account for this uncertainty by generating two sets of estimates for genital HSV-1: the first assuming a value of 50% for this proportion[36], and the second assuming a value of 85%[13]. These values are the best available, but based on very small samples and only US populations. In addition, the site of new HSV-1 infection can only be determined for symptomatic people, and a large proportion of infections are asymptomatic. The estimates assume that the proportions of new HSV-1 infections that are genital versus oral are the same for both symptomatic and asymptomatic people. If new genital HSV-1 infections are more likely than new oral HSV-1 infections to be symptomatic, the estimated proportion of all incident HSV-1 infections that are genital may be inflated. This proportion may also vary considerably by region, setting, age and sex, although this variability may be less important for regions like Africa and South-East Asia with apparently little HSV-1 acquisition after early adolescence. Although we computed uncertainty bounds around the estimates, these are unlikely to fully account for all variation in underlying prevalence, most notably because reliable bounds for the African estimates could not be calculated. Consideration of the estimate reliability in light of these important issues should accompany interpretation and application of these estimates. Recent changes in the pattern of HSV-1 infection, i.e., decreasing rates of oral HSV-1 infection in childhood and increasing sexual transmission of HSV-1, mean that there may be cohort effects in prevalence data whereby older individuals have experienced higher historic rates of childhood infection and lower rates of sexual transmission. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) in the USA, the only nationally-representative general population surveys of HSV-1 prevalence repeated over a number of years, HSV-1 seroprevalence has been declining since the first surveys (1988–1994) and is continuing to decrease, with the largest decreases observed for adolescents[14,40]. We used only data from 2000 onwards (with the exception of Africa and South-East Asia), which minimized the influence of cohort effects to some extent. However this would not have removed the effect of all ongoing HSV-1 trends in the Americas and potentially other settings. The model in effect enables us to fit a function to smooth out observed prevalence, and then estimate the number of incident infections that would result from the fitted function, assuming that over the short period of one year prevalence does not change. Impact and recommendations This is the first attempt to calculate the global burdens of all HSV-1 and genital HSV-1, and hence the first attempt to quantify the extent to which genital HSV-1 presents a public health problem across different regions. To date, prevention and control efforts against genital herpes have focussed almost exclusively on HSV-2. We show that this strategy is likely to be currently appropriate for Africa and South-East Asia, where genital HSV-1 infection is probably not a public health issue at this time. However, for other regions, most notably the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific, such a strategy would fail to address a substantial burden of genital HSV-1 infection. In addition to the consequences of genital HSV-1 infection, orolabial HSV-1 infection is important in its own right. Symptomatic recurrent orolabial herpes can range from a mere annoyance to severe disease in the setting of immunocompromise. In addition, HSV-1 is one of the most common causes of sporadic encephalitis, which is rare but devastating, with high morbidity and associated costs[6,7] and HSV-1 also contributes to neonatal infections and deaths. Patterns of HSV-1 and HSV-2 infection, and their relative contribution to genital disease, are a product of multiple interactions. These include: different routes of transmission, different risk profiles by age, and the role of cross-immunity. Decreases in childhood HSV-1 infection and increases in orogenital sex have the potential to introduce genital HSV-1 as a public health issue in those regions where it is currently minimally present, since decreasing childhood-acquired immunity to HSV-1 (oral HSV-1 otherwise seems to protect against genital HSV-1) means more adults are at risk of acquiring genital HSV-1 through oral sex. Since HSV-1 infection does not seem to follow HSV-2[37], interventions that decrease HSV-2 infection could potentially lead to an increase in genital HSV-1, while a decrease in HSV-1 could lead to an increase in HSV-2 disease[36]. Other considerations for control programmes include: genital herpes due to HSV-1 is less likely to recur compared with HSV-2; the risk of neonatal herpes seems to be higher for HSV-1 than for HSV-2; and genital HSV-1 could in theory enhance HIV acquisition in a similar way to HSV-2 although the association is not understood. Despite the limited availability of data informing these estimates, we hope to increase understanding of the global scope of HSV-1 infection, and guide development of future prevention efforts. In a recent Phase III trial, an HSV vaccine based on glycoprotein D2 failed to prevent HSV-2 infection and disease, but, encouragingly, did show significant efficacy against HSV-1-related infection and disease[41]. Efforts to develop new HSV vaccines are advancing[42]. There are currently a number of HSV vaccine candidates in the development pipeline, with several therapeutic (vaccines which work in those already infected to reduce viral shedding and disease) and prophylactic vaccines in Phase I and II trials, in conjunction with substantial advances in delivery systems, adjuvants and stimulation of mucosal immunity[42]. These estimates lay the groundwork for determining the potential impact of a vaccine against HSV and informing important vaccine characteristics. For the Americas, Europe and the Western Pacific, a vaccine would need to target both HSV types to prevent genital herpes. In Africa and South-East Asia, a vaccine targeting HSV-2 infection would address genital herpes but would need to be effective in the presence of HSV-1 infection if targeted to adolescents or would need to be an infant vaccine. In summary, these WHO estimates show an enormous burden of HSV-1 globally, with regional variation in the age at which HSV-1 is acquired. Increased data on the epidemiology of HSV-1 are needed to strengthen the robustness of these estimates and provide a clearer picture in all regions as to how HSV-1 differs by age and sex. Furthermore, an improved understanding of the interaction between HSV-1 and HSV-2 at different anatomic sites on protective immunity is needed. Genital HSV-1 acquisition is lowest in regions such as Africa with the highest HIV rates, but understanding how HSV-1 affects HIV spread is critical given how common this infection is globally. It is hoped these estimates will be used to develop appropriate prevention messages, manage and counsel patients with symptomatic genital herpes, develop improved treatment regimens and diagnostic tests, and ultimately, develop HSV vaccines.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Professor Anna Wald (University of Washington) for valuable input, Dr Gretchen Stevens (World Health Organization) for statistical advice, Dr Fujie Xu (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for helpful discussion, Jessica Ho (World Health Organization) for helping with population data, Sharanya Rajagopal (University of Washington) for advising on meta-analysis in Stata, and the reviewers who made helpful suggestions for improving the manuscript. KJL, MTM, KMET and PV thank the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Evaluation of Interventions for research support.
Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: KJL LMN. Performed the experiments: KJL. Analyzed the data: KJL ASM MTM KMET PV SLG LMN. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: KJL ASM MTM KMET PV. Wrote the paper: KJL ASM MTM KMET PV SLG LMN. Contributed to the ongoing progress and direction of the research: KJL ASM MTM KMET PV SLG LMN. Provided technical expertise and input: KJL ASM MTM KMET PV SLG LMN. | In its first ever global assessment of the prevalence of the herpes virus that causes cold sores, the World Health Organization reports in the journal PLoS ONE that two in three humans under the age of 50 are infected with the incurable virus. That's an estimated 3.7 billion people. The WHO had previously done the same assessment for herpes simplex virus type 2, aka genital herpes, and found that 417 million people ages 17-49 have it. HSV-1, by contrast, is transmitted by oral-oral contact (often via childhood kisses, notes NBC News) and causes cold sores. "However, HSV-1 is an increasing cause of genital infection," they write, with the prevalence of genital HSV-1 being highest in the Americas. Reuters explains why: "Improved hygiene in rich countries" is reducing the number of infections that occur during childhood, and pushing more into young adulthood, where HSV-1 is transferred via oral sex (so not oral-oral but oral-genital). "We really need to accelerate the development of vaccines against herpes simplex virus," one WHO medical officer says. There are currently multiple phase-1 and phase-2 trials, with Genocea Biosciences halting its work on a pneumonia vaccine to focus on genital herpes. As for HSV-1, the WHO estimates that the Americas have the lowest infection rates: 49% of women and 39% of men. That number jumps to nearly 60% in Asia and a whopping 87% in Africa, reports NBC News. (This newborn almost died when a hospital visitor with HSV-1 kissed her.) |
Modern agricultural biotechnology refers to various scientific techniques, most notably genetic engineering, used to modify plants, animals, or microorganisms by introducing into their genetic makeup genes for specific desired traits, including genes from unrelated species. For centuries people have crossbred related plants or animal species to develop useful new varieties or hybrids with desirable traits, such as better taste or increased productivity. Traditional crossbreeding, however, can be very time-consuming because it may require breeding several generations to obtain a desired trait and breed out numerous unwanted characteristics. Genetic engineering techniques allow for faster development of new crop or livestock varieties, since the genes for a given trait can be readily introduced into a plant or animal species to produce a new variety incorporating that specific trait. Additionally, genetic engineering increases the range of traits available for developing new varieties by allowing genes from totally unrelated species to be incorporated into a particular plant or animal variety. In the 1970s, scientists learned how to extract a specific gene from a DNA strand and insert this gene into a different organism where it would continue to make the same protein that it did in its original organism. Scientists have applied this technology to bacteria, plants, and animals. For example, as shown in figure 1, scientists produced pest-resistant plants by identifying a gene responsible for pest resistance in an organism, isolating and copying the gene, and then inserting it into the target plant’s DNA. The plant was then tested to determine that the transferred trait (transgene) was inherited in subsequent generations and that the “transgenic” plant grew and functioned as well as the conventional variety. Biotechnology offers a variety of potential benefits and risks. It has enhanced food production by making plants less vulnerable to drought, frost, insects, and viruses and by enabling plants to compete more effectively against weeds for soil nutrients. In a few cases, it has also improved the quality and nutrition of foods by altering their composition. Table 1 summarizes the GM foods evaluated by FDA. Table 1 shows that the majority of modifications have been aimed at increasing crop yields for farmers by engineering a food plant to tolerate herbicides or attacks from pests such as insects and viruses (48 out of 62 modifications). Further, only two food plants have been altered to produce modified oil: the soybean and canola plants. According to industry officials, the modified soybean produces healthier oil. They also stated that the canola plant was modified to have a domestic source for laurate cooking oil. Because soybean oil is the most commonly consumed plant oil worldwide, scientists say that the new oil could significantly improve the health of millions of people. For three key crops grown in the United States—corn, soybeans, and cotton—a large number of farmers have chosen to plant GM varieties. In 2001, GM varieties accounted for about 26 percent of the corn, 68 percent of the soybeans, and 69 percent of the cotton planted in the United States. These crops are the source of various ingredients used extensively in many processed foods, such as corn syrup, soybean oil, and cottonseed oil, and they are also major U.S. commodity exports. The United States accounts for about three-quarters of GM food crops planted globally. However, the use of biotechnology has also raised concerns about its potential risks to the environment and people. For example, some people fear that common plant pests could develop resistance to the introduced pesticides in GM crops that were supposed to combat them. Further, some fear that crops modified to be tolerant to herbicides could foster the evolution of “super weeds.” Finally, some fear that scientists might unknowingly create or enhance a food allergen or toxin. Therefore, as biotechnology was being developed, U.S. scientists, regulators, and policymakers generally agreed that GM plants should be evaluated carefully before being put into widespread use. As a result, the United States published a Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology in 1986. This framework outlined the regulatory approach for reviewing GM plants, including relevant laws, regulations, and definitions of GM organisms. Responsibility for implementing the coordinated framework fell primarily to three agencies: USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FDA. Within USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) bears the main responsibility for assessing the environmental safety of GM crops. The primary focus of APHIS’ review is to determine whether or not a plant produced through biotechnology has the potential to harm natural habitats or agriculture. Developers can petition APHIS to exempt a GM plant from regulation once sufficient and appropriate data have been collected regarding the potential environmental impact of a GM plant. To safeguard the environment and human health, EPA is responsible for regulating genetic modifications in plants that protect them from insects, bacteria, and viruses. These protectants are subject to the agency’s regulations on the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides. EPA must review and grant a permit for field-testing plants with such protectants on more than 10 acres of land. Prior to commercialization of a GM plant with such a protectant, EPA reviews the application for approval of the protectant, solicits public comments, and may seek the counsel of external scientific experts. FDA has primary authority for the safety of most of the food supply. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act establishes the standard for food safety as food being in an unadulterated condition. FDA established its basic policy regarding the review of GM foods in its 1992 Policy on Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. According to this policy, FDA relies on companies developing GM foods to voluntarily notify the agency before marketing the foods. Notification leads to a two-part consultation process between the agency and the company that initially involves discussions of relevant safety issues and subsequently the company’s submission of a safety assessment report containing test data on the food in question. At the end of the consultation, FDA evaluates the data and may send a letter to the company stating that the agency has no further questions, indicating in effect that it sees no reason to prevent the company from marketing the GM food. In 1997, FDA supplemented its 1992 Policy with the current Guidance on Consultation Procedures, clarifying procedures for the initial and final consultations. In January 2001, FDA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register that provides further information on these procedures and, more importantly, would require pre-market notification by companies. Among the reasons that FDA cited for this change are concerns expressed by consumers and public interest groups about the limited transparency and voluntary nature of the current process. FDA also pointed to the growing power of biotechnology to create potentially more complex safety issues that could require more stringent regulatory evaluations. FDA, tentatively, expects to finalize this rule as early as fiscal year 2003. All foods, including those from GM plants, pose the same types of inherent risks to human health: they can cause allergic or toxic reactions, or they can block the absorption of nutrients. Although some foods from GM plants have contained allergens, toxins, and antinutrients, scientists agree that the levels of these compounds have been comparable to those found in the foods’ conventional counterparts. To reach such a finding, each GM food is evaluated using a regimen of tests. This regimen begins with tests on the source of the gene being transferred, proceeds to tests examining the similarity of the GM food to conventional varieties with known allergens, toxins, and antinutrients, and may include tests on the safety of the modified protein from the GM food in simulated digestive fluids. At every phase, test results are compared to the risk levels found in the food’s conventional counterpart. If the risk levels are within the same range as those for the conventional food, the GM food is considered as safe as its conventional counterpart. Despite the limitations of individual tests, several experts agree that this regimen of tests has been adequate for ensuring the safety of GM foods. According to reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Codex Alimentarius, and FDA, foods from GM plants pose three types of risk to human health: they can potentially contain allergens, toxins, or antinutrients. These risks are not unique to GM foods. People have consumed foods containing allergens, toxins, and antinutrients throughout human history. The small percentage of the population with food allergies (1-2 percent of adults and 6-8 percent of children) tries to prevent allergic reactions by avoiding offending foods. Additionally, people commonly consume toxic substances in foods, but they usually do so at levels that are considered safe. People also frequently consume foods containing antinutrients, such as certain proteins that inhibit the digestion of nutrients in the intestinal tract, but common food preparation techniques, such as cooking, break down the antinutrients. Moreover, consumption of a varied diet, in which a person is exposed to multiple nutrient sources, mitigates the risk of malnutrition from antinutrients, according to FDA officials and various academicians. Because conventional foods contain allergens, toxins, and antinutrients, scientists recognize that food cannot be guaranteed to pose zero risk. The primary concern with the genetic modification of food with respect to human health, state industry officials, is the potential for unintentional introduction of a new allergen, an enhanced toxin, or an enhanced antinutrient in an otherwise safe food. For this reason, developers evaluate GM foods to determine if they are as safe as their conventional counterparts. An allergic reaction is an abnormal response of the body’s immune system to an otherwise safe food. Some reactions are life threatening, such as anaphylactic shock. To avoid introducing or enhancing an allergen in an otherwise safe food, the biotech food industry evaluates GM foods to determine whether they are “as safe as” their natural counterparts. For example, in 1996 FDA reviewed the safety assessment for a GM soybean plant that can produce healthier soybean oil. As part of a standard safety assessment, the GM soybean was evaluated to see if it was as safe as a conventional soybean. Although soybeans are a common food allergen and the GM soybean remained allergenic, the results showed no significant difference between its allergenicity and that of conventional soybeans. Specifically, serums (blood) from individuals allergic to the GM soybean showed the same reactions to conventional soybeans. A toxic reaction in humans is a response to a poisonous substance. Unlike allergic reactions, all humans are subject to toxic reactions. Scientists involved in developing a GM food aim to ensure that the level of toxicity in the food does not exceed the level in the food’s conventional counterpart. If a GM food has toxic components outside the natural range of its conventional counterpart, the GM food is not acceptable. To date, GM foods have proven to be no different from their conventional counterparts with respect to toxicity. In fact, in some cases there is more confidence in the safety of GM foods because naturally occurring toxins that are disregarded in conventional foods are measured in the pre-market safety assessments of GM foods. For example, a naturally occurring toxin in tomatoes, known as tomatine, was largely ignored until a company in the early 1990s developed a GM tomato. FDA and the company considered it important to measure potential changes in tomatine. Through an analysis of conventional tomatoes, they showed that the levels of tomatine, as well as other similar toxins in the GM tomato, were within the range of its conventional counterpart. Antinutrients are naturally occurring compounds that interfere with absorption of important nutrients in digestion. If a GM food contains antinutrients, scientists measure the levels and compare them to the range of levels in the food’s conventional counterpart. If the levels are similar, scientists usually conclude that the GM food is as safe as its conventional counterpart. For example, in 1995 a company submitted to FDA a safety assessment for GM canola. The genetic modification altered the fatty acid composition of canola oil. To minimize the possibility that an unintended antinutrient effect had rendered the oil unsafe, the company compared the antinutrient composition of its product to that of conventional canola. The company found that the level of antinutrients in its canola did not exceed the levels in conventional canola. To ensure that GM foods do not have decreased nutritional value, scientists also measure the nutrient composition, or “nutrition profile,” of these foods. The nutrient profile depends on the food, but it often includes amino acids, oils, fatty acids, and vitamins. In the example previously discussed, the company also presented data on the nutrient profile of the GM canola and concluded that the significant nutrients were within the range of those in conventional canola. Companies that may wish to submit new GM foods for FDA evaluation perform a regimen of tests to obtain safety data on these foods. FDA’s 1992 policy on safety assessments of GM foods describes the data the agency recommends it receive to evaluate these foods. Figure 2 provides an example of the regimen of tests. This regimen usually includes an analysis of the source of the transferred genetic material, specifically whether the source of the transferred gene has a history of causing allergic or toxic reactions or containing antinutrients; the degree of similarity between the amino acid sequences in the newly introduced proteins of the GM food and the amino acid sequences in known allergens, toxins, and antinutrients; data on in vitro digestibility (i.e., how readily the proteins break down in simulated digestive fluids) the comparative severity of individual allergic reactions to the GM product and its conventional counterpart as measured through blood (serum) screening—when the conventional counterpart is known to elicit allergic reactions or allergenicity concerns remain; and data on any changes in nutrient substances, such as vitamins, proteins, fats, fiber, starches, sugars, or minerals due to genetic modification. Occasionally, the regimen of tests also includes animal studies for toxicity. As shown in figure 2, the tests provide evidence at key decision points to direct which tests are subsequently performed. Tests on the source of the newly expressed protein, amino acid sequence similarity, and digestibility are typical for both allergenicity and toxicity assessments, while serum screening is used only for allergenicity assessment. Also, while the complete regimen is not necessary for every GM food safety assessment, companies often perform extra tests in the regimen to corroborate the results of previous tests. Using allergenicity as an example, if a company transfers a gene from a source that is not an allergen, the company evaluates the amino acid sequence of the GM protein. If the GM protein has an amino acid sequence similar to that of known allergens, the company initiates further, more specific allergenicity testing. The company would undertake in vitro digestibility tests to see if the GM protein was broken down in simulated digestive fluids. If there were any concerns about the speed with which the GM protein was broken down, the company would use serum-screening tests to support or refute the results of the digestibility tests when serums are available. If the serum screening yields results showing that the GM protein does not react with antibodies in serum, then the company concludes the GM protein does not raise allergenicity concerns. The results from this regimen of tests provide the weight of evidence necessary to determine the safety of a GM food. Examining the source of the transferred genetic material is the starting point in the regimen of tests for safety assessments. According to a scientist from a biotechnology company, two principles of allergenicity assessment underlying the regimen of tests contribute to adequate safety assessments: scientists (1) avoid transferring known allergenic proteins and (2) assume all genes transferred from allergenic sources create new food allergies until proven otherwise. If the source contains a common allergen or toxin, industry scientists must prove that the allergenic or toxic components have not been transferred. However, as a practical matter, biotechnology companies repeatedly state that if the conventional food is considered a major food allergen, they will not transfer genes from that source. Accordingly, experts from FDA and the biotechnology industry agree that the probability of introducing a new allergen, enhancing a toxin, or enhancing an antinutrient is very small. The next step involves a comparison between the amino acid sequences of the transferred proteins of the GM food plant and those of known allergens, toxins, or antinutrients. If scientists detect an amino acid sequence in a GM food identical or similar to one in an allergen, toxin, or antinutrient, then there is a likelihood that the GM food poses a health risk. Overall, sequence similarity tests are very useful in eliminating areas of concern and revealing areas for further evaluation. In vitro digestibility tests are a primary component of all GM food safety assessments. These tests analyze the breakdown of a GM protein in simulated human digestive or gastric fluids. The quick breakdown of a GM protein in these fluids indicates a very high likelihood that the protein is not allergenic or toxic. Safe dietary proteins are almost always rapidly digested, while allergens and toxins are not. If a gene raises allergenicity concerns, a company can include serum screening tests in its safety assessment of a GM food. Serum screening is used only for allergenicity assessment. Serum screening involves evaluating the reactivity of antibodies in the blood of individuals with known allergies to the plant that was the source of the transferred gene. Antibody reactions suggest the presence of an allergenic protein. Serum screening tests are valuable because they can expose allergens whose presence was only suggested in amino acid sequence similarity tests. Since there are neither abundant, appropriate stored serums nor many suitable human test subjects, these tests cannot always be used. Scientists also create a nutritional and compositional profile of the GM food to assess whether any unexpected changes in nutrients, vitamins, proteins, fibers, starches, sugars, minerals, or fats have occurred as a result of the genetic modification. While changes in these substances do not pose a risk of allergenicity, toxicity, or antinutrient effects to human health, creating a nutritional and compositional profile further ensures that the GM food is comparable to its conventional counterpart. Biotechnology companies occasionally use animal studies to confirm the results of prior toxicity tests. For the most part, these studies have involved feeding extraordinarily high doses of the modified protein from a GM food to mice. The doses of the modified protein are often hundreds to thousands of times higher than the likely dose from human diets. Scientists perform these studies to determine if there are any toxic concerns from the GM food. Animal studies also have the potential to predict allergenicity in humans, although scientists have not yet identified an animal that suffers from allergic reactions the same way that humans do. The brown Norway rat has provided the closest approximation to human allergic reactions to several major food allergens. However, animal models—as predictors of allergenic responses in humans—are not scientifically accepted at this time. Biotechnology experts whom we contacted from a consumer group, FDA, academic institutions, research institutions, the European Union and biotechnology companies said that the current regimen of tests has been adequate for assessing the safety of GM foods. All but one expert considered the regimen of tests to be “good” or “very good” for ensuring the safety of GM foods for public consumption, and the remaining expert viewed the tests as “fair.” While the experts noted that individual tests have limitations, most experts agreed that results from the regimen of tests provide the weight of evidence needed for scientists to make an accurate assessment of risk. A distinction made by an academician and regulatory officials is that the available tests do not guarantee absolute safety of GM foods, but comparable safety. There is no assurance that even conventional foods are completely safe, since some people suffer from allergic reactions, and conventional foods can contain toxins and antinutrients. Because they have been consumed for many years, though, conventional foods are used as the standard for comparison in assessing the safety of GM foods, and experts note that the available tests are capable of making this comparison. While experts agree that the available regimen of tests is adequate for safety assessments, there are limitations to individual tests. For example, there are limitations to the acceptability of amino acid sequence similarity test results, in part because there is not agreement on what level of amino acid similarity indicates a likelihood of allergenicity and, therefore, the need for additional testing. Industry scientists assert that as long as amino acid sequences in a protein are less than 50 percent identical to those in known allergens, then the protein should not raise concerns. On the other hand, a scientist associated with a consumer group, as well as a report from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, believe a more conservative level, such as less than 35 percent identical, is appropriate. Thus, experts from industry and consumer groups suggest that reaching agreement on this parameter would increase the consistency with which these tests are applied. In vitro digestibility tests also have limitations because they can yield inaccurate results when performed under inappropriate parameters, such as improper digestive fluid pH levels. If a GM food protein is tested at a pH level representative of intestine digestion, yet the protein in real life is digested at a different pH level in the stomach, then the results of the test are not valid for reaching conclusions on the GM food’s likely effect in humans. FDA officials note that there is growing acceptance that the proper pH level for digestive stability tests is the pH level of the human stomach. As a result, experts from industry and consumer groups suggest that reaching agreement on the parameters in digestive stability tests— such as proper pH ranges—would help ensure that they are performed properly. Information on acceptable testing procedures (including parameters) is available from a variety of sources. For instance, AOAC Internationaldocuments standardized tests and test procedures, such as test procedures for examining nutrient levels in a GM food. Other groups, such as the American Oil Chemists’ Society and the American Association of Cereal Chemists also have information on official tests and test procedures. However, there is no centralized source of information on these procedures. Although FDA maintains a Web site with guidance for consultations, the Web site does not contain information about acceptable testing procedures. According to FDA, it has the necessary controls to ensure it obtains the safety data needed for its GM food evaluations. In examining a selection of submissions, we found that companies adhered to FDA’s recommended procedures for the type of data to be submitted. However, biotechnology experts state that the agency’s overall evaluation process could be enhanced by randomly verifying the test data that companies provide and by increasing the transparency of the evaluation process—including more clearly communicating the scientific rationale for the agency’s final decision on GM food safety assessments. FDA believes that making these changes would enhance the public’s confidence in the agency’s evaluation process. According to agency officials, FDA has several management practices that, in aggregate, constitute internal controls. The officials state that these practices effectively ensure FDA obtains the data necessary for evaluating the potential risks of GM foods. These practices include: communicating clearly what safety data are important to FDA’s evaluations of GM food safety, having teams of FDA experts representing diverse disciplines perform the evaluations, and tailoring the level of evaluation to match the degree of each GM food’s novelty. One key indication of the effectiveness of these practices is FDA’s ability to determine when data are inadequate and to specify the additional data important to a complete evaluation. In the cases we examined when the company’s initial submission of data was insufficient, FDA was able to specify and obtain additional data from the company. For a GM food, the evaluation process, known as a consultation, generally lasts between 18 months and 3 years, according to FDA officials. In what FDA calls the “initial” phase of the consultation, FDA and company officials discuss what safety data will be needed for a GM food submission. In the next or “final” phase, the company prepares a detailed report summarizing this data and submits it to FDA. After receiving and evaluating the report, FDA officials prepare a “memo to file.” This memo is the formal document in which FDA summarizes and evaluates everything the company has submitted. Consultation is complete when FDA determines that it has no further questions regarding the safety of the GM food and informs the company of this conclusion in a letter signed by the director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety. Receiving such a letter is generally helpful to companies in marketing their product. In FDA’s 1992 policy statement and its subsequent 1997 guidance, the agency clearly states what information companies should submit for FDA to assess the safety of GM foods. Specifically, the 1992 statement includes several risk assessment decision trees that provide a step-by-step approach to testing. FDA recommends that companies follow this approach in their assessments of GM foods. Using this approach, companies must show whether any allergens, toxins, or antinutrients have been introduced or enhanced. FDA’s 1997 guidance builds upon the 1992 policy statement by describing in more detail the process, procedures, and time frames pertaining to the initial and final consultations. FDA officials stated that the principles embodied in their 1992 policy statement guided the consultations for the 50 GM foods evaluated so far and that companies have closely adhered to these principles. In examining five submissions, we found that companies adhered closely to the 1992 policy statement. For example, a 1996 submission for a GM soybeanshows step-by-step adherence to the allergenicity decision tree established in the 1992 policy statement. Extensive data submitted by the company enabled FDA to conclude that it had no unanswered questions about the safety of the soybean. Later submissions involving an herbicide-tolerant sugar beet and pest-resistant corn also showed a close adherence to the 1992 policy statement. Evaluations of GM food safety submissions must include concurrence from every member of a highly qualified team known as the Biotechnology Evaluation Team. The 1997 guidance states that the evaluation teams generally will be composed of a consumer safety officer (who serves as the project manager), molecular biologist, chemist, environmental scientist, toxicologist, and nutritionist. The guidance also states that the evaluation teams may be supplemented with additional expertise on a case-by-case basis. According to agency officials, these experts are qualified to perform what is effectively a peer review of each submission. Consumer safety officers, who generally have doctorates in relevant disciplines, including molecular biology, cell biology, or immunology, chair the teams. According to FDA officials, in addition to their scientific credentials, the consumer safety officers know what is needed for the administrative record for each submission. This knowledge encompasses the laws and regulations, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as specific pertinent procedures, such as FDA’s 1992 policy statement. According to FDA officials, the combination of scientific and administrative expertise makes the consumer safety officers effective leaders of the teams. FDA officials indicated that each member of an evaluation team reviews the entire file for a given GM food submission. These officials viewed this as another strength of the evaluation process. In particular, they stressed that the final evaluation is not a “piecemeal” evaluation in which, for example, the toxicologist receives only the toxicological data to review. Rather, each team member receives and examines all the data that the company has submitted. Further, team members must document in writing the results of all key interactions with a company throughout the course of the evaluation; this documentation is then available for the whole team to evaluate. Lastly, the entire team must concur with the final draft of the memo to file, which is usually prepared by the consumer safety officer. In summary, FDA officials told us that the expertise of the Biotechnology Evaluation Team members coupled with the multiple reviews of information enables the team to adequately evaluate safety assessments and determine if and when more data is needed. According to agency officials, FDA’s practice of varying its level of evaluation based on the degree of novelty of the GM food submission allows it to devote resources where they are most needed, thus assuring that Biotechnology Evaluation Teams have time to obtain necessary safety data. FDA’s evaluation of one company’s GM tomato provides an example of a detailed evaluation of a novel submission that went through both the initial and final consultations. Specifically, the Biotechnology Evaluation Team requested extensive detail from the company on the modification of the tomato, which involved the insertion of one gene to delay ripening and another gene to show that this trait was transferred. FDA’s documentation of its evaluation presented background information on these modifications, a point-by-point evaluation of the company’s food safety assessment, and FDA’s conclusion that the tomato was not significantly different from conventional tomatoes. By contrast, FDA officials stated that evaluations of company submissions for GM foods similar to GM foods previously evaluated by the agency (such as a virus-resistant squash and various herbicide-tolerant corns) required fewer agency resources because these submissions skipped the initial consultation and proceeded to the final consultation. In fact, FDA’s 1997 guidance states that a company might skip the initial consultation and go directly to the final consultation by submitting its final report. According to FDA officials, this skipping often occurs when a company has made multiple submissions for similar GM foods involving only minor variations from one case to the next. Having once gone through the full consultation process for a specific genetic modification, such a company is familiar with the kinds of safety information that FDA expects and thus can proceed directly to preparing a final report for similar cases. FDA’s documentation of its evaluation of such submissions can be less detailed. According to FDA officials, in cases in which the agency determines that the data submitted by a company are insufficient, the company has always cooperated with FDA by performing additional tests and/or submitting the data needed. FDA officials described three types of situations where they have requested additional data and companies have responded: (1) the absence of a reliable or “validated” method for performing a test; (2) reliance on a prevailing scientific “assumption” that, when tested at FDA’s request, was proven incorrect; and (3) inconsistent or incomplete data in the final reports. The first situation involved the lack of a reliable method for testing tomatine, a naturally occurring toxin in tomatoes. The company that encountered this problem was inexperienced in analytical chemistry, and the laboratory with which it was working did not have an acceptable method. In evaluating the measurements of tomatine submitted by the company, FDA officials found these data unconvincing. As a result, FDA officials suggested that the company find a more appropriate method. In response, the company obtained a suitable method from another laboratory and later provided FDA with new data that the agency found convincing. The second situation is illustrated by FDA’s evaluation of a GM tomato altered to delay ripening. In this submission, the company assumed that only a certain segment of DNA was transferred. FDA asked the company to prove the accuracy of this assumption. Testing by the company then revealed that additional DNA had been transferred. This discovery led to more thorough analysis of the genetic modifications, including additional efforts to ensure that the transfer of extra DNA did not cause unintended changes. In the third situation, FDA noted discrepancies in the data in final reports involving GM cotton, rice, and canola and requested the relevant companies to correct the information, which they did. Biotechnology experts state, and FDA agrees, that its overall evaluation process for assessing the safety of GM foods could be enhanced by verifying the GM food-related test data that companies provide, and increasing the transparency of the evaluation process. Biotechnology experts from consumer groups and academia state that FDA’s evaluation process could be enhanced if the agency validated companies’ test results on proposed GM products by reviewing raw data (e.g., the actual, unverified test results). Further, FDA believes that occasional reviews of the raw data developed by companies would further enhance the credibility of, and public confidence in, the overall safety data that companies submit. In addition, we believe occasional data verification by a federal agency is necessary to (1) identify the risk of the agency’s receiving faulty data from external sources and (2) ensure that no one agent is allowed to control every key aspect of a safety assessment. FDA officials stated that they do not believe it is necessary for the agency to routinely review raw data for two reasons. First, the risk of incurring criminal penalties for deliberately submitting false data to FDA provides a significant degree of deterrence. Second, FDA’s evaluation process constitutes a peer review of the safety data that will generally detect any problems. However, these officials added that an occasional review of raw data, performed on a random basis, would further help ensure the reliability of FDA’s evaluation of these foods, and thus enhance public confidence in the agency’s evaluation process. Officials from a major biotech company described three types of GM food safety data developed for each submission and available for FDA’s review: (1) raw data, (2) refinements and comprehensive interpretations of the raw data, and (3) summaries of these interpretations. According to these officials, FDA has reviewed the summaries, and in some instances the comprehensive interpretations, but has not reviewed the raw data. These officials note, and FDA officials concur, that nothing prevents FDA from reviewing these raw data. In general, these raw data are readily available from companies. The company officials also note that EPA has occasionally reviewed raw data in its safety assessments of GM plants regarding their environmental effects. Moreover, FDA officials stated the agency reviews raw data in its safety assessments of new drug applications. Experts from consumer groups and academia have stated that the transparency of the agency’s evaluation process for GM foods could be enhanced if FDA described more clearly the scientific rationale for its safety decisions in its memo to file. FDA agrees. Guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget on the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies state that transparency is important in reviews of technical information and that these reviews should be conducted in an open and rigorous manner. Yet critics have stated that FDA’s current memos to file do not adequately communicate the scientific rationale for the decisions. Some consumer groups have pointed out the brevity of some of the memos and described them as “perfunctory” summaries of company data that provide little or no insight into FDA’s evaluation of the data. Likewise, the Council for Agricultural and Science Technology, a group of universities and companies established to provide a more scientific basis for analyzing and prioritizing agricultural issues, stated that FDA does not adequately clarify in its memos to file the basis for its decisions on GM food submissions. Our review of memos to file for the 50 GM food products evaluated by FDA as of April 2002 confirms that these memos do not clearly explain the scientific rationale for FDA’s decisions. In response to these concerns, FDA officials note that the memos to file had originally been created for FDA’s internal use rather than as public documents. Thus, they were not designed to provide detailed rationales of FDA’s decisions on GM food submissions. In addition, FDA officials said that some memos are brief because they record decisions on GM foods that are very similar to previously evaluated GM foods. However, FDA officials acknowledge that FDA could do more to inform the public of the basis for their decisions. For example, FDA could include comments in the memos to file that better reflected the context of the evaluation (for instance, its similarity to previous evaluations), the adequacy of the tests performed by the company, and the level of evaluation provided by FDA. For those memos to file on submissions for GM foods that are similar to GM foods previously evaluated, FDA could make reference to earlier, similar submissions having a more detailed memo to file. Scientists expect future GM foods to include modifications of plant composition that may enhance the nutritional value of these foods but may also increase the difficulty of assessing their safety. While current tests have been adequate for evaluating the small number of relatively simple compositional changes made so far, some scientists believe that new testing technologies under development may be needed to assess the safety of these more complex GM foods. Scientists have diverging views on the potential role of these new technologies: some view them as a useful supplement to existing tests, while others view them as a new, more comprehensive way to assess the safety of all changes in GM foods. However, the lack of technical standards for these new technologies and proof of their reliability prevents their current use. Until now, most genetic modifications of plants have been aimed at increasing or protecting crop yield. These modifications have generally focused on the portions of plants, such as cornstalks, that are not consumed by humans. However, many scientists believe that the current wave of yield-related modifications will expand to include a new wave of genetic modifications involving compositional changes in the foods to enhance their nutritional value. For example, “golden” rice is a GM food under development that was modified to contain beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Golden rice may help to reduce the incidence of blindness in countries where rice is a dietary staple and malnutrition is common. Also under development are compositional changes that will increase the levels of vitamin E in foods. Plants are the primary source of this vitamin, which is believed to have cancer-preventing properties, but plants generally contain it in relatively low concentrations. A gene controlling vitamin E production was transferred recently to a member of the mustard plant family, which subsequently exhibited a nine-fold increase in this vitamin. According to a recent report, incorporation of this gene into major crops such as soybeans, canola, and corn is probably not far in the future. In addition to increasing nutrients in GM foods, scientists are working to reduce the presence of allergens, toxins, and antinutrients. For example, scientists have genetically modified wheat, one of the major allergenic foods, to stimulate a gene that diminishes wheat’s allergenic properties. Scientists are also seeking ways to reduce toxic substances, such as alkaloids in potatoes, by inserting genes that block their production. Preliminary findings have indicated that GM potatoes produced fewer of these alkaloids. Likewise, some plants, especially cereals and legumes, are nutritious foods but contain varying amounts of antinutrients. Genetic modifications are being explored to reduce these antinutrients. If adopted, FDA’s proposed rulemaking mandating the testing of all GM foods prior to commercialization will represent a timely response to this new wave of GM foods. For example, the preamble to the rule notes that some of the new ingredients in GM foods will significantly differ from ingredients that have a history of safe use. The rule also notes that products derived from this advanced biotechnology will present more complex safety and regulatory issues than those seen to date. The proposed rule concludes that nontraditional strategies for evaluating food safety will become the norm as the use of biotechnology expands. FDA officials explained that “nontraditional strategies” could include new technologies under development such as those described in the next section. Some scientists believe that testing technologies being developed but not yet widely applied to GM foods may be useful in assessing the safety of compositional changes and detecting unintended effects. In contrast to current tests that examine the human health effects of transferred genes and other relevant components on a highly selective basis, the new technologies will examine essentially all of the components—such as DNA, proteins, and metabolites—in conventional and GM plants simultaneously to detect any differences. These new technologies include gene chips that use thousands of droplets of DNA on glass chips to identify gene sequences and determine the expression level or abundance of the genes; proteomics which can analyze up to 100,000 proteins simultaneously; and metabolic profiling that can analyze the 2,000 to 3,000 metabolites in people and 3,000 to 5,000 metabolites in plants. In essence, these new technologies combine huge increases in automated computing power with traditional testing technologies to identify differences between conventional and GM foods in ways that would have been impossible even a few years ago. A university scientist further explained the contrast between the current and new technologies by noting that traditional tests focus on known toxins and nutrients in a “targeted” approach, whereas new technologies use a “non-targeted” approach to increase the chance of detecting unintended effects of genetic modifications such as the creation of a toxin. According to this scientist, the latter approach has particular applicability to second-generation plants with extensive modifications, which may be more likely to have unintended effects. For example, a scientist with a consumer group stated that the new technologies may be useful in detecting unintended effects that traditional tests, such as those for digestibility, are not likely to identify. Other scientists expressed the need for caution and additional information to determine the potential role of these new technologies. Gene chips consist of grids of thousands of droplets of DNA on small glass surfaces. The chip-based DNA can bind with the DNA or RNA being tested to determine which genes are present or are being activated. Used in conjunction with DNA and RNA databases under development at various universities and other research institutions, this testing technique has yielded insights into areas such as the ripening process of tomatoes and its relation to toxins and nutrients. The major advantage of gene chips over conventional testing techniques is that they allow small-scale analysis of thousands of genes at the same time in a precise and quantitative manner. According to a university scientist, researchers are determining the extent to which this technology may be effective in assessing GM food safety. Proteomics is a biotechnology technique used to identify many proteins simultaneously in a given organism. Using chemical analyses and computers, proteomics goes beyond plant studies focusing on DNA and RNA, which do not provide information on the actual creation of the proteins. Proteomics has been introduced successfully in medical disciplines such as oncology, where it has helped to identify proteins associated with cancer, but it has not yet been used to evaluate the safety of GM foods for two reasons. First, there are a large number of proteins that need to be analyzed in any given plant. Second, the function of proteins in a plant may change depending on their interaction with different cells and tissues. According to a university scientist, researchers are working to expedite the analysis of proteins in plants. Metabolic profiling uses chemical analyses and computers to obtain a simultaneous, detailed look at all of the small molecules (metabolites) in a given GM plant to determine the extent to which these molecules have changed in comparison to a conventional plant, if at all. According to scientists at one company involved in developing metabolic profiling, this technique can determine whether a specific, intended change in a small molecule has been achieved. It can also identify any unintended changes in other small molecules—changes such as increased alkaloids, which are a major source of toxicity in plants. If the profiling finds no unintended changes in these molecules, then it offers a reasonable certainty that the genetic modification has not led to any changes with potentially adverse health consequences. In general, metabolic profiling has not yet been used commercially. However, scientists working with this technique believe that it may play a potentially important role as a safety screening tool for companies developing complex, compositionally altered GM foods in the future. In addition, scientists state that it shows promise in the health care field in assessing the safety of future new drugs. Despite progress in developing and applying gene chips, proteomics, and metabolic profiling, technical limitations currently prevent their use to assess the safety of GM foods. Biotechnology experts told us that internal standards must be developed for the methods and chemicals used in these new technologies and that the reliability of these technologies must be proven. For example, in gene chip testing, experts state that standardization of the thousands of genes represented on the chips is essential to improve the quality of this technology. Further, experts state that the chemical analysis used in proteomics needs to be enhanced to improve its reliability. Beyond these technical challenges, however, lies a more fundamental problem. Because these new technologies are more sensitive, they may identify a flood of differences between conventional and GM food products that existing tests could not detect. Not all of these differences will stem from genetic modification. Some of the differences will stem from the tremendous natural variations in all plants caused by factors such as the maturity of the plants and a wide range of environmental conditions, such as temperature, moisture, amount of daylight, and unique soil conditions that vary by region of the country. For example, there can be a tenfold difference in the level of key compositional elements, such as nutrients, depending on the region in which soybeans are grown. Thus, according to a biotechnology company expert, it will be difficult to differentiate naturally occurring changes from the effects of deliberate genetic modifications. Industry and university scientists have expressed strong concerns about the problem of interpreting the potential significance of these differences. They believe that the new technologies will be of limited value unless baseline data on the natural variations of nutrients and other compositional values for each of the major food crops can be developed. However, experts disagree on the difficulty of developing this baseline. Some experts, including those at FDA, assert that developing the baseline will be difficult because of the extreme sensitivity of plants to environmental variations. Other experts, especially those pioneering the new techniques, state that a baseline can definitely be established in the next few years. Some companies have started to respond to the need for baseline information. New developments in technology have begun to provide an encyclopedic database on natural variations in plants and on the variations resulting from deliberate genetic modification. For example, using metabolic profiling, one company has analyzed approximately 150 characteristics, such as the size and rate of growth, of individual plants. The company has also examined about 12,000 genes in one species of plant—a member of the mustard family—and analyzed the consequences of eliminating or stimulating particular genes. About one million mustard plants of this type have been analyzed in this line of research. Even with the development of baseline data and the detection of differences, scientists will still need to evaluate the significance of these differences for human health. Appendix II provides more information regarding advancements in the development of baseline information and the experimental use of metabolic profiling to assess the safety of GM foods. Scientists and federal regulatory officials we contacted generally agreed that long-term monitoring of the human health risks of GM foods through epidemiological studies is not necessary because there is no scientific evidence suggesting any long-term harm from these foods. These scientists and officials also stated that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a process for monitoring the long-term health risks of GM foods because of the technical challenges in developing such a system. A recent report by the United Nations also expresses skepticism about the feasibility of identifying long-term health effects from GM foods. The scientists and federal regulatory officials generally agreed that because there is no scientific evidence that GM foods cause long-term harm, such as increased cancer rates, there is no plausible hypothesis of harm. Researchers need such a hypothesis in order to know what problem to search for, test, and potentially measure. For example, in the Framingham Heart Study of Massachusetts, researchers hypothesized that there were biological and environmental factors that contributed to cardiovascular disease. Using this hypothesis, researchers were able to design a study that established a relationship between the levels of cholesterol and the risk of heart disease. The resulting effort, comprising more than 10,000 participants over two generations (more than 50 years), developed groundbreaking information on the major risk factors associated with heart disease, stroke, and other diseases. For example, researchers found that a lifestyle typified by a faulty diet, sedentary living, or unrestrained weight gain exacerbated disease risk factors and influenced the occurrence of cardiovascular problems. Without a plausible hypothesis such as that used in the Framingham study, most scientists we contacted said that epidemiological studies on GM foods would not provide any useful information. Two of these scientists also noted that the primary ways in which foods might cause long-term harm are through (1) proteins that remain stable during human digestion, thereby retaining the potential to exert adverse effects such as a toxic reaction, and (2) detrimental changes in nutrients and other food components. However, for all 50 GM food plants reviewed by FDA as of April 2002, the genetically modified proteins in those foods that potentially could be cause for concern have been shown in tests to be rapidly digested. Further, the two GM food plants reviewed that produced modified oils—soybean and canola—had nutritional profiles that were similar to or better than their conventional counterparts. As discussed previously, the soybean oil was modified to be more nutritious than conventional soybean oil. The canola oil was modified to contain a higher level of laurate, which would allow it to substitute for imported tropical oils, such as palm kernel oil. However, industry determined that the total intake of laurate in the diet would not change significantly by substituting the improved canola oil for the tropical oil. Accordingly, industry officials stated, and FDA officials concurred, that long-term studies of health effects of this oil would not be needed. Scientists and federal regulatory officials also stated that there are substantial technical challenges that make long-term monitoring of the health effects of GM foods virtually impossible. The challenges cited include the following: Conducting long-term monitoring would require both an experimental group that has consumed GM foods and a control group. The control group would consist of people who could confirm that they do not eat GM foods. In countries such as the United States, where labeling is not required for GM foods, reliably identifying such control groups would be virtually impossible. Even if GM foods were labeled in the United States, it would be very difficult to separate the health effects of GM foods from those of their conventional counterparts, since to date there has been very little nutritional difference between these foods. Further, over long periods of time, there would be practical challenges in feeding both the experimental and controls groups diets comprising large amounts of GM food, such as soybeans or corn, and their conventional counterparts. Since the long-term human health effects of consuming most foods are not well understood, there is no baseline information against which to assess health effects caused by GM foods. Changes in human food consumption patterns, specifically the addition and removal of various foods, add new variables to the diet and compound the difficulty of conducting long-term monitoring. The fairly recent introduction of the kiwi fruit (to which some individuals are allergic) and the reduction of the use of cotton seed (to which some individuals have also been allergic) as a protein source in candy or breads illustrate the challenges in monitoring food consumption patterns when conducting a 20-to-30 year epidemiological study. A report issued in June 2000 by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization supports the scientists’ and regulators’ views about the infeasibility of identifying long-term health effects from GM foods. The report states that, in general, very little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods, and that identification of such effects is further confounded by the great variability in the way people react to foods. The report also states that epidemiological studies are not likely to differentiate the health effects of GM foods from the many undesirable effects of conventional foods, which according to scientists include the effects of consuming cholesterol and fats. Accordingly, the report concludes that the identification of long-term effects specifically attributable to GM foods is highly unlikely. Given the challenges to long-term monitoring, federal regulatory officials, as well as some U.S. and European scientists, state that the best defense against long-term health risks from GM foods is an effective pre-market safety assessment process. Biotechnology experts believe that the current regimen of tests has been adequate for ensuring that GM foods marketed to consumers are as safe as conventional foods. However, some of these experts also believe that the agency’s evaluation process could be enhanced. Specifically, FDA could verify companies’ summary test data on GM foods, thus further ensuring the accuracy and completeness of this data. In addition, the agency could more clearly explain to the public the scientific rationale for its evaluation of these foods’ safety, thereby increasing the transparency of, and public confidence in, FDA’s evaluation process. By addressing these issues, FDA’s assurance to consumers that GM foods are safe could be strengthened. To enhance FDA’s safety evaluations of GM foods, we recommend that the Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs direct the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to obtain, on a random basis, raw test data from companies, during or after consultations, as a means of verifying the completeness and accuracy of the summary test data submitted by companies; and expand its memos to file recording its decisions about GM foods to provide greater detail about its evaluations of the foods, including the level of evaluation provided, the similarity of the foods to foods previously evaluated, and the adequacy of the tests performed by the submitting companies. We provided FDA with a draft of this report for review and comment. In its written comments, FDA stated it believes that its current process for evaluating bioengineered foods provides appropriate oversight but agreed that enhancements can be made. Specifically, concerning the need to randomly review raw safety data, FDA agreed that occasional audits would provide additional assurance to the public that pre-market decisions about bioengineered foods are based on sound science and that safety and regulatory issues are resolved prior to commercial distribution. Concerning the expansion of its memos to file, the agency agreed that providing greater detail on its decisions about the safety of GM foods would enhance public understanding and confidence in the evaluation process. The agency noted that actions in its proposed rule—titled Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods (66 FR 4706, January 18, 2001)—are relevant to our recommendations. FDA explicitly states it will evaluate whether to adopt occasional audits as it evaluates comments on its proposed rule. Since FDA officials told us that some of its proposed rule changes in the Federal Register have taken years to implement, we believe that the public’s interests would be served by implementing our recommendations separately from the proposed rule approval process. FDA also had general comments about the terms and definitions used in discussing agricultural biotechnology. FDA stated that our draft report avoided many of the pitfalls in terminology and in general was written in a manner that will be understandable to the public. However, the agency believes the use of terms such as “Genetically Modified Food” in the title and “GM food” in the text can be misleading and such foods are more commonly referred to as bioengineered foods. While perhaps the scientific community refers to these foods as bioengineered, the lay public is more familiar with the term genetically modified foods. Accordingly, we have continued to use the term genetically modified, which is defined on page one of our report. Separately from its written comments, FDA provided us with some technical changes, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. FDA’s written comments are presented in appendix III. We performed our review from July 2001 through May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for our objectives, scope, and methodology.) We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees with jurisdiction over food safety programs, the Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Director, Office of Management and Budget, 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) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Representatives John Baldacci and John Tierney asked us to (1) identify the types of potential human health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) foods and experts’ views on the adequacy of tests used to evaluate these risks, (2) describe the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) controls for ensuring that companies submit test data it requests and identify experts’ views on the agency’s overall evaluations of these foods, (3) describe potential changes in future GM foods and any associated changes needed in tests to evaluate them, and (4) identify experts’ views on the necessity and feasibility of monitoring the long-term health risks of these foods. In addressing our review objectives, we interviewed representatives from U.S. consumer groups, academic and research institutions, federal regulatory agencies, and the biotechnology industry. We also E-mailed a set of questions to experts representing a variety of positions on biotechnology issues. We selected these experts in consultation with officials from the National Academy of Science’s National Research Council. These experts included scientists from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Biotechnology Center of the University of Illinois, the Health Sciences Center of Tulane University, FDA, the Aventis Corp., the DuPont Corp., the Monsanto Corp., and Paradigm Genetics, Inc. In addition, we analyzed reports, policy documents, or issue papers from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Federation of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, the National Academy of Sciences, the Pew Initiative on Biotechnology, the Environmental Protection Agency, FDA, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Institute of Food Technologists, the Codex Alimentarius, and the National Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products at the Wageningen University and Research Center of the Netherlands. We did not assess the potential environmental risks associated with GM food production. In addition, since there have been no GM animals evaluated for commercialization, we did not assess the potential environmental or human health risks associated with them. To identify the types of potential health risks of GM foods, we analyzed and synthesized information from the interviews, E-mail question responses, and documents regarding these risks. To identify tests commonly used by industry to assess GM food safety, we examined several FDA evaluations of GM food. In examining these evaluations, we also analyzed how FDA addresses any potential limitations in these tests and what guidance FDA provides to industry regarding scientifically acceptable tests. In our E-mail questions, we also asked the experts to describe any limitations to these tests, and then analyzed and synthesized their responses, particularly regarding test-specific limitations and suggestions for improving the tests. In addition, we asked whether there were any limitations to FDA’s guidance on acceptable tests. We then synthesized their responses, including suggestions for improving FDA’s guidance. To describe FDA internal controls for ensuring that companies submit safety test data requested by the agency, we interviewed FDA officials and reviewed agency documents about the functions of these internal controls, specifically (1) FDA’s 1992 Policy on Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties and its 1997 Guidance on Consultation Procedures that describe what safety data companies should submit; (2) the qualifications and roles of the FDA Biotechnology Evaluation Teams responsible for evaluating these submissions; and (3) FDA’s practice of matching its level of evaluation to the degree of novelty of the GM food submitted. Further, we compared the safety data specified in FDA’s 1992 policy with data provided by companies in five GM food submissions and analyzed the extent of the companies’ adherence to FDA’s recommended procedures for safety assessments. We contacted officials at the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General to determine if they had reviewed FDA’s internal controls. (They had not.) We did not, however, independently verify the adequacy of FDA’s internal controls. To identify experts’ views on the agency’s overall evaluations of GM foods, we interviewed consumer groups, industry officials, and other experts, analyzed their views and concerns—including any suggestions for improving FDA’s evaluation process—and reviewed related literature. For each concern identified with the process, we obtained FDA’s response and then determined the extent to which FDA’s response effectively addressed the concern or suggested a need for additional action by FDA. Further, we examined Office of Management and Budget and GAO guidance and policies relevant to these concerns. To describe the potential changes in future GM foods and associated changes needed in the tests to evaluate them, we interviewed scientists and regulators on the likely changes in GM foods and new testing approaches under development. We also focused several of our E-mail questions on this topic and analyzed the responses. In addition to E-mail respondents, we contacted experts from biotechnology companies concerning research on new, more complex GM foods as well as new testing approaches that may supplement or replace existing tests. We synthesized these respondents’ and experts’ views on likely changes to GM food and the value and challenges of using these new testing approaches. Further, we reviewed the relevant scientific literature for discussions of anticipated changes in GM foods and information on specific tests under development. We also met with scientists developing one of these new testing approaches to understand its potential value for assessing GM food safety. To identify the views of experts on the necessity and feasibility of monitoring the long-term health risks of GM foods, we asked respondents to our E-mail questions for an assessment of whether such an effort is necessary or feasible and then analyzed their responses. Further, we reviewed a variety of documents concerning the necessity and feasibility of long-term monitoring, including a recent joint United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization report, as well as a recent report by the National Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products at the Wageningen University and Research Center of the Netherlands. We also discussed the topic with other regulatory officials connected with monitoring food safety. In particular, we discussed whether the long-term effects of GM foods could be separated from other factors that may influence human health. Finally, we submitted a draft of this report for technical review by scientists from industry, academia, and a consumer group, and we incorporated their comments as appropriate. We conducted our review from July 2001 through May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Metabolic profiling could be used as a safety-screening tool for GM foods. Specifically, as shown in figure 3, special software has allowed one company to graph the metabolic profile of one variety of mustard plants and analyze the effects of genetic modifications. In the figure, the vertical axis in each graph provides a list of different small molecules, or metabolites, in mustard plants from this variety. The horizontal axis measures variation or deviation from the metabolite levels in this conventional variety. The vertical line in the middle of each graph represents the average value for a range of small molecules, or metabolites, in this conventional variety. In this example, the company analyzed thousands of conventional plants from this variety to come up with a range of naturally occurring metabolite levels. The company then used the averages of these ranges to generate the vertical line in the middle of the graphs. The points plotted with squares represent the levels of small molecules in GM mustard plants. Points appearing to the right of the center vertical line indicate increased levels of specific small molecules, while points appearing to the left indicate decreased levels. The graphs in figure 3 illustrate three scenarios: graph (a) shows a GM mustard plant with small molecule levels nearly identical to its conventional counterpart; graph (b) shows a GM mustard plant with a few easily measurable decreases; and graph (c) represents a GM mustard plant with many significant differences from the small molecule levels of its conventional counterpart. If baseline data on normal ranges of variation, such as those developed for the mustard plants, can be made available for all GM food crops, companies might use this type of testing to develop safety data. For example, in graph (a), the absence of significant changes in the small molecules would strongly indicate that no significant changes had resulted from the genetic modification. Hence, a change in the risk of allergenicity, toxicity, or antinutrients would be very unlikely. In the case represented by graph (b), the software could determine which small molecules have changed. Then, traditional testing techniques such as toxicity testing, could be used to determine if the altered small molecules would have any effect on human health, plant growth, or crop yield. In the case shown in graph (c), scientists would probably not proceed with development and commercialization of the GM food in the absence of extensive evaluations for allergens, toxins, or antinutrients, due to the significant differences in small molecules between it and its conventional counterpart. In addition to the individuals above, Nathan J. Anderson, Dennis S. Carroll, Kurt W. Kershow, and Cynthia C. Norris made key contributions to this report. International Trade: Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge U.S. Agricultural Exports GAO-01-727. Washington, D. C.: June 15, 2001. Biotechnology: Information on Prices of Genetically Modified Seeds in the United States and Argentina GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-00-228. Washington, D. C.: June 29, 2000. Biotechnology: Information on Prices of Genetically Modified Seeds in the United States and Argentina GAO/RCED/NSIAD-00-55. Washington, D. C.: January 21, 2000. | Genetically modified foods pose the same risks to human health as do other foods. These risks include allergens, toxins, and compounds known as antinutrients which inhibit the absorption of nutrients. Before marketing a genetically modified food, company scientists seek to determine whether these foods pose any heightened risks. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published guidelines in 1992 to ensure that companies worked with the agency to assess the safety of genetically modified foods. GAO found that FDA's evaluation process could be enhanced by randomly verifying the test data provided and by increasing the transparency of the evaluation process, including communicating more clearly the scientific rationale for FDA's final decision on an assessment of genetically modified food. Scientists expect that genetic modifications will increasingly enhance the nutritional value of genetically modified foods. Although current tests have been adequate for evaluating the few genetically modified foods that have, so far, undergone relatively simple compositional changes, new technologies are being developed to evaluate the increasingly complex compositional changes expected. Monitoring the long-term health risks of genetically modified foods is generally neither necessary nor feasible. No scientific evidence exists, nor is there even a hypothesis, suggesting that long-term harm, such as higher cancer rates, results from these foods. Moreover, technical challenges make long-term monitoring infeasible. |
Divers were out in cold water, searching for survivors after the Costa Concordia ran aground and capsized. NBC's Michelle Kosinski reports from the Italian coast.
Updated at 4:45 p.m. ET:
The owner of the capsized Italian cruise ship issued a statement Sunday saying it appears the ship's captain was at fault. in the tragedy that has claimed at least five lives. Fifteen more people, including two Americans, are still missing.
"While the investigation is ongoing, preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship's master, Captain Francesco Schettino, which resulted in these grave consequences," Costa Cruises, a subsidiary of U.S.-based Carnival Corp., stated. "The route of the vessel appears to have been too close to the shore, and in handling the emergency the captain appears not to have followed standard Costa procedures."
Updated at 3 p.m. ET:
The captain was spotted on land during the evacuation, and he ignored pleas by officers that he return to his ship and honor his duty to stay aboard until everyone else was safely off the vessel, a Coast Guard official said Sunday.
"We did our duty," Italian Coast Guard Cmdr. Francesco Paolillo told The Associated Press, referring to efforts to get Francesco Schettino back on the Costa Concordia Friday night.
Safety standards require cruise ships to have public address systems, enclosed lifeboats and evacuation chutes. NBC's Mark Potter has more.
Schettino, who is in police custody while officials investigate the cause, has insisted he didn't leave the liner before all passengers were off, saying "we were the last ones to leave the ship."
According to the Italian navigation code, a captain who abandons a ship in danger can face up to 12 years in prison.
Slideshow: Luxury ship runs aground
Updated at 12:15 p.m. ET:
Divers searching for missing passengers and crew from the capsized Italian cruise ship found two more bodies on Sunday but are facing dangerous obstacles themselves.
The vessel could suddenly move and sink into deeper waters, and floating objects inside the ship as well as muck are hindering divers.
"There are tents, mattresses, other objects moving which can get tangled in the divers' equipment," Italian Coast Guard Cmdr. Cosimo Nicastro said Sunday.
Enzo Russo / AFP - Getty Images Francesco Schettino, the captain of the Costa Concordia, is taken into custody in Grosseto, Italy, on Saturday.
Officials were going to huddle soon to see how long the underwater search could safely continue, he said.
In order to find their way out, divers are using a long cord they hook near the point of entrance and unroll as they work.
Three people have been found alive after most of the 4,200 passengers and crew escaped on life boats, fishing boats and even swimming to shore, but 5 are confirmed dead and 15 more are missing.
Updated at 10:40 a.m. ET:
Two more bodies were recovered from the capsized Italian cruise ship, raising the official death toll to 5, as investigators looked into accusations that the captain abandoned ship early.
Patrick Capito was a passenger on the capsized Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia and describes swimming to shore after attempts to get into a life raft failed.
The bodies of two elderly men still in their life jackets were recovered by divers at the emergency gathering point near a restaurant area. Fifteen people are still unaccounted for. Two of those are U.S. citizens, the U.S. Embassy in Rome said.
Updated at 10:10 a.m. ET:
Two survivors of the Italian cruise ship that hit a reef are among those who said the captain abandoned ship early. A prosecutor earlier said he's investigating those allegations.
Ophelie Gondelle and David Du Pays of Marseille, France, said they saw the captain in a lifeboat, covered by a blanket, well before all the passengers were off the ship. They insisted on telling a reporter what they saw, so incensed that — according to them — the captain had abandoned the ship before everyone had been evacuated.
"The commander left before and was on the dock before everyone was off," said Gondelle, 28, a French military officer.
Two of the 129 Americans who escaped injury when a submerged rock brought down a cruise ship shortly after departing an Italian port Friday tell TODAY's Lester Holt that the crew appeared was unprepared and unsure about emergency procedures.
"Normally the commander should leave at the end," said Du Pays, a police officer who said he helped an injured passenger to a rescue boat. "I did what I could."
Updated at 7:25 a.m. ET:
An Italian prosecutor confirms he's investigating allegations from passengers and others that the captain of the cruise ship Costa Concordia abandoned the stricken liner before all the passengers had left.
Officials believe the ship's captain, Francesco Schettino, had brought the 114,500-tonne vessel too close to the shore, where it struck the rock, tearing a large gash in the hull.
Stringer/Italy / Reuters A combination photo shows a South Korean couple after they were rescued from the Costa Concordia.
Three people are confirmed dead after the huge cruise ship carrying more than 4,200 people ran aground on Friday night. Three people -- a South Korean couple and a crew member -- have reportedly been rescued.
Rescuers found the crew member, chief purser Manrico Gianpetroni, after hearing his screams. He suffered a broken leg, Reuters reports.
Rescue crews were searching for 17 missing people in our around the ship, down from around 40 people who were unaccounted for right after the luxury liner went down, Sky News reports.
Updated at 6:50 a.m. ET:
The U.S. Embassy in Rome issues a statement revising the number of Americans estimated on board the Costa Concordia to 125 from 126.
"We continue to account for and provide emergency assistance to them," the Embassy via Twitter.
Panic ensues after a luxury cruise ship dubbed the "Floating Temple of Fun" runs aground off Italy. NBC's Claudio Lavanga reports.
A Korean couple on their honeymoon were taken off the ship early on Sunday. A third person, reportedly a crew member, was being removed late Sunday morning, according to Sky News.
Updated at 5:50 a.m. ET:
Reuters reports that teams are painstakingly checking thousands of rooms on the Costa Concordia for the nearly 40 people still missing after the huge vessels foundered and keeled over with more than 4,000 n board, killing at least three and injuring 70.
A Korean couple on their honeymoon were taken off the ship early on Sunday. A third person, reportedly a crew member, was being removed late Sunday morning.
Reuters adds:
The task is akin to searching a small town - but one tilted on its side, and largely in darkness and submerged in freezing water. Scores of divers were taking part. Just after dawn on Sunday, a team made voice contact with a third survivor still on board the ship. "We are doing the impossible to reach this person," coast guard spokesman Luciano Nicastro told Italian television. After midnight, rescue workers had found the two South Koreans still alive in a cabin, after locating them from several decks above, and brought them ashore, looking dazed but unharmed. The captain of the luxury 114,500-tonne ship, Francesco Schettino, was under arrest and accused of multiple manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship, Italian police said.
Updated at 5:43 a.m. ET:
Sky News is reporting that a rescue team has placed a third survivor on a stretcher and are in the process of removing him from the ship.
Updated at 5:20 a.m. ET:
A third survivor was located inside the overturned Costa Concordia cruise ship off the western coast of Italy, a spokesman for Italian firefighters told The Associated Press on Sunday.
Rescuers had spoken to the person inside the ship but the survivor had not yet been removed, Luca Cari told the AP.
Published at 4:45 a.m. ET:
Rescue crews circling the wreckage of a cruise ship that ran aground off the Tuscan coast have heard sounds from within the ship, Britain's Sky News reported on Sunday.
Sources said that fire department crews had heard sounds from deck 3, Sky reported. A few dozen people remained unaccounted for.
Crews in dinghies were seen Sunday morning touching the hull with their hands. They were near the site of the 160-foot-long gash where water flooded in and caused the ship to fall on its side.
Coast guard officials have said divers will try to enter the belly of the ship in case anyone is still inside Italian news reports quoting local officials say some 40 people remain unaccounted for out of the 4,200 passengers and crew. Three people are confirmed dead.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News: ||||| 'I saw captain drinking in the bar': Passengers accuse arrested officer of socialising before cruise crash and being among first to abandon ship
Passenger claims captain was drinking in the bar on the night ship ran aground
Costa Concordia was at least four miles off course when it hit rocks off island of Giglio
Francesco Schettino and first mate Ciro Ambrosio face allegations of manslaughter and abandoning ship before other passengers
Experts say crash may have been caused by engine failure triggered by 'harmonic interference'
Detained: Francesco Schettino, captain of the Costa Concordia, was held last night along with his first mate over allegations of manslaughter and abandoning his ship
The captain of a cruise liner that ran aground with 4,000 passengers on board has been detained along with his first mate on allegations of manslaughter and abandoning his ship.
Francesco Schettino was at least four miles off course when the Costa Concordia struck rocks off the island of Giglio, Tuscany, despite Italy's well-mapped sea lanes.
One passenger has accused the captain of drinking in one of the ship's bars on the night the vessel ran aground, before taking control after the crash.
Monique Maurek, 41, from the Netherlands, told The Sunday Telegraph: 'What scandalised me most was when I saw the captain spending much of the evening before we hit the rocks drinking in the bar with a beautiful woman on his arm.
'Most people didn't even have any idea of what the evacuation warning sound would be.
'It was only because some of us had already been on a cruise that we recognised that seven blasts of the horn was a signal to abandon ship.'
Phil Metcalf, whose daughter Rose was one of the last people off the ship, said she had revealed the captain allegedly abandoned ship in the early stages of the evacuation, leaving his staff onboard.
He told BBC Breakfast: 'Since the captain had left there was nobody, so everybody was left to their own devices hence some of the chaos, so obviously the crew took it upon themselves and decided in the absence of the captain to organise and try and help people.'
Schettino told maritime investigators that charts showed he was in water deep enough to navigate and that he had struck an unidentified rocky outcrop of the island.
Once the 52-year-old realised the extent of the damage he immediately tried to change route and head for the safety of Giglio harbour.
But within minutes the vessel, owned by Costa Cruises, began to list dramatically reaching an angle of 20 degrees in just two hours.
Off course: Investigators said the cruise ship was four miles from the normal shipping lanes when it struck a rocky outcrop off Giglio, Tuscany
The captain and his first office Ciro Ambrosio were detained last night at the police station in Porto Santo Stefano.
Prosecutors are investigating possible charges of multiple manslaughter and abandoning the ship while passengers were still in danger.
Schettino was quoted by Italian news sources as saying: 'The area was safe, the water was deep enough. We struck a stretch of rock that was not marked on the charts.
'As far as I am concerned we were in perfectly navigable waters.'
Francesco Verusio, chief prosecutor in the Tuscan city of Grosseto, told ANSA news agency the captain 'very ineptly got close to Giglio'.
'The ship struck a reef that got stuck inside the left side, making it (the ship) lean over and take on a lot of water in the space of two, three minutes,' he said.
Sources have said the captain, from Naples, had abandoned the ship at around 11.30pm local time - an hour after it struck a rocky outcrop and started taking on water - while the last passengers were not taken to safety until 3am yesterday morning.
Schettino's lawyer, Bruno Leporatti, said: 'I'd like to say that several hundred people owed their life to the expertise that the commander of the Costa Concordia showed during the emergency.'
He was taken to Grosseto's jail, where he will be held until next week when a judge will decide whether he should be released or formally put under arrest.
In Italy, suspects can be held without charge for a few days for investigation. A judge must either validate the jailing, putting the suspect under arrest, or declare him free to go.
Stricken: The Costa Concordia lists virtually over on its side after a massive hole was torn into its side when it struck rocks
Investigation: Sources have claimed the captain abandoned his ship hours before the last passengers were recovered from the vessel
Experts have said the captain may have been correct in his belief that his ship met its fate because of a power failure.
Passengers rescued from the stricken liner reported there had been a power blackout and a large booming noise, which indicated the vessel may have suffered an engine room explosion.
Last night Malcolm Latarche, editor of the global shipping magazine IHS Fairplay Solutions, said the problem may have been caused by a phenomenon known as 'harmonic interference'.
Mr Latarche said it was possible the cruise liner experienced the same problem that saw the Queen Mary 2 lose power in September 2010 as she was approaching Barcelona. On that occasion, the QM2 was able to carry on into open sea.
The expert said the harmonic interference – a type of power surge – could have caused a malfunction in the generators feeding the ship's six diesel electric engines with which the back-up systems could not cope.
This would have caused the ship to lose navigational power and steering control and veer off course, he said.
Asked for his assessment of the incident, Mr Latarche said: 'I would say power failure caused by harmonic interference and then it can't propel straight or navigate and it hit rocks.'
He added that once a ship experienced problems with the electrical supply to its main propulsion motors, it could lead to a problem with steering.
Run aground: The luxury cruise liner lies on its side just metres from the island of Giglio
Survivor: A South Korean passenger is covered in a space blanket by Italian firefighter after being rescued from the ship
Mr Latarche said: 'It seems that this may have happened quite close to land, in shallow water. When you can't steer you are going to run aground and hit rocks at some point.'
The Costa Concordia, built in 2005, was designed to standards comparable with ocean liners.
Even though it had a rounded hull compared to the stronger V-shaped hull fitted to the Cunard flagship QM2, experts say it was capable of crossing the rough seas of the Atlantic.
Mr Latarche added: 'Although the damage caused to the ship was severe, there are many safeguards in the design of a state-of-the-art cruise ship to prevent it turning over.
'There is a second hull within the outer hull. Inside the inner hull there is a steel structure like an ice tray to contain the water and prevent it spreading through the ship.
'In this case, the Master rightly attempted to return it to the shore, but it seems to have keeled over because it hit shallow water on the coast.
'An ocean cruise ship is not designed to float in 20ft of water. It needs much more than that to remain upright.'
Investigations: Italian Coast Guard personnel recover the black box from the Costa Concordia cruise ship
Disaster: Experts have said the cruise liner may have suffered power failure - caused by a power surge - causing it to veer off course
According to Mr Latarche, the fact that the average tonnage of cruise ships has doubled in the past decade makes a full-scale evacuation while at sea almost impossible.
Under regulations introduced by the International Maritime Organisation in 2010, the very latest ships are now designed to be able to return to port even in the event of a major fire or loss of power on board, in order to make evacuation unnecessary.
The Concordia was commissioned five years prior to the new rules but Mr Latarche said: 'Even if the most sophisticated ship in the world went into shallow water, the likelihood is it would turn on its side.
'This was a unique situation in which a number of circumstances all came together.'
Last night, Italian investigators trying to establish the cause of the accident arrested the Captain, Francesco Schettino, and were considering bringing manslaughter charges.
The investigators will study repair log books and fault reports for the vessel dating back several years.
They will also examine the experience of the officers and crew and examine the roles played by everyone on the day that the liner came to grief.
Since the Eighties the cruise industry has experienced a boom. More than 19 million passengers took a cruise last year and nine or more cruise ships of 100,000 tons or more have been built every year for the past decade.
Although cruise ships appear to be top-heavy, most of their weight is at the bottom, while the structure towards the top is designed to be comparatively light.
Traditionally, the vast majority of cruises have been taken by Americans to the Caribbean islands, but the Mediterranean market is rapidly expanding, with Italy the prime destination.
Cruise liners are designed for pleasure voyages, in which the surroundings and the luxurious amenities are the major focus of the experience, rather than the transportation itself.
As an industry, cruising has a safety record generally regarded as excellent. Over the past two decades, an estimated 90 million passengers have enjoyed a cruise without major incident.
The overwhelming majority of deaths on cruise ships are from natural causes or suicides.
| The captain of the Costa Concordia is likely guilty in a disaster that has claimed at least five lives, the ship's owner says. "Preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship's master, Captain Francesco Schettino, which resulted in these grave consequences," Costa Cruises said in a statement. The 4,200-passenger cruise ship struck shallow rocks off Italy's west coast Friday and rolled over, prompting a massive overnight evacuation, MSNBC reports. "The route of the vessel appears to have been too close to the shore, and in handling the emergency the captain appears not to have followed standard Costa procedures," added Costa Cruises. Schettino was seen drinking and socializing at one of the ship's bars when the Costa Concordia ran aground 4 miles off course, the Daily Mail reports. He will likely face charges of manslaughter and abandoning ship, after a French couple saw him fleeing the wreck with a blanket over him. |
According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, exposure to loud sounds is responsible for hearing impairment in 10 million of the nearly 30 million people with hearing loss in the United States, and another 30 million people are daily exposed to dangerous noise levels. Many individuals are also regularly exposed to sound levels that may not lead to hearing loss, but can be intrusive and impair one's quality of life. Several federal laws require the federal government to maintain standards for various sources of noise. However, the standards do vary in stringency among individual sources. Although there is some variance among the standards, all of them limit sound levels at least to a degree that would prevent human hearing loss. The responsibility for setting and enforcing noise control standards is divided among multiple federal agencies. In the past, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated all federal noise control activities through its Office of Noise Abatement and Control. However, Congress phased out the office's funding in FY1983 as part of a shift in federal noise control policy to transfer the primary responsibility for regulating noise to state and local governments. Although EPA no longer plays a prominent role in regulating noise, its past standards and regulations remain in effect, and other federal agencies continue to set and enforce noise standards for sources within their regulatory jurisdiction. Public interest in the federal regulation of noise and the adequacy of existing standards continues to be strong, especially among communities where sources of noise have proliferated, and as residential development has resulted in people living closer to sources of noise. Considering that existing standards generally are protective against hearing loss, the primary concern among the public has been whether the standards should be tightened to protect the quality of life in communities where sound levels may be perceived as annoying or intrusive, but not necessarily harmful to human hearing. Potential effects of various sound levels, and the roles of federal, state, and local governments in regulating individual sources of noise, are discussed below. Sound is measured in units of decibels (dbA), and an increase of 10 dbA represents sounds that are perceived to be twice as loud. There is broad consensus among regulators in the United States that constant or repeated exposure to sound levels in the vicinity of 90 dbA and higher can lead to hearing loss. Exposure to sounds significantly below these levels are generally not considered harmful to human hearing. However, most individuals perceive unwanted sound above 65 dbA to be intrusive, which can impair one's quality of life, depending on the sensitivity of the individual and the frequency and duration of exposure. Some also argue that persistent exposure to intrusive sound may have certain physiological effects, such as headaches or nausea, even though one's hearing ability may not be impaired. There also have been some questions about the vibration-induced effects of low frequency sound, which can be felt but not heard. The Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574) and several other federal laws require the federal government to set and enforce noise standards for aircraft and airports, interstate motor carriers and railroads, workplace activities, engines and certain types of equipment, federally funded highway projects, and federally funded housing projects. The Noise Control Act also requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, state, and local noise requirements. Various federal laws and regulations governing the administration of park and recreational lands owned by the federal government also provide authorities for agencies to regulate noise that would be generated from human activities on, and in the vicinity of, these lands. Most federal noise standards focus on preventing hearing loss by limiting exposure to sounds of 90 dbA and higher. Some federal standards are stricter and focus on limiting exposure to lower levels of around 65 dbA to protect quality of life. Whether "quality-of-life" standards should be tightened has been an ongoing issue, particularly among communities located near transportation sources such as airports and highways, where exposure to noise is a daily or routine occurrence. As noted above, there also have been some questions about the effects of low frequency sound, but so far, noise standards in the United States have not regulated low frequency sound below the threshold of human hearing. Major existing federal standards that regulate human exposure to noise, and the agencies responsible for setting and enforcing them, are discussed below. The Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-411) requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop and enforce standards for aircraft noise. In developing these standards, the FAA generally follows noise limits recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Federal noise regulations define aircraft according to four noise classes: Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and Stage 4. Stage 1 aircraft are the loudest, and Stage 4 are the quietest. All Stage 1 aircraft have been phased out of commercial operation, and all unmodified Stage 2 aircraft over 75,000 pounds were phased out by December 31, 1999, as required by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-508 , Title IX, Subtitle D). Stage 3 aircraft must meet separate standards for runway takeoffs, landings, and sidelines, ranging from 89 to 106 dbA depending on the aircraft's weight and its number of engines. Stage 4 standards are stricter and require a further reduction of 10 dbA overall relative to Stage 3 standards. The Stage 4 standards are relatively new and are based on standards that the ICAO adopted in June 2001 (referred to as "Chapter 4" in ICAO parlance). The FAA finalized these standards in July 2005, adopting the ICAO standards by reference. The Stage 4 standards apply to newly manufactured subsonic jet airplanes, and subsonic transport category large airplanes, for which a new design is submitted for airworthiness certification on or after January 1, 2006. As the majority of jet aircraft designed in recent years are already quiet enough to attain the Stage 4 standards, some have commented that the impact of the stricter standards on most aircraft manufacturers may be less significant than otherwise. The ICAO also had recommended separate standards for propeller-driven, small airplanes. The FAA finalized these standards in January 2006. They apply to newly manufactured, propeller-driven, small aircraft for which a new design is submitted for airworthiness certification on or after February 3, 2006. In addition to aircraft certification standards, airports receiving federal funds are required to meet noise control standards for their operation. The standards range from 65 dbA for airports adjacent to residential areas to over 85 dbA for those adjacent to lands used for agricultural and transportation purposes. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 ( P.L. 97-248 ) established the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to provide federal assistance for airport construction projects and to award grants for mitigating noise resulting from the expansion of airport capacity. Airport operators applying for such grants must design noise exposure maps and develop mitigation programs to ensure that noise levels are compatible with adjacent land uses. The Noise Control Act required EPA to develop noise standards for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and it authorized the Federal Highway Administration to enforce them. All commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds are subject to standards for highway travel and stationary operation, but the standards do not apply to sounds from horns or sirens when operated as warning devices for safety purposes. For highway travel, the standards range from 81 to 93 dbA, depending on the speed of the vehicle and the distance from which the sound is measured. The standards for stationary operation are similar and range from 83 to 91 dbA, depending on the distance from the vehicle. The standards apply at any time or condition of highway grade, vehicle load, acceleration, or deceleration. The Noise Control Act required EPA to establish noise standards for trains and railway stations engaged in interstate commerce, and the law authorized the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to enforce those standards. There are separate standards for locomotives, railway cars, and railway station activities such as car coupling. For locomotives built before 1980, noise is limited to 73 dbA in stationary operation and at idle speeds, and is limited to 96 dbA at cruising speeds. The standards for locomotives built after 1979 are stricter, and limit noise in stationary operation and at idle speeds to 70 dbA and at cruising speeds to 90 dbA. Noise from railway cars must not exceed 88 dbA at speeds of 45 miles per hour (mph) or less, and must not surpass 93 dbA at speeds greater than 45 mph. Noise from car coupling activities at railway stations is limited to 92 dbA. There are no uniform noise standards that control sounds from locomotive horns, whistles, or bells when they are operated as warning devices for safety purposes. However, in response to concerns about noise from horns in communities located near railways, the FRA finalized regulations in 2005, and modified them in 2006, allowing such communities to designate "quiet zones." Within these zones, communities could prohibit the routine sounding of locomotive horns. Designation of these zones is subject to certain conditions, including that there would be no significant risk of loss of life or risk of serious personal injury resulting from the lack of a horn sounding. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-596) required the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop and enforce safety and health standards for workplace activities. To protect workers, OSHA established standards which specify the duration of time that employees can safely be exposed to specific sound levels. At a minimum, constant noise exposure must not exceed 90 dbA over 8 hours. The highest sound level to which workers can constantly be exposed is 115 dbA, and exposure to this level must not exceed 15 minutes within an 8-hour period. The standards limit instantaneous exposure, such as impact noise, to 140 dbA. If noise levels exceed these standards, employers are required to provide hearing protection equipment to workers in order to reduce sound exposure to acceptable limits. In April 2007, the Department of Labor proposed regulations that would require minors to wear hearing protection devices when working with wood processing machinery. The Noise Control Act directed EPA to set and enforce noise standards for motors and engines, and transportation, construction, and electrical equipment. With this authority, EPA established standards for motorcycles and mopeds, medium and heavy-duty trucks over 10,000 pounds, and portable air compressors. The standards for motorcycles only apply to those manufactured after 1982 and range from 80 to 86 dbA, depending on the model year and whether the motorcycle is designed for street or off-road use. Noise from mopeds is limited to 70 dbA. The standards for trucks over 10,000 pounds only apply to those manufactured after 1978 and range from 80 to 83 dbA depending on the model year. These standards are separate from those for interstate motor carriers. Noise from portable air compressors is limited to 76 dbA. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605) required the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop standards for highway noise levels that are compatible with adjacent land uses. The law prohibits the approval of federal funding for highway projects that do not incorporate measures to attain these standards, which range from 52 to 75 dbA depending on adjacent land use. Among the most common method to attain these standards is to erect a physical barrier (i.e., a noise wall) between the highway and the adjacent land. Under general authorities provided by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established standards for federally funded housing projects located in noise-exposed areas. The standards limit interior noise to a daily average of 65 dbA. Possible methods to mitigate noise in housing include the installation of doors and windows designed to diminish the transmission of sound, the insertion of noise-blocking insulation within walls, and the use of thicker walls and floors in new construction. Various federal laws and regulations governing the administration of park and recreational lands owned by the federal government also provide authorities for agencies to regulate noise that would be generated from human activities on, and in the vicinity of, these lands. For example, the National Park Service has included noise standards in its regulations governing the operation of vessels on waters within all National Parks. Certain regulations also govern noise from specific sources in particular parks and recreational areas. For example, the FAA has promulgated regulations limiting noise from aircraft operations in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. These and other restrictions have been motivated by rising interest among recreational users in maintaining the serene qualities of public lands for their enjoyment. However, there have been conflicting desires between recreational users who seek a quieter environment and those users whose preferred recreational activities would be restricted because of the noise those activities would generate. The federal government also is responsible for rating consumer devices designed to be worn by individuals to reduce exposure to potentially harmful or intrusive sound levels. The Noise Control Act authorized EPA to require labels for products that reduce noise. Under this authority, EPA established Noise Reduction Ratings for noise reduction devices, such as head gear and ear plugs. Manufacturers are required to use these ratings to identify the reduction of sound in decibels that the user would experience when wearing these devices. The federal role in regulating noise is primarily limited to transportation, workplace activities, certain types of equipment, and human activities on public lands owned by the federal government. State and local governments determine the extent to which other sources of noise are controlled, and regulations for such sources can vary widely among localities. Further, some states do not directly regulate noise, but allow local governments to play the primary role. Sources of noise commonly regulated at the state and local level include commercial, industrial, and residential activities. Regulations for such sources typically control the public's exposure to noise by limiting certain activities to specific times, such as construction noise only during business hours. Public concern about differing state and local control of noise has led some to suggest that the federal role should be expanded to regulate a greater variety of sources uniformly across the country. | Community perceptions of increasing exposure to noise from a wide array of sources have raised questions about the role of the federal government in regulating noise, and the adequacy of existing standards. The role of the federal government in regulating noise has remained fairly constant overall since the enactment of the Noise Control Act in 1972 (P.L. 92-574). With authorities under this and other related statutes, the federal government has established, and enforces, standards for maximum sound levels generated from aircraft and airports, federally funded highways, interstate motor carriers and railroads, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles and mopeds, workplace activities, and portable air compressors. The federal government also regulates human exposure to noise in federally funded housing. In more recent years, the federal role has expanded to include regulation of noise generated by human activities on public lands, including National Parks. State and local governments determine the extent to which other sources of noise are regulated, including commercial, industrial, and residential activities. Although noise standards generally provide a level of protection sufficient to prevent human hearing loss, they vary among individual sources in terms of what level of sound is permissible. This report explains potential effects of various sound levels, describes the role of the federal government in regulating noise, characterizes existing federal standards, discusses the role of state and local governments, and examines relevant issues. |
The location and permitting of facilities used to transmit electricity to residential and commercial customers have been the province of the states (with limited exceptions) for virtually the entire history of the electricity industry. State and local governments are well positioned to weigh the local factors that go into siting decisions, including environmental and scenery concerns, zoning issues, development plans, and safety concerns. Because the grid formerly consisted of many localized transmission and distribution networks, federal interest in siting of the transmission system was limited. Although the federal government has increasingly exercised its authority over transmission reliability, it has, for the most part, left transmission siting decisions to states. However, as concerns over grid congestion and its impact on reliability have grown, the federal government has carved out a role in transmission siting as a "backstop" siting authority in designated transmission corridors. Although this new role has met some resistance from those who oppose expanding federal authority over siting, other policymakers and commentators have advocated an increased federal role in order to encourage development of renewable energy, which is often located in remote areas that are not easily connected with the interstate grid. The courts have also thwarted the federal government's efforts to create transmission corridors. In 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Department of Energy's congestion study underlying the designation of national interest electric transmission corridors, and as a result, there are presently no such corridors in effect. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit reversed FERC's interpretation of its siting authority with respect to electric transmission facility applications that have been rejected by a state agency. The increased federal role in transmission siting decisions raises a number of legal and policy issues. Foremost among these are the concerns over loss of local and regional input and control that often accompany an expansion of federal power into a process traditionally reserved for the states. Indeed, the Federal Power Act specifically reserves certain aspects of governance over the electricity industry to the states, and efforts to expand the federal role in the past have met with resistance from state public utility commissions and advocates of federalism. This report provides a review of the history of transmission siting; a summary and analysis federal authority to designate transmission corridors and provide backstop siting authority for transmission facilities in those corridors; a discussion of the legal issues associated with this expansion of federal authority and any future expansions of federal transmission siting authority; and a look at recent developments concerning transmission siting on federal lands. In order to understand the issues that arise from federal involvement in electricity transmission siting decisions, it is necessary to briefly review the history of the power industry and the development of the transmission grid. Transmission lines connect power generation facilities to distribution systems that make final delivery of electricity to commercial and residential customers. For most of the 20 th century, these lines were generally constructed and operated by "vertically integrated" electric utilities; that is, state-authorized and state-regulated monopolies that owned power generation plants, transmission facilities, and local distribution systems, and ultimately sold electricity to retail customers. While these transmission lines were almost exclusively intrastate in nature at first, the transmission system expanded rapidly to include interstate transmission lines. The Federal Power Act (FPA), first enacted in 1920 as the Federal Water Power Act and amended to include interstate electricity transmission in 1935, granted the Federal Power Commission jurisdiction over wholesale electric power transactions and the interstate transmission of electric power. The states, for the most part, retained jurisdiction over the siting of generation and transmission facilities as well as the pricing of most retail electric power transactions. Over the next several decades, this mostly local electric power system began to interconnect into larger regional grids. Interconnections were motivated by the reliability benefits of connecting a utility to its neighbors, opportunities for power sales, and joint ownership of increasingly large and expensive power plants. The development of higher voltage transmission lines—which made it possible to transmit electricity long distances with relatively small losses—also spurred interconnection. Throughout this expansion, the states continued to be the sole authority for most decisions about where to site electric power transmission facilities. Federal transmission systems, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and some municipal and cooperative utility systems, were able to site transmission lines independent of state authority. However, the vast majority of transmission facilities were constructed by investor-owned utilities under state jurisdiction. Difficulty in constructing new transmission led Congress to include federal transmission siting authority as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). One section of EPAct authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" based on DOE's findings after conducting a study of congestion as directed by EPAct. EPAct authorized FERC to permit the construction and operation of electricity transmission facilities within the boundaries of the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. This authority may not be exercised by FERC unless the state where the facility would be sited lacks the authority to issue the permit, the applicant does not qualify for the permit in the state, or the state has "withheld approval" of the permit for more than one year. The federal transmission siting authority created in EPAct is a "backstop" authority that is exercised only if the state cannot authorize the facility or if it has "withheld approval." This authority, which is discussed in detail infra , was adopted after the blackouts in August of 2003 that interrupted service, in some cases for days, to many customers across the northeastern United States and in Canada. EPAct directed the Secretary of Energy to designate the corridors only in areas in which it finds "electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers." In addition, FERC was authorized to permit transmission facilities only upon a finding that the proposed construction or modifications would "significantly reduce transmission congestion in interstate commerce and protects or benefits consumers." Recent events, however, have led some legislators and commentators to push to expand the federal role in transmission siting. Some have advocated an expanded federal role as a means to encourage development of green energy technology. Others have suggested that a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit interpreting the transmission siting section of EPAct has limited federal siting authority too severely, and that legislation is needed to expand FERC's siting authority to guard against future congestion problems. These concerns, and some of the proposals that address them, are explored further below. Congressional authority for legislation affecting the transmission of electric power, including the siting of transmission facilities, would likely be dependent upon Congress's constitutional authority to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." This constitutional authority to legislate pursuant to the power to regulate interstate commerce has expanded significantly in the last 75 years. The plain meaning of this language might indicate a limited power to regulate commercial trade between persons in one state and persons outside of that state. During the early 1900s, the Supreme Court was confronted with statutes which went beyond regulation of trade and addressed other related economic activities. At that time, the Court struck down a series of federal statutes which attempted to extend commerce regulation to activities such as "production," "manufacturing," or "mining." Starting in 1937, however, with the decision in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , the Supreme Court held that Congress has the ability to protect interstate commerce from burdens and obstructions which "affect" commercial transactions. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions found that Congress had considerable discretion in regulating activities which "affect" interstate commerce, as long as the legislation was "reasonably" related to achieving its goals of regulating interstate commerce. Thus the Court found that in some cases, events of purely local commerce (such as local working conditions) might, because of market forces, negatively affect interstate commerce, and thus would be susceptible to federal regulation. The Court has also held that an activity which in itself does not affect interstate commerce could be regulated if all such activities taken together did affect interstate commerce. In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez , however, the Supreme Court identified three categories of laws which are authorized by the Commerce Clause: (1) laws which regulate channels of commerce; (2) laws which regulate instrumentalities of commerce; and (3) laws which regulate economic activities which affect commerce. Within the third category of activities which affect commerce, the Lopez Court determined that the power to regulate commerce applies to intrastate activities only when they "substantially" affect commerce. Given the Court's broad application of these three acceptable categories of legislation, it seems likely that congressional action expanding the federal role in siting of electric transmission facilities would be found to fall into at least one of the categories. Although an argument can be made that the contemplated legislation could fall under any of the three categories, it seems particularly likely that legislation impacting the interstate electricity grid could be considered to be affecting an "instrumentality" of interstate commerce. The interstate electricity grid has characteristics similar to other interstate systems previously found to be instrumentalities of commerce, such as the railroads, the mail delivery, or the telephone network. In order to rely upon this prong of the "interstate commerce" test, there likely would need to be a demonstration that the legislation in question is intended to provide for the safety, efficiency, and accessibility of the electricity grid. Such a demonstration seems plausible with respect to legislation that could enhance the reliability of electricity service by easing the regulatory path to obtaining a permit for construction of transmission facilities. Also, the broadest of the three categories, legislation "affecting" interstate commerce, may be applicable to legislation. As noted supra , even local activity can be legislated under this category if the legislation "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." There is an argument that the ability to site electric power transmission facilities in accordance with national interest and with less pressure from local interests would exert such a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Such an argument would likely be bolstered by any information that may be available about the aggregate effect of transmission siting denials by state regulatory agencies on the reliability and efficiency of the interstate grid. In those instances in which the courts have evaluated legislation impacting the electricity industry in areas previously considered the province of state regulatory agencies, the courts have found such legislation to be within Congress's Commerce Clause authority. One relevant Supreme Court decision on this issue is FERC v. Mississippi . In that case, the Court heard challenges to provisions in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) that directed state utility commissions to consider adoption of certain retail rate designs and regulatory standards affecting retail rates, and to implement rules designed to encourage development of certain kinds of generation facilities, known as "qualifying facilities." The State of Mississippi alleged that these PURPA requirements for state action exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The Court rejected the state's challenge, deferring to the congressional findings that "the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, the preservation of national security, and the proper exercise of congressional authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce require," ... a program for increased conservation of electric energy, increased efficiency in the use of facilities and resources by electricity utilities, and equitable retail rates for electricity consumers ... The Court noted that in accordance with Commerce Clause precedent, it was tasked only with determining if the congressional findings had a rational basis. Citing committee hearings and their findings, the Court found that the congressional findings were supported. In fact, the Court went further, noting that it "agree[s] with appellants that it is difficult to conceive of a more basic element of interstate commerce than electric energy, a product that is used in virtually every home and every commercial or manufacturing facility. No state relies solely on its own resources in this respect." The Court reached a similar conclusion with respect to the electricity transmission in New York v. U.S . In that case, the Court reviewed FERC Order No. 888, in which FERC mandated that utilities offer access to their electricity transmission facilities to other companies generating electric power. This open access transmission mandate included a requirement for open access for retail electricity transmission. According to FERC, it was "irrelevant to the Commission's jurisdiction whether the customer receiving the unbundled transmission service in interstate commerce is a wholesale or retail customer." This exercise of FERC's jurisdiction was challenged as beyond the scope of the FPA, which grants FERC jurisdiction over "the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of such energy at wholesale." The petitioners claimed that FERC's jurisdiction should be limited to wholesale transmissions pursuant to the FPA. The Court rejected these challenges, finding that "[t]he unbundled retail transmissions targeted by FERC are indeed transmissions 'of electric energy in interstate commerce,' because of the nature of the interstate grid." It is important to note that the Court's analysis focused on the meaning of "interstate commerce" as the term is used in the FPA, and not the Constitution. However, the Court's findings may be a useful predictive tool in determining how the Court might view a congressional exercise of the Commerce power in the electricity marketplace. Interpreting the impact of the decision, one observer said that "[i]n practical terms, this means the federal government could assert jurisdiction all the way to a consumer's toaster if it so chose, excepting such exclusively intrastate matters as the siting of power plants." This precedent seems to reflect a consistent determination by the Court that legislation that impacts electricity transmission, even if the direct impact of the legislation is local, necessarily affects interstate commerce. The Court has, on multiple occasions, acknowledged that the changing and evolving electricity grid has resulted in an interdependent interstate system. Any legislation that impacts that system or the commodity that it transmits would likely be considered legislation pursuant to Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. As discussed supra , decisions about where to site electricity transmission facilities have historically been made almost exclusively by state regulatory agencies. In 2005, EPAct established for the first time a significant federal role in transmission siting decisions. Section 1221 of EPAct established what is commonly called a "backstop" siting authority for FERC. It authorized FERC to issue permits for the construction or modification of transmission facilities in certain circumstances in areas designated by the Secretary of Energy as "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors." EPAct directed the Secretary of Energy to "conduct a study of electric transmission and congestion" and subsequently "issue a report, based on the study, which may designate any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor." In making this determination, EPAct provided that the Secretary might consider whether (A) the economic vitality and development of the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably priced electricity; (B)(i) economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited sources of energy; and (ii) a diversification of supply is warranted; (C) the energy independence of the United States would be served by the designation; (D) the designation would be in the interest of national energy policy; and (E) the designation would enhance national defense and homeland security. The establishment of these National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors paves the way for the first significant federal role in electric transmission facility siting. EPAct gives FERC the authority to issue permits for the construction or modification of electric transmission facilities that are located in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor. The permit application must also satisfy the following criteria to be eligible for FERC authorization: (1) (A) a State in which the transmission facilities are to be constructed or modified does not have authority to: (i) approve the siting of the facilities; or (ii) consider the interstate benefits expected to be achieved by the proposed construction or modification of transmission facilities in the State; (B) the applicant for a permit is a transmitting utility under this Act but does not qualify to apply for a permit or siting approval for the proposed project in a State because the applicant does not serve end-use customers in the State; or (C) a State commission or other entity that has authority to approve the siting of the facilities has—(i) withheld approval for more than 1 year after the filing of an application seeking approval pursuant to applicable law or 1 year after the designation of the relevant national interest electric transmission corridor, whichever is later; or (ii) conditioned its approval in such a manner that the proposed construction or modification will not significantly reduce transmission congestion in interstate commerce or is not economically feasible; (2) the facilities to be authorized by the permit will be used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce; (3) the proposed construction or modification is consistent with the public interest; (4) the proposed construction or modification will significantly reduce transmission congestion in interstate commerce and protects or benefits consumers (5) the proposed construction or modification is consistent with sound national energy policy and will enhance energy independence; and (6) the proposed modification will maximize, to the extent reasonable and economical, the transmission capabilities of existing towers or structures. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) later modified DOE's mission for NIETCs, directing DOE to include areas where renewable energy may be hampered by lack of access to the grid. In most instances, FERC's authority would arise only on those projects for which the state has "withheld approval for more than one year," because the other categories listed above in subsection (1) are rarely applicable. Thus, the FERC transmission siting authority under EPAct functions as a backstop authority, allowing FERC to permit transmission facilities only when there is no state authority to do so, or when the relevant state agency has "withheld approval for more than one year." An important step in creating a process to administer the national interest electric transmission corridors was a FERC rulemaking proceeding intended to outline the process for application for a federal transmission facility construction and operation permit in the corridors. FERC initiated the rulemaking on June 16, 2006, and issued a final rule on November 16, 2006, that established the applicable regulations. For the most part, the rule was not controversial, simply establishing filing requirements and procedures for parties seeking to construct electric transmission facilities in the national interest electric transmission corridors that the Department of Energy would later establish. However, there was one controversial interpretation of Section 1221 of EPAct. As mentioned supra , Section 1221 limited federal electric transmission facility permit applications to, among other criteria, projects for which the state has "withheld approval for more than one year." There is no dispute that this criterion includes projects for which the state regulatory agency has failed to take any action on a properly submitted application. However, it is less clear if a project for which a permit is rejected or denied by the state regulatory agency would be considered a project for which the state has "withheld approval for more than one year." That is to say, does saying "no" to a project amount to withholding approval of a project? In Order No. 689, FERC found that rejection was equivalent to "withholding approval," that therefore a project would be eligible for a federal permit if the state agency had rejected an application, so long as more than a year had passed since the permit request was submitted. FERC found that [t]he statute does not explicitly define the full range of State actions that are deemed to be withholding approval. Nonetheless, to promote regulatory certainty, we believe it is our responsibility to interpret the statutory language in this proceeding and to give all parties notice of such interpretation. To this end, we believe that a reasonable interpretation of the language in the context of the legislation supports a finding that withholding approval includes denial of an application. Because the statutory language was not clear on this point, and because FERC's decision resulted in an expansion of FERC permitting authority, the decision was a topic of considerable debate. One of the FERC commissioners, Suedeen Kelly, felt so strongly that this interpretation of EPAct was incorrect that she dissented in part from the Order, stating that she "believe[s] the majority's interpretation flies in the face of the plain language of the statute, the purposes of the statute, well established principles of statutory interpretation and supporting case law, and inappropriately preempts the States in the process." Commissioner Kelly argued that [t]he authority to lawfully deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that the interests of local communities and their citizens are protected. What the Commission does today is a significant inroad into traditional state transmission siting authority. It gives states two options: either issue a permit, or we'll do it for them. Obviously this is no choice. This is preemption. Courts "have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt" state law. Indeed, courts should not find federal pre-emption "in the absence of persuasive reasons—either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." In short, courts must start with the "basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law." There is no evidence to counter this "presumption against pre-emption." To the contrary, I find it inconceivable that Congress would have specifically listed ... a number of circumstances that will trigger Commission jurisdiction, yet fail to include on that list denial of a permit. If Congress had intended to take away the States' authority to lawfully deny a permit, surely it would have said so in unmistakable terms. FERC received a number of requests for rehearing of Order No. 689, many of which challenged FERC's interpretation of the "withholding approval" language from Section 1221 of EPAct. FERC, however, denied rehearing of the Order in Order No. 689-A, finding that the word "withheld," as used in this EPAct, is "inclusive, comprising 'denying' approval as well as 'refraining' or 'holding back' from granting approval." FERC concluded that "the most common sense reading of 'withheld approval for more than one year' encompasses any action—whether it is a failure to act or an outright denial—that results in an applicant not having received state approval at the end of one year." Commissioner Kelly continued to dissent from this finding, citing for the most part her reasoning from her previous dissent as reasoning for her continued rejection of the majority's interpretation of the statutory language. In Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC , several organizations petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review of Order No. 689 and Order No. 689-A. The petitioners challenged FERC's interpretation of the language in EPAct regarding FERC's transmission siting authority in circumstances where a state has "withheld approval for more than 1 year." The petitioners alleged that FERC had improperly classified a denial of an application as "withholding approval." The court agreed and reversed FERC's interpretation of the EPAct language, remanding the case back to the agency. The court held that FERC's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory language. The court found that the statutory phrase "without approval for more than one year," when read as a whole, "means that action has been held back continuously over a period of time (over one year)." The court stated that "[t]he continuous act of withholding approval for more than a year cannot include the finite act of denying an application within the one-year deadline. The denial of an application is a final act that stops the running of time during which approval was withheld on a pending application." The decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court denied certiorari in January of 2010. FERC has not taken any action to amend its interpretation of EPAct in the wake of the Fourth Circuit's decision in Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC . That decision impacts the approval of permits only in states within the Fourth Circuit. Accordingly, FERC's interpretation of the phrase "withheld approval for more than 1 year" in Order No. 689 and Order No. 689-A is reversed in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina; in other states, FERC could theoretically approve a permit for an electric transmission facility when a state has denied a permit application. In any case, as discussed infra , FERC does not presently have the authority to issue any permits under EPAct, because there are currently no National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors in effect. Not surprisingly, the federal permitting authority in an area previously reserved for state regulatory agencies has been the source of further controversy. Another controversial action after the legislation was enacted was the Department of Energy's creation of the Mid-Atlantic Area and Southwest Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. Some commentators began protesting the designation soon after the Department of Energy issued its draft proposal for the corridors in May 2007. One of the more common criticisms was that the corridors were drawn too broadly, resulting in too significant a role for the federal government in what had been local decisions. The Mid-Atlantic Corridor, for example, covers the entire states of New Jersey and Delaware and large parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. It even reaches into parts of Ohio. Despite these concerns, the Department of Energy approved these corridors in October 2007. However, in February 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Congestion Study that led to the designation of the two National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, and, as a result, there are no National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors presently in existence. In California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Department of Energy, 13 petitions alleged that the Department of Energy failed to consult with affected states in undertaking its Congestion Study as required by EPAct. The Ninth Circuit found that the Department's actions, which included giving an opportunity for comments on the ongoing study and the designation of the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, did not amount to consultation, because Congress intended for the Department to confer with the affected states. Additionally, the court determined that the Department's failure to provide affected states with certain modeling data interfered with their own ability to consult with the government, and that these failures to consult did not constitute a harmless error. While the scope of the federal government's ability to site electricity transmission facilities under Section 1221 of EPAct was being debated in the FERC rulemaking proceedings and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a number of prominent policymakers have opined on expanding the federal role beyond the "backstop" authority contemplated in EPAct. Some of these policymakers advocated further expanding the federal role in order to ease grid congestion, address reliability concerns, and encourage development of "clean" energy resources. One of the most prominent commentators on transmission siting policy has been former FERC Chair Joseph Kelliher. Kelliher served as a FERC commissioner for five years and as FERC chair for three years. In a letter written to Senator Bingaman dated January of 2009, Kelliher, in the midst of his departure as FERC chair, wrote that Congress should grant FERC "exclusive and preemptive federal siting for transmission facilities used in interstate commerce." Kelliher stressed the importance of expanding transmission facilities in order to address reliability concerns, encourage competitive wholesale markets, and respond to climate change concerns (by allowing "green" energy sources increased access to the grid). Kelliher was critical of the existing framework for electric transmission facility siting, including the EPAct transmission corridor scheme, saying that it "promises years of litigation, while diffusing responsibility for siting electric transmission facilities." FERC chair, Jon Wellinghoff, has also voiced his opinion that the federal government should have a more prominent and active role in electricity transmission facility siting. In March 2009 testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Wellinghoff testified that in order to meet certain renewable goals outlined by the Obama administration, "there must be a mechanism to invoke federal authority to site the transmission facilities necessary to interconnect renewable power to the electric transmission grid and move that power to customer load." Wellinghoff highlighted FERC's expertise in making siting decisions, pointing specifically to FERC's long-standing authority to authorize construction of natural gas pipelines. Wellinghoff noted that FERC "has developed comprehensive, efficient processes that provide for public notice and extensive public participation, including participation by affected states." Wellinghoff suggested that Congress give FERC a similar role in electric transmission facility siting, concluding that "[w]ithout broader Federal siting authority to accommodate high levels of renewable electric energy—authority similar to that which exists for interstate natural gas pipelines ... it is unlikely that the Nation will be able to achieve energy security and economic stability." These commentators and others who share their views face opposition from representatives of state regulatory agencies. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) issued a resolution in March 2009 arguing that Congress should limit FERC's siting authority under any new legislation. The resolution recommended that any legislation allow for primary siting jurisdiction by the states and that FERC not have any additional authority over intrastate transmission lines. To the extent that Congress might grant FERC additional siting authority, NARUC recommended that such authorization of interstate transmission require an agreement concerning regulatory structure be in place to govern cost allocation among the states where the facilities are to be sited. While the federal government's role in the transmission siting process on private land has been limited as discussed in this report, the federal government will likely have a more extensive role in siting transmission facilities on federal lands. Under Section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act, DOE is authorized to act as "lead agency for purposes of coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews of [electricity transmission facilities]." This authority was granted as part of EPAct 2005's provisions addressing transmission siting. DOE delegated this authority to FERC for transmission facilities on federal lands located in National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. For other transmission facilities on federal lands, DOE retains the lead agency authority. On October 23, 2009, nine agencies, including DOE, issued a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Coordination in Federal Agency Review of Electric Transmission Facilities on Federal Land (MOU). The goal of the MOU, according to its terms, is to improve "coordination among project applicants, federal agencies, and states and tribes involved in the permitting process." The MOU also notes that the agreement will provide "a single point of contact ... for coordinating all federal authorizations required to site electric transmission facilities on federal lands." That point of contact is DOE. According to the terms of the MOU, DOE will designate a lead agency for all proposed transmission projects for which all or part of the proposed transmission line crosses into areas administered by more than one agency. The lead agency's duties as set forth in the MOU include coordination of pre-application activities, consultation among relevant agencies, establishing a schedule for the project, conducting environmental review in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, maintaining an administrative record and making data available electronically, and establishing necessary procedures to implement responsibilities. Traditionally, the federal government has had a limited role in electric facility transmission siting, as siting decisions have in large part been made by state agencies. However, in recent years there has been a push to expand the federal role in transmission siting. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a "backstop" siting authority for FERC in certain instances where grid congestion was a concern. Recently there have been suggestions and legislative proposals that would further expand the federal role in electric facility transmission siting. Legal precedent suggests that federal involvement with transmission siting would likely pass constitutional muster, assuming a connection to interstate commerce is shown. However, federal courts of appeals have impeded the government's attempts to create transmission corridors and issue electric transmission facility permits in the absence of state approval. | The location and permitting of electricity transmission lines and facilities have traditionally been the exclusive province of the states, with only limited exceptions. However, the inability to get transmission lines built due to local interests, as well as competition in generation, has resulted in calls for an increased role for the federal government in transmission siting. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) established a role for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in transmission siting. The act directed DOE to create "transmission corridors" in locations with adequate transmission capacity. The act also granted FERC secondary authority over transmission siting in the corridors. This new federal role in a decision-making process that had previously been the province of state governments was predictably met with resistance from those seeking to protect local and regional interests. Although the process of creating "transmission corridors" and increasing the federal role in transmission siting has moved forward, the Ninth Circuit recently vacated the congestion study that led to the designation of two such corridors. Nonetheless, there have been calls for further expansion of the federal role in transmission siting by some policymakers and commentators. This report looks at the history of transmission siting and the reason for an increased federal role in siting decisions, explains the new federal role in transmission siting pursuant to EPAct, and discusses legal issues related to this and any potential future expansions of the federal role. |
Richard Simmons Is Not Missing, He's 'Simply Taking a Break from the Public Eye,' Says Rep
Iconic fitness instructor Richard Simmons is not in any danger, according to his rep.Recent rumors and reports that Simmons is being held inside his home against his will are false, the star's rep Tom Estey tells PEOPLE."As I have stated in the past, these claims are untrue and preposterous," Estey says. "Richard, after 40 years of being in the spotlight, is now simply taking a break from the public eye and working behind the scenes to continue to help those millions of people worldwide in need of his assistance and on several projects to be announced soon."Simmons, 67, has indeed retreated increasingly further from the spotlight in recent years, causing the New York Daily News to investigate claims that he is purposely being kept from his close friends and family.Mauro Oliveira, Simmons' former assistant, told the NYDN in an article published on Saturday that during his last visit to Simmons' mansion, the trainer told him they could no longer see each other. Oliveira also claimed that Simmons told him his longtime live-in housekeeper, Teresa Reveles, is now controlling his life.Several other friends reportedly told the NYDN they hadn't heard from Simmons since 2013 and were "very concerned." Similar rumors ignited in late 2014 after the fitness guru was not seen in public for almost the entire year.Simmons himself shut down those reports, attributing his absence to a knee injury."I am so touched by the outpouring of love and concern I have received today," he wrote on his Facebook page at the time. "I have had a tough time dealing with this injury, as it is keeping me from doing what I truly love to do and that is to teach classes around the world." ||||| I’ve been a Richard Simmons fan since I bought the “Sweating To The Oldies” VHS box set at Costco when I was 9. If he had an Instagram feed at that time, I would have been bathed in it. But he has one now and in my opinion, it’s the only celebrity IG feed you need to follow. In case you’re not up to date on the TheWeightSaint’s photographic musings, I urge to get caught up right away. Spoiler alert: there are wigs, there is glitter and there are parrots. Click through to see more reasons why Richard Simmons’ Instagram feed is beyond fabulous. ||||| Richard Simmons spoke exclusively to ET on Sunday, addressing recent reports about why he had not been seen in public in more than two years.
"I am not kidnapped," the 67-year-old fitness guru told ET’s executive producer, Brad Bessey, by phone. "I am just in my house right now.”
"No one should be worried about me," Simmons said. "The people that surround me are wonderful people who take great care of me."
WATCH: The Real Reason Richard Simmons Has Been in Hiding For Nearly a Year
On Saturday, the New York Daily News published a long report citing on and off the record sources who expressed concern for Simmons' well-being.
Simmons called the report "very hurtful."
"I love all the people who worry about me," Simmons said. "But it was time for me to take some time to be by myself. For the last 40 years I have been traveling, teaching classes, and I had a knee injury, so I had a knee replacement, which was very difficult for me… I have really just been taking it easy, staying at home, working out in my gym and doing the things I haven't done in a very long time."
According to Simmons, he's been keeping in shape despite concern that he might need another knee replacement. In response to speculation he has avoided going out because he has gained weight, Simmons said, "I still weigh 150. I work out every day. I have a gym at the house, and I am very healthy."
Simmons was last photographed in January 2014 by TMZ.
In November 2014, reports of Simmons' knee injury surfaced. Simmons took to Facebook then to thank his fans for their "outpouring of love and concern."
"I have had a tough time dealing with this injury, as it is keeping me from doing what I truly love to do and that is to teach classes around the world," he wrote. "Make sure you keep Sweatin'!"
NEWS: Richard Simmons Feels for Miley Cyrus
The Sweatin' to the Oldies creator made his last public appearance in December 13, 2013, at SPARKLE: An All-Star Holiday Concert at ACME Comedy in Los Angeles.
"This is how I want to live my life right now,” Simmons told ET on Sunday. "And to all the people that are worried about me, please don't be. If I was in any trouble, if I was hurting in any way, I would reach out. It is time right now for Richard Simmons to take care of Richard Simmons."
For more with Simmons, tune into ET on Monday. Check here for local listings.
Related Gallery ||||| Two years ago, the flamboyant fitness guru abruptly disappeared from public life. Now, his closest friends, banished from his inner circle, have grown increasingly concerned. They worry that the pop-culture icon is being held against his will inside his Hollywood Hills mansion — with one suggesting more sinister notions are at play.
Two years ago, the flamboyant fitness guru abruptly disappeared from public life. Now, his closest friends, banished from his inner circle, have grown increasingly concerned. They worry that the pop-culture icon is being held against his will inside his Hollywood Hills mansion — with one suggesting more sinister notions are at play.
BY SATURDAY, MARCH 12, 2016 Richard Simmons opened his front door, frail and trembling. Mauro Oliveira, a visual artist who was also Simmons’ masseur and former assistant, greeted him on the front porch, concerned about his friend. After receiving an ominous phone call from Simmons, Oliveira had driven his truck to the Hollywood Hills, past the two metal gates that Simmons had left ajar for him, and into the driveway. He reached the porch through the white columns that recalled an antebellum Southern mansion, and past Simmons’ bronze statue of a regal Dalmatian. Wearing a T-shirt and sweatpants, a gaunt Simmons led Oliveira through the foyer, and into the living room. “Mauro, we can no longer see each other,” Simmons told him in a quiet, defeated voice. Evan Hurd/Sygma/Corbis It was April 2014. Oliveira, a 49-year-old from Brazil with the burly arms and trim physique of a gym rat and close-cropped black hair, had met Simmons 13 months earlier, and the two became fast friends. But he was catching a weird vibe lately, and hadn’t seen him in a while, before the then 65-year-old Simmons summoned him to the mansion, saying only that they needed to talk. “What’s going on, Richard?” Oliveira asked. “Why are you saying that?” “I don’t know,” Simmons replied. “I just want to be by myself, and I want to be in the house, and we’re never going to see each other again.” Simmons’ home is a mixture of classical architecture and design that recalls his New Orleans youth. He collects offbeat pieces, including a menagerie of dolls highlighted by a rare Barbra Streisand model and the colorful work of Mexican painter and sculptor Sergio Bustamante. As they spoke, he and Oliveira stood near an ornate grand piano. “Let’s talk it over,” Oliveira said. “I want to sit here, and make sure you’ll be OK. Let’s go upstairs, I’ll give you a massage and relax you.” Simmons called up to Teresa Reveles, his live-in housekeeper of nearly three decades. “Mauro is going upstairs with me,” he said. “No, no, no!” Reveles shouted from the second floor, according to Oliveira. “Get out! Get out!” Oliveira looked at his friend, who told him in a soft voice, “You’ve gotta go.” Oliveira leaned in toward Simmons. “Is she controlling your life now?” As Oliveira tells it, Simmons looked down, and with one resigned word confirmed his worst suspicions: “Yes.” This was the last time he saw his friend. With Reveles shrieking behind him, Oliveira hustled out to his truck, picked up his cell phone, and asked an intermediary to contact Simmons’ older brother, Lenny. He and Lenny did not have a close relationship, but Oliveira knew of nowhere else to turn. Oliveira is calm as he recounts this story, but irritation enters his voice as he recalls a threat leveled that day, nearly two years ago. “Later that evening, Richard called me and said that his manager and Teresa wanted to put a restraining order against me — you can see how controlling they are — and I said, ‘What restraining order? You are the one who called me. I’m not invading your privacy, or your house.’ That was the end of that. No restraining order was put against me.” Oliveira has spoken briefly about his privileged access to Simmons during this dark period, but never in this much detail. He recently underwent a heart procedure, which he blames on Simmons-related stress, and is reluctant to invite further strain. But he agreed to elaborate on a Hollywood mystery that has previously been told only in a few cryptic tabloid items. “We are very concerned. I believe that something else is happening. I don’t think Richard is in there of his own volition.” Richard Simmons has vanished from public view, and many who know him best say they haven’t had any contact in more than two years. All repeat the same message, some anonymously and some on the record: Simmons stopped returning calls and emails more than two years ago, behavior that is highly out of character, and his housekeeper is blocking access to him at home. Indeed, for a generous and intensely social public figure, one who taught classes at his Beverly Hills gym until a few years ago; has sold more than 20 million exercise videos, including the mega-popular “Sweatin’ to the Oldies” series; appeared many times on David Letterman’s shows, “General Hospital,” his own talk show and infomercials; and was a seemingly ubiquitous presence for decades, the silence is striking. Getty “We were very close,” says a friend in Hollywood who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, and who has not heard back from Simmons since 2013 — one of five people who described to me the same situation. “It’s not something that I want to seek publicity about, but we are very concerned. Teresa did turn me away several times. He has missed funerals of close friends. He was the most reliable and caring person on the planet, and then to suddenly vanish? I have come to believe that something else is happening. I don’t think Richard is in there of his own volition.” It’s a sentiment that Oliveira takes even further. “I feel that Richard is now being controlled by the very people that he controlled his whole life,” he says. “Controlled in the sense that they are taking advantage of his weak mental state. Controlled in the sense that they are controlling his mail, controlling his everything. His brother, the manager and Teresa. Those three people.” He also believes that Simmons is deeply depressed, because of a chronic knee injury that has kept him from teaching classes; the death of his beloved 17-year-old dalmatian, Hattie; and exhaustion from a lifetime as one of the highest-octane characters in American pop culture. How does he think Simmons has spent his days since cutting off contact with the world? “Medicated and in bed,” Oliveira says. Michael Catalano, Simmons’ longtime manager, insists that all the worry is misplaced. “Richard is enjoying life at home after a 40-year career of traveling the world and inspiring people to take better care of themselves,” Catalano told me (he declined my request for an interview with Simmons). “He is working on several projects and continues to encourage those that need his help.” “If Richard never comes out of the shadows and says he is OK, then no one will ever know the truth. His fans will just wake up one day and see the horrible story that he passed away.” Teresa Reveles did not respond to phone and email messages, and the gates were locked during my several visits to Simmons’ home. But Catalano pushes back strongly against the idea that the housekeeper, or anyone else, is controlling the fitness guru. “I can tell you absolutely 100% that is not the case,” he told me. “If Richard wants to get in his car and drive to Starbucks, no one is telling him he can’t. In response to ‘the housekeeper is keeping him captive,’ I can tell you that it is 100% not true. It’s ridiculous. Richard has always been someone who makes up his own mind what he wants to do.” Until they see him, however, many friends will remain highly skeptical. “If Richard never comes out of the shadows and says he is OK, then no one will ever know the truth,” says one. “His fans will just wake up one day and see the horrible story that he passed away.” Oliveira presents the most solid evidence of Simmons’ mental and emotional state, because his access to the mansion was more recent than others’. But even he has been left with a dearth of concrete, up-to-date information, leaving friends to concoct theories, some more outlandish than others. “I think tormented is the best word to describe his mental state,” Oliveira says. “I think it was (caused by) black magic, witchcraft. That’s not close to your culture, but to my culture in Brazil, and to Mexicans” — Teresa Reveles is from Mexico — “that is a real thing. They invoke the spirits. They light black candles, and red and blue candles. I’ve never participated. I only saw from a distance. But at services, they do special meals. They offer meals to the bad spirits, and light candles, invoking with words.” It is a bizarre allegation, but one not totally out of place in the story of this extraordinary American life. Andy Martino
Simmons’ tale, defined by depression, resilience and reinvention, began on July 12, 1948, in that city of muggy mysticism, New Orleans. Milton Teagle Simmons — he later changed the name to honor a beloved uncle — was the second of two boys born to Leonard and Shirley Simmons. Theirs was a complicated family, crammed into a shotgun house in the French Quarter. Both parents were entertainers from the vaudeville era, having worked as singers, dancers, actors, and masters of ceremony. Shirley found more success than Leonard, so when Richard and his older brother, Lenny, were young, their parents made a decision unusual for the time: Shirley would continue to tour, and Leonard would be a stay-at-home parent. As Shirley packed for her trips, young Richard would cry and plead with his mother, “Why do you have to go? Why do you have to go?” Leonard, annoyed, would respond by freezing Richard out of the family for periods of time; Richard would fire back by mocking his dad for not having a job. “His method of punishment was perfect,” Simmons wrote in his engaging 1999 memoir, “Still Hungry — After All These Years.” “It was the Punishment of Silence. Very effective for a child who craves attention. You didn’t exist. He didn’t do your laundry, he didn’t set a place at the table for you — Milton doesn’t live here anymore.” Leonard and Shirley kept separate bedrooms and argued often, especially when she returned from the road. Once when Richard was 4 or 5 years old, he peered into the kitchen, to see his mother doubled over the sink, clutching her stomach. She had an ulcer, which Leonard blamed on his high-maintenance youngest son.
“Are you happy now?” he said to Richard, as recounted in the memoir. “See what you have done? You made your mother sick. You gave her a peptic ulcer. It’s all your fault.” More than 30 years later, when Simmons was showing off his first house in the Hollywood Hills, his father still withheld attention and approval. “There’s too many windows and too much glass,” Leonard told his son, who by now was a successful workout guru with a recurring role on “General Hospital.” “It’s going to be very drafty. And where is the nearest grocery store, fish market, bakery? You’re going to have to drive all the way down the side of this mountain. This just doesn’t make sense!” “Nothing I did,” Simmons wrote, “seemed to be right.” People close to Simmons say that wounds from the fraught father-son dynamic have always been raw, even though both parents are long dead. “Now he has a complicated relationship with his brother,” one friend says. “He loves him, but (he) always says that his father favored Lenny.” When I tried to reach Lenny Simmons, a woman, presumably Lenny’s wife Kathy, picked up the phone, and had no interest in chatting. “Hi,” I began. “I’m a writer working on a piece about Richard Simmons—” “We have no comment,” the woman said. “I haven’t asked a question yet.” “I said we have no comment.” Click. Courtesy of Mauro Oliveira Friends say that family history has always weighed on Simmons. “He sometimes will slip into the persona of a 5-year-old child,” says one pal who claims to have seen this within the past few years. “He’ll play with dolls, and call you daddy. It’s ‘daddy this’ and ‘daddy that.’ ” Simmons’ relationship with his father was far from his only source of childhood trauma. From an early age, he struggled with his weight, and addiction to food. Leonard cooked elaborate meals, and taught his son how to do the same; the kitchen was one of the only places where their tension cooled. But by the time he was in grammar school, Simmons was heavier than his peers. His parents took him to doctors — “you’re a big fella,” one joked, a comment that Simmons never forgot — put him on diets, did whatever they could. Before even reaching high school, Simmons experimented with diet pills; as a young adult, he would starve himself, take laxatives, binge and purge, and otherwise try to escape the torture of hating his body. The other kids hardly made it easier, alternating between taunts about his weight and his effeminate manner, which brought on the label of “sissy,” as Simmons recalls in his memoir. Once, in the sixth grade, Simmons had just walked out of the schoolyard when a boy named Moose called to him, “Hey, porker.” Before Simmons could turn around, he felt the crack of a baseball bat on the back of his head. “Maybe I can put a hole in your head and some of that fat will come out,” Moose said. “Hey, porker,” one schoolyard bully taunted Simmons. “Maybe I can put a hole in your head and some of that fat will come out.” For Simmons, these experiences brought out the ability to empathize with singular intensity, the skill that would later bring him success and fame. While in high school, Simmons began accompanying the mother of a friend, named Barbara, to Weight Watchers meetings. At those weekly gatherings, women stepped on a scale; if they had gained any weight, the leader would pin a pig on their clothing. Deep into middle age, Simmons still recalled watching Barbara receive a pig. “I’ll never forget the look of shame on her face,” he wrote. “Here was this happy lady, and one trip to the scale and 20 minutes later, her mascara is running down her cheeks, and she has a pig on her shoulder.… I felt a need to give her a pep talk, and try to make her feel better about herself again.” For a time in college, Simmons lived and studied in Florence, hoping to become a serious painter in the tradition of Gustav Klimt. One day, a casting agent for the legendary director Federico Fellini approached him, needing an obese extra for the film “Satyricon.” Simmons parlayed that appearance into a string of Italian commercials, and achieved minor local celebrity. But those roles required him to stay overweight; he was 5-foot-7, and had ballooned to more than 250 pounds. Simmons eventually moved back to the U.S., hoping to get healthier. His interest in becoming a painter faded, as the desire to escape fat and self-loathing persisted. Having cycled through every imaginable way to control his eating, Simmons became passionate about exercise in the early 1970s, while working as a waiter in Los Angeles. His outgoing personality in that job attracted attention, and helped him to meet investors interested in his idea of starting a combined salad bar and gym, called the Ruffage and Anatomy Asylum. He opened his business in 1974, soon dropped the food-service aspect, and renamed the space Slimmons Studio. It launched what quickly became an exercise empire and still stands today on what is now City Center Drive in Beverly Hills. The location, and Simmons’ sociability, helped him forge connections in Hollywood, which led to TV appearances, videos, a talk show, radio, infomercials and game shows. Once his fame exploded, Simmons’ contribution to the culture transcended “Sweatin’ to the Oldies.” Decades before “Will and Grace” helped make middle America more comfortable with gay culture, Simmons — while never technically out to the public — pushed traditional boundaries of manliness and gender, all while helping others. Rhonda Garelick, a professor of comparative literature at Princeton, has studied and written about Simmons’ impact. “By inserting himself so dramatically into popular culture, and befriending and working to help overweight women — another group often ostracized or shamed — Simmons did make progress I think for the general acceptance of gay people,” Garelick told me in an email. Simmons taught classes at his gym until about two years ago, but hasn’t been seen there since. Dropping by Slimmons is an experience akin to calling Lenny Simmons’ house. When I knocked on the door on a recent morning, a woman in exercise clothes opened it a crack. “Sorry, we don’t allow reporters in here,” she said, before shutting it in my face. Courtesy of Mauro Oliveira
Betty Wilson is an advocate in Los Angeles for people with disabilities, and now the commissioner of the California Commission on Disability Access, located in downtown L.A. She has also been a friend of Simmons for more than 20 years — until, that is, late 2013. “I’m concerned because it is not like him to not respond to me,” Wilson tells me over lunch in Santa Monica. “I mean, personally respond. I have sent many emails. No response.” A few years ago, Simmons expressed interest in developing exercise programs for the disabled. Wilson saw this as a natural extension of his empathy and desire to help marginalized people. “It shows his humanity,” Wilson says. “He wanted to be inclusive, before that word was even being used.” The two were in regular contact about this project, until just over two years ago, when Simmons’ responses abruptly stopped. Now, she joins the chorus of worried and suspicious friends. Wilson and Simmons have a mutual friend, June Park, who operates the store Wigs Today in a strip mall at Third and Fairfax in Los Angeles. For years, Simmons made frequent visits to the shop, to chat with Park and browse the merchandise (at home, friends say, Simmons sometimes wears wigs including a blonde bob and a brown, shoulder-length model). The two began to socialize, with group dinners and nights on the town. But like many others, Park has been unable to reach Simmons for about two years. “He’s a wonderful, wonderful guy,” says Park, 62. “He’s such a sweet guy. He tries to help everybody. He brings people in here and buys them wigs. Sometimes he would look at people, and read their aura, and start crying. That’s real. That’s true.” Park last tried to visit Simmons on July 12, 2014, his 66th birthday. She brought flowers. Teresa Reveles answered the door. “He started humiliating me in front of everybody. It’s hard to explain how someone is when they’re tormented by a bad force. That’s the thing. Teresa is putting black magic on him.” “I want to see Richard,” Park recalls saying. “She said, ‘He doesn’t want to see anybody right now.’ I don’t believe it. He’s not OK.… After that, I can’t go anymore. I tried to call Richard a couple times. No one will call me back. It is a really sad story. I’m so sad right now. Everybody loves him.” Standing in her store, surrounded by wigs, Park’s penetrating gaze fixes on mine and she implores me to spread the word about her concerns, “as soon as possible, please.” Oliveira’s version of Simmons’ descent into what he calls “self-imprisonment” is the most viable theory to which friends in the dark can cling. Simmons and Oliveira first met in a Hollywood art gallery in March 2013, when Oliveira was showing his paintings. They quickly connected, and the versatile Oliveira started working for Simmons, first as a masseuse, and then as a personal assistant. He insists that he and Simmons were just friends, and never romantically involved. That May, Oliveira says, Simmons offered to buy him a birthday present, saying it could be big. Oliveira responded by telling him how, from the age of 6 to 18, he had lived in an orphanage called Hope Unlimited in Campinas, Brazil, and had recently learned that the place needed a new well for its water. It would cost $30,000. Could Simmons do that? Simmons said that he would be glad to help. In August he, Oliveira and Catalano traveled to Brazil for the opening of the well. Oliveira remembers the day as beautiful and moving, with children singing to Simmons. But the trip itself brought about new tensions between the two. “When he woke up at the hotel, he was already tormented,” Oliveira says. “I went into his room and said, ‘Richard, are you ready?’ And he already started being bipolar: ‘Don’t rush me!’ I had just asked in a nice way. Then, as we were driving from Sao Paulo to Campinas, he started humiliating me in front of the driver, in front of everybody, in front of Michael. Just being a tormented person. It’s extremely hard to explain to you how someone is when they are tormented by a bad force. That’s the thing. Fucking Teresa is putting black magic on him. Like I put in the book.” Ah, the book. The tome to which Oliveira refers is “King Rich and the Evil Witch,” a self-published e-book in which Oliveira presents his version of the people and events in Simmons’ inner circle. In the book, labeled a “living fairy tale,” Simmons is “The Good Goofy King Rich,” Teresa Reveles is “Evil Witch Boreza,” Lenny Simmons is “Prince Benny” and Michael Catalano is “Morono.” Oliveira calls the character based on himself “The Artist.” He hopes to adapt the tale into a Broadway play.
Mauro Oliveira via Amazon
“On a Christmas early hours, the author had a dream in New York City that he was in a fairy tale with the guru and the witch,” Oliveira writes in his introduction. “After his dream…the author strongly felt the responsibility to share his true story with the world, and help his friend, ‘the King.’ ” In the story, the young Prince Rich develops a “brilliant life plan to help the large obese population in the kingdom and beyond,” and becomes successful in the “Kingdom of LA LA LAND.” Realizing that he needs help maintaining his castle, he places an ad in the “LA LA LAND TIMES,” soliciting a servant. Witch Boreza answers it and immediately “has her eye on the big prize: To inherit the castle and all of the Prince’s fortune and possessions.” After many years, the now-King Rich meets the Artist, arousing jealousy in Witch Boreza and others in his court. The friends travel to help an orphanage, and later to Europe, both based on real life experiences. Tensions ensue, resulting in a dramatic — and admittedly fictional — climax, where King Rich realizes that he has been put under the witch’s spell, and breaks free of it. “Boreza, YOU FUCKING WITCH,” King Rich shouts. “You are now expelled from the LA LA LAND KINGDOM. You have the choice to fly away on your broom now, from the castle’s balcony, or I am going to order the guards to give you to the thousands of commoners waiting outside.” Reality has brought no such catharsis. Teresa Reveles continues to work for Simmons, and remains an object of suspicion to those cast from his circle. June Park has read “King Rich and the Evil Witch,” and says, “(Oliveira) did a wonderful job. Everything he said was true.”
Oliveira admits that some in Simmons’ camp were concerned that it was he who was after the boss’s money. In October of 2013, he began living in an apartment that Simmons purchased, which made the others uncomfortable. Oliveira said that he sent a monthly rent check of $2,000, which Simmons never cashed. In 2015, long after he last saw his friend, he contacted Simmons’ accountant and asked for an unspecified amount. Oliveira claims that Simmons had told him to ask for money whenever he needed it, and when he did so, he only asked once, and received nothing. “The good side of Richard felt compelled by my story that I was raised in an orphanage, and was living in a bad neighborhood at the time,” Oliveira says. “So he offered (the apartment), and I accepted. He didn’t put it in my name. It was just an investment for him.” In November 2013, as Simmons’ depression seemed to worsen, he suggested a trip to Europe with Oliveira, Catalano, Simmons’ accountant, and Lenny and Kathy Simmons. Oliveira, not wanting a repeat of the Brazil experience, declined, but Simmons kept pushing. Finally, Oliveira agreed to go. “I said, ‘Richard, you need to get up. You need to do something.’ He replied, ‘No I’m tired, let me sleep.’ I walked downstairs and said, ‘Teresa, Richard needs treatment.’ She said, ‘I don’t care.’ ” The group made it through its first two stops, France and England, without incident, but a darker energy materialized in Venice. On the final day of their trip, Simmons emerged in the hotel lobby dressed in a purple wig, fur coat and earrings, wearing heavy purple lipstick and rouge. It was not unusual for him to don women’s apparel, but this outfit appeared extreme, and Oliveira sensed trouble brewing. That day, the group rented a gondola large enough to fit six people. According to Oliveira, when Kathy Simmons tried to step onto the boat, it tipped, and water rushed in. The gondolier started screaming at her. “Then I said, ‘Listen, you don’t talk to tourists like this. We are paying you,’ ” Oliveira says. “Richard turned to me, and started screaming at me, (saying) that I was a nobody, that I wasn’t an accomplished artist. I don’t know if he was looking for an opportunity or a reason. (Then) he started singing opera. He was completely…” Oliveira trails off, searching for the right words, before picking up the story. “When a bad spirit gets in your body — he was possessed by a bad spirit. My blood pressure was through the roof, and I suspect that I had a minor heart attack. That’s the reason why I (later) had to put a valve on my heart.” CNN After the boat ride — “the longest half hour I’ve ever had in my life,” Oliveira says — Oliveira returned to his hotel room, and decided that he could no longer work for Simmons. Between that day and their dramatic final meeting the following April, they socialized occasionally, and Oliveira still provided massages. As Simmons began cutting off most friends, his beloved dog Hattie declined precipitously, defecating all over the house, and finally needing to be put down. Oliveira visited the mansion in March 2014, and found a depressing scene. “He was sleeping at 2 p.m. on a Sunday,” Oliveira says. “I said, ‘Richard, you need to get up. You need to do something.’ He said, ‘No I’m tired, let me sleep.’ And nobody cares. I walked downstairs and said, ‘Teresa, Richard needs treatment.’ She said, ‘I don’t care.’ ” Oliveira and Simmons parted ways in April, and after that, Oliveira says he communicated only with Simmons’ accountant about the apartment, which he vacated that October, and the request for money that he did not receive. Upon his return from the European vacation, Simmons made only a few more public appearances. At the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in November 2013, he rode in a turtle float, and interacted enthusiastically with the crowd. On January 16, 2014, he attended a Los Angeles fundraiser for Covered California, the state’s health insurance exchange. His most recent media interview, as far as Catalano can recall, was on New Year’s Eve 2013, when he appeared for five minutes on CNN with anchor Brooke Baldwin, and left in tears. The mood began to turn after Simmons encouraged viewers to be non-judgmental when they looked in the mirror. “What do you say to yourself in the mirror in the morning?” Baldwin asked. “I say, ‘Try to help more people,’ ” Simmons responded, his voice cracking.
Back in the ’70s, when Slimmons was still called the Ruffage and Anatomy Asylum, a woman named Ellen would often come in and order a small juice. She was less than 5 feet tall, and skinny. Simmons could detect in her quiet demeanor a fellow survivor of childhood teasing and trauma. “Although she always wore the mask of a pleasant smile on her face,” he wrote in his memoir, “I’m sure Ellen endured years of being teased about her appearance. Just as people who are very overweight are often made fun of, people who are very thin are fair game, too.” Ellen made and sold teddy bears, and on Simmons’ birthday she brought him an original creation, with rusty brown fur and a smile. Over the next few months, she remained quiet and reserved, but would occasionally leave beautiful bears for Simmons, with notes that said, “I hope this makes your day.” One morning, Simmons arrived to find a minuscule box by the door. “Inside, wrapped in tissue, was the tiniest, most detailed teddy bear I’d ever seen,” he later wrote. “It was no more than the size of a postage stamp — it must have been made under a large magnifying glass. Unlike Ellen’s other works, this was not a happy-looking bear. It seemed very lonely sitting in that box, all by itself.” Simmons kept Ellen’s bears in his living room, and now noticed that they had been getting smaller, as the months ticked by. Days passed, and he didn’t see her, so Simmons became worried, and asked about her at a Beverly Hills boutique that sold her work. “She died a few days ago,” the owner said. Ellen had been anorexic, and Simmons has tormented himself for decades with the thought that he could have done more for her. He has spent a lifetime immersed in the deep end of other people’s despair, working to lift them out. Now, friends fear that he is the one wasting away. In January 2015, TMZ reported that the LAPD, acting on an anonymous tip, sent two officers to check on Simmons, and found him responsive and alert. Michael Catalano points to this as evidence that Simmons is fine, and says that he last saw his client during the 2015 holiday season, while Lenny and Kathy Simmons visited. “He was in great health,” Catalano says. But those words do little to comfort the folks who care about Simmons, who fear that the next news they hear will be the worst, and be left to wonder if they should have been more aggressive in their attempts to save him. In the absence of any news from the Hollywood Hills mansion, one is left to fill in the blanks. Thoughts inevitably turn to the troubled Beach Boy Brian Wilson and his possessive guru, Dr. Eugene Landy, or the final, isolated years of Michael Jackson and his prescription-happy doctor, Conrad Murray. The mind slips to dark places, when deprived of information. “He has to know his friends and the community are so concerned,” says one of the longtime friends who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Show business is one thing, but friends are another. If he had any say in the matter, he would reach out to any of us. I’m very suspicious, as it just doesn’t make sense. It’s very bizarre. It’s beyond mysterious. If something is going on, we want to be there for him. We want to support him.”
CORRECTIONS: In an earlier edition, we stated that Simmons lived and studied in Venice; it was Florence; The Covered California event Simmons attended was January 16, 2014, not January 30; Professor Rhonda Garelick, previously identified as a professor of fine- and performing arts at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is temporarily on leave from the university. She currently is a professor of comparative literature at Princeton.
CREDITS: Digital Longform Editor, Joe Angio; Deputy Digital Longform Editor, Bruce Diamond; Senior Interactive Developer, Mike Sullivan | It was the article that launched a thousand, well, articles: an extensive New York Daily News piece on Richard Simmons published Saturday that claimed the "intensely social public figure" has for the last two years essentially vanished, having stopped responding to calls and emails, and suggested an overly controlling live-in housekeeper, Teresa Reveles, is to blame. The fitness guru's rep, Tom Estey, called the claims "untrue and preposterous" in a statement to People, saying Simmons just wanted a break "after 40 years of being in the spotlight." To USA Today, Estey said, "I don’t want the readers ... to think this man is a Howard Hughes recluse in his own home." But, still, no word from Simmons himself ... until Sunday night. In a phone conversation with ET, Simmons said quite plainly, "I am not kidnapped. I am just in my house right now. This is how I want to live my life right now. And to all the people that are worried about me, please don't be. If I was in any trouble, if I was hurting in any way, I would reach out. It is time right now for Richard Simmons to take care of Richard Simmons." He too cites his 40 years of being in the public eye, and references a "very difficult" knee replacement surgery. But he says, "I still weigh 150. I work out every day. I have a gym at the house, and I am very healthy." (Here are 14 reasons to love Simmons' Instagram feed.) |
In carrying out its mission, VA conducts medical research to find new treatments for diseases and disabilities that affect veterans and the nation’s population as a whole. VA researchers have been involved in a variety of important advances in medical research, including development of the cardiac pacemaker, kidney transplant technology, prosthetic devices, and drug treatments for high blood pressure and schizophrenia. VA’s research programs include nine high-priority areas: acute and traumatic injuries, military and environmental exposures, special high-risk or underserved populations, sensory disorders and loss, aging, mental illness, substance abuse, chronic diseases, and health services and outcomes research. In fiscal year 2000, funding for VA research totaled almost $1.2 billion, supporting research projects conducted by more than 3,800 scientists at 115 VA medical centers across the country. These funds finance research projects and their supporting infrastructure, including capital expenditures for buildings, animal laboratories, and equipment. Funding made available for medical research through annual appropriations provided $666 million of VA’s fiscal year 2000 research dollars; the other $491 million was provided by other federal and nonfederal sources (see fig. 1). Federal funding comes from such sources as NIH and DOD, while nonfederal funding sources include private organizations, such as drug or biotechnology companies, or organizations such as the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Diabetes Association. Of the $491 million, $174 million was administered by the nonprofit corporations, and the remaining $317 million was administered by VA medical centers or their affiliated universities. Nonprofit research corporations exist solely to support VA research and education, using their funds to support local VA medical centers’ research environments. They are collocated with VA facilities and usually do not pay VA for services such as rent, utilities, local telephone services, and janitorial services. Currently, there are 88 chartered nonprofit research corporations, of which 85 are actively conducting research. In 2000, the most recent year for which revenue data are available, VA’s nonprofit research corporations received about $174 million in revenues— almost a 140-percent increase over the last 5 years—and administered 4,651 VA-approved research projects. The largest source of funding for VA’s nonprofit research corporations has been private organizations, averaging more than 40 percent from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 (see table 1). NIH has been the largest government source of funding for the corporations. VA treats all funds administered by VA medical centers as appropriated funds, and medical centers are generally required to comply with statutory and other restrictions on the use of those funds, as well as with federal regulations governing procurement and the hiring of employees. Prior to the establishment of nonprofit corporations, VA administered research funding from external sources through special accounts at local medical centers—known as general post funds—or through its affiliated universities. Nonprofit corporations provide a flexible funding mechanism to support the indirect cost of VA’s research environment. For example, nonprofit corporations’ funds can be used to renovate laboratory space and support start-up research to develop grant proposals. Nonprofit research corporations also have more flexibility with respect to personnel and procurement issues than VA medical centers because, as private corporations, they are not subject to federal personnel or procurement regulations. The five nonprofit corporations we visited typically obtained donated and grant funds of between 10 and 20 percent of direct project costs to apply to indirect costs. According to the nonprofit corporations’ executive directors we interviewed, these indirect cost rates are generally based on what other nonprofit organizations normally charge and not based on their actual indirect costs. These indirect costs include the costs for running the corporation, equipment purchases, facility upgrades, subscriptions to scientific journals, travel to research conferences, maintaining VA research libraries, and renovating and maintaining VA animal laboratories. Further, nonprofit corporations can use the funds they obtain for indirect costs to support research. For example, at one VA medical center, the nonprofit research corporation incurred $8,451,000 in expenses in 2001, with $7,693,000 spent on the direct costs of research projects; $413,000 spent on corporation operating expenses, such as grant administration and payroll processing for research staff; and $345,000 spent on activities and improvements to the medical center’s research environment. Some of these activities and improvements included maintaining a clinical studies center, paying the salaries of a research science officer and assistant, and providing the “seed” or project start-up money for scientists to perform initial research to generate data necessary to apply for research grants. According to VA’s Office of Research and Development, the funds used by the nonprofit corporations to purchase equipment and maintain and upgrade VA’s facilities allow VA to use more of its appropriated funds for conducting research. For example, at one facility we visited, the nonprofit corporation is renovating laboratory space necessary to conduct a VA- funded research project. While grants to affiliated universities can also be used to cover indirect costs of research conducted at VA facilities, VA officials told us that universities generally do not provide funding to help pay for VA’s indirect costs; instead, they use it to support the indirect costs of the universities and their own research facilities. At another medical center, VA’s Office of Inspector General suggested security improvements be made in research laboratories containing hazardous materials. About $56,000 was needed from either VA’s Office of Research and Development or the medical center to make these improvements. Instead, the nonprofit corporation provided the funding. This preserved the Office of Research and Development’s funds for research and the medical center’s funds for patient care. In addition to the improvements in equipment, facilities, and research- related services, nonprofit corporations bring other benefits to VA’s research environment. Because private nonprofit corporations are not subject to the regulations that govern federal agency hiring practices, they can hire and release employees more quickly than VA, which, according to researchers, can be more responsive to their individual project personnel and contracting needs. For example, at some of the VA nonprofit corporations we visited, the principal investigators stated that because funding for research is dependent on the number, length, and timing of grants received, they prefer to quickly hire research technicians and support staff after project funds are awarded and release them from the projects as soon as their work is completed. The principal investigators noted that if nonprofit corporations did not exist, it would take longer to begin the research because they would have to hire staff through VA. A medical center official reported that it usually took 6 weeks or more to hire a research employee through VA compared to less than a week through the nonprofit corporation. Nonprofit corporations can also contract for goods and services more quickly than VA can because they do not have to follow the federal acquisition process. For example, two of the nonprofit corporations we visited were able to quickly order highly specialized digital, computerized microscopes needed by several research teams. Officials told us that based on their past experiences, if those microscopes had been purchased through VA’s competitive process, it could have taken months to award a contract. Finally, VA’s research environment is key to attracting and retaining highly qualified physicians, according to officials at some of the medical centers we visited and in VA’s Office of Research and Development. Investigators we interviewed said their research directly related to and benefited the care they provided to their patients, such as administering experimental research drugs for cancer. Some of the researchers we interviewed also noted that the nonprofit corporation’s contribution to the local VA research facility was one of the main reasons they came to or remained at the facility. For example, at one nonprofit corporation we visited, the corporation renovated laboratory space needed to attract an investigator, who is also a physician. Conflicts of interest can occur in connection with medical research when an individual or an institution has financial interests in the research. Conflicts of interest impair the conduct of objective, unbiased research and create the risk that an investigator will compromise a study’s integrity to gain financial rewards or recognition. Investigators may establish financial relationships with donors—for example as employees, consultants, board members, or stockholders—as long as these relationships do not compromise, or appear to compromise, their professional judgment and the independence of the research. For example, an investigator’s financial relationships must not bias or appear to bias the development of the study to ensure certain outcomes. A conflict of interest would also result if investigators reported only favorable research results or withheld certain study findings to maintain a competitive edge for the entities in which they have financial interests. Conflicts of interest have the potential to put study subjects and the general population at risk. Investigators on research projects administered by VA nonprofit corporations must follow federal statutes and regulations applicable to federal employees concerning conduct and conflicts of interest. They cover, for example, restrictions on gifts from outside sources, the use of non-public information, and employees’ financial interests. Because investigators design and control the research, they may also be subject to additional federal conflict of interest regulations. For example, principal investigators conducting research under NIH grants are subject to Public Health Service regulations, and investigators conducting pharmaceutical trials are subject to Food and Drug Administration regulations. These regulations require investigators to disclose their financial interests. There are other conflict of interest procedures that investigators in some locations must follow. For example, investigators at three of the five VA nonprofit corporations we visited were required by the VA medical center or its affiliated university to disclose their financial interests related to each research project they conducted. At one of these locations, the corporation, the university, and VA formed a conflicts of interest committee to review financial disclosures and identify and manage conflicts of interest. The results of these reviews are documented in the committee’s meeting minutes and forwarded for review to the VA medical center’s institutional review board (IRB). Additionally, to guard against potential conflicts of interest, nonprofit corporation board members, officers, and employees must sign a certification that they comply with federal statutes and regulations on conflicts of interest; however, they are not required to file financial disclosure forms. Certain nonprofit corporation board members and officers are required to file financial disclosure forms because of their positions at the medical center. For example, a VA medical center’s director and chief of staff, who also serve on the nonprofit corporation’s board of directors, are required to file financial disclosure statements because of the positions they hold at the medical center. A VA official told us that there is no routine comparison of these financial disclosure forms and ongoing research projects at a particular facility. While federal regulations govern the financial interests of individuals, no similar regulations apply to the financial interests of an institution. Institutional conflicts of interest occur when an entity’s financial interests conflict with its goals of conducting and fostering objective, unbiased research. Financial interests may color an entity’s review, approval, or monitoring of research conducted under its auspices or its allocation of equipment, facilities, and staff for research. Some institutions, such as universities, may obtain financial benefits from owning stock in a company that sponsors research or from owning patents that result from research. In contrast, VA nonprofit research corporations cannot own stock, have an equity interest in private companies, or own patents. Consequently, these types of institutional conflicts are unlikely to occur. VA nonprofit corporations may only invest in government-backed securities such as certificates of deposit or U.S. Treasury bonds. VA, not the nonprofit corporations, controls the rights to patents arising from research administered by nonprofit corporations. In addition, nonprofit corporations cannot accept funds to administer a research project unless the local VA medical center approves it. The Secretary of VA has delegated responsibility for overseeing and evaluating nonprofit corporations to the directors at local medical centers. This responsibility includes ensuring that deficiencies noted in audited financial statements and management letters are corrected. VA requires that nonprofit corporations submit their audited financial statements and management letters; tax forms; and supplemental information on donors, payees, and research projects to the medical center’s chief financial officer and the nonprofit corporation’s board of directors—which must, by statute, include the medical center’s director, chief of staff, and assistant chief of staff for research—for review prior to the issuance of VA’s annual report to the Congress. At all five sites we visited, the nonprofit corporations provided their 2000 and 2001 audited financial statements as required, and all five received unqualified opinions on their financial statements, indicating that none contained material misstatements. We also reviewed a sample of the five nonprofit corporations’ expenditures from their most recent annual financial statements— including those for travel, meetings, conferences, professional dues and memberships, publications, and office supplies—and generally found that the expenditures were related to research or to running the nonprofit corporation and were consistent with its internal control procedures. However, no standard body of rules exists that governs the type and amount of expenditures made by nonprofit corporations, although specific requirements may be established by the source of the funds. For example, if the nonprofit corporations receive funds from a federal agency, then the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122 applies, which does not allow certain expenses, such as for entertainment or alcohol. Other donors may place specific restrictions on the use of their funds. We reviewed a sample of travel expenditures—including the travel of members of the board of directors and executive directors—and found that while nonprofit corporations are not eligible for government rates, the rates they paid were comparable to the federal government’s rates for meals and lodging. Of the 66 travel vouchers we reviewed, only one first- class airline rate was charged and for only one segment of the trip because no economy seats were available. In addition, we reviewed expenses related to meetings. They generally covered food and beverages provided at staff meetings, team building sessions, and dinners with potential recruits. The dollar amounts were typically a small portion of the nonprofit corporation’s total expenditures. For example, one nonprofit corporation with annual expenditures of almost $8.5 million spent $16,171 on these expenses. Another nonprofit corporation with expenditures of about $25 million spent $66,469 on these expenses. Two of the five locations we visited received management letters from their independent auditors in 2000 and 2001, citing areas for improvement in internal controls. We found that these nonprofit corporations had either corrected or were in the process of correcting problems cited in the previous years’ management letters. For example, at one nonprofit corporation, the external audit of its year 2000 financial records found that it did not reconcile its general ledgers at month end in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. Although the nonprofit corporation’s 2001 management letter still identified some problems with month-end reconciliations, the auditor noted that improvements had been made. While each nonprofit corporation submits its financial statements and management letters to VA, VA headquarters does not use this information to oversee and monitor the nonprofits’ financial activities and ensure that identified deficiencies are corrected. According to VA, it relies in part on the VA Inspector General, IRS, GAO, and state and local authorities to identify fraud, waste, and abuse. However, officials at the five nonprofit corporations we visited stated that, for the last 5 years, their corporations have not been the subject of systematic review, although the VA Inspector General is currently investigating specific matters related to nonprofit corporations reported through its fraud hotline. The two largest corporations we visited stated that their state labor departments conducted reviews, but these reviews were limited to their personnel practices and records. | GAO reviewed the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) nonprofit research corporations, which receive funds primarily from non-VA sources to conduct medical research at VA facilities. Since VA's nonprofit corporations were first established, there has been limited oversight of their operations and contributions to VA research. Nonprofit corporations support VA's research environment by funding a portion of the department's research needs, such as laboratory equipment and improvements to infrastructure, and by providing flexible personnel and contracting arrangements to respond to investigators' needs. To detect conflict of interest, investigators on research projects administered by VA's nonprofit corporations are subject to federal statutes and regulations applicable to federal employees concerning conduct and conflicts of interest and may be required to disclose their financial interests. Institutional conflicts of interest are unlikely to occur in VA's nonprofit research corporations because they cannot own stock, have an equity interest in private companies, or obtain intellectual property rights. VA has delegated responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the activities of nonprofit corporations to the directors of VA medical centers; however, VA headquarters does not oversee and monitor corporations' financial activities and ensure that identified deficiencies are corrected. |
DOE’s missions include developing, maintaining, and securing the nation’s nuclear weapons capability; cleaning up the environmental legacy resulting from over 50 years of producing nuclear weapons; and conducting basic energy and science research and development. The department carries out these diverse missions at over 50 major installations in 35 states. With a DOE workforce of about 16,000 employees and over 100,000 contractor staff, the department relies on its contractors to manage and operate its facilities and accomplish its missions. DOE manages these functions through its program offices at DOE headquarters and its field offices. The three largest program offices— Environmental Management, Defense Programs, and Science—accounted for over 70 percent of DOE’s budget for fiscal year 2001. DOE’s reliance on contractors to carry out its missions and the department’s history of both inadequate management and oversight and failure to hold its contractors accountable for results led us to designate DOE contract management as a high-risk area vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In response to these and other criticisms, DOE began evaluating its contracting practices and, in February 1994, issued a report—Making Contracting Work Better and Cost Less—that contained 48 recommendations. The recommendations included three key areas: selecting alternatives to traditional contracting arrangements used for management and operation of its sites, increasing competition to improve performance, and developing and using performance-based contracting tools. To facilitate and oversee the implementation of the contract reform recommendations, in June 1994, DOE established the Contract Reform Project Office, which became the Office of Contract Reform and Privatization in 1997. This office, which monitored and assessed the progress of DOE’s contract reform initiative, was disbanded in late 2001 as part of the department’s reorganization of its support offices. DOE’s Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer is now responsible for oversight of DOE’s contract reform efforts. Since 1996, the department has made progress in implementing three key contract reform initiatives—developing alternative contracting approaches, increasing competition, and converting to performance-based contracts, although DOE continues to address challenges in implementing these initiatives. Concerning alternative contracting approaches, DOE encouraged the use of different types of contracts aimed at improving contractor performance and results. However, DOE did not use a systematic approach to determine the best contract type for a given situation and experienced problems with implementation. To become more systematic in making this contract selection decision, DOE has been developing a formal strategy to evaluate contract and financing alternatives and the risks associated with various approaches. In the second reform area—increasing competition—DOE changed its contracting rules to set competition as the standard approach to awarding contracts. Under these rules, the percentage of major site contracts awarded competitively (competed) increased to 56 percent as of 2001, up from 38 percent as of 1996. All but one of the 11 contracts that had not been competed were for managing research and development centers exempted by statute from mandatory competition. The department evaluates these contracts to determine whether they should be extended or competed. DOE has thus far decided on non-competitive extensions for these contracts, including some for contractors that have experienced performance problems. DOE opted to address these performance problems with specific contract provisions, but it remains to be seen whether this approach will succeed. Finally, all of DOE’s major site contracts are now performance-based, incorporating results-oriented statements of work and the performance objectives and measures used to evaluate contractor performance. To further emphasize the importance of the performance-based approach, DOE has increased the proportion of contractor fees tied to achieving the performance objectives to 70 percent in fiscal year 2001 from 34 percent in fiscal year 1996. However, development of good performance measures has continued to be a challenge, and DOE acknowledges that it must make further progress in this area. One of the major focuses of DOE’s contract reform initiative has been developing alternatives to the traditional contracts used for the management and operation of its major sites and facilities. Under these “management and operating” contracts, one primary contractor performed almost all of the work at a site, the contractor had broadly defined statements of work, and DOE reimbursed the contractor for virtually all costs. As a result, work under these contracts focused more on annual work plans and budgets rather than on specific schedule and cost targets for accomplishing work. In implementing alternatives to its traditional contracting arrangements, DOE’s intent was to use the best contracting alternative given the required work and the objectives and risks associated with that work. DOE implemented four main actions as alternatives to these management and operating contracts, but has experienced problems with implementation, in part due to difficulties in determining the most appropriate approach for a given situation, as follows: Reducing the number of large, cost-reimbursement contracts that cover virtually all of the activities at a DOE site. DOE has modified a total of 20 site contracts since 1994, so that no single contractor manages and operates those sites. Some of these management and operating contracts were divided into smaller service contracts, such as for guard services. Other management and operating contracts were changed to integration contracts (commonly called management and integration contracts). According to DOE officials, integration contracts were used to better reflect the changing mission of the site and to better tailor the contract scope to the program requirements. Under a management and integration contract, one contractor is responsible for integrating the work of a variety of subcontractors that carry out most of the actual work at the sites. The integrating contractor is responsible for selecting “best-in-class” subcontractors for specific work activities, overseeing the work done by the subcontractors, and ensuring that activities at the site are effectively coordinated. DOE has used this integration contract approach at sites such as Oak Ridge in Tennessee for environmental restoration work. However, DOE’s Office of Inspector General reported in March 2001 that the integrating contractor at Oak Ridge has subcontracted out a third less work than originally proposed, resulting in less cost savings to the government. Implementing a more disciplined approach to “make-or-buy” decisions by site contractors. DOE revised its regulations in 1997 to require that its major site contractors develop make-or-buy plans instead of having most of the work at a site performed by the primary contractor. Under these plans, the primary contractor must identify work functions that could be performed at less cost or more effectively through subcontracts. Although all of its major contractors have approved make-or-buy plans, DOE acknowledges that it does not routinely gather information on how much work is done by subcontractors, making it difficult to determine the extent to which this approach was implemented. In addition, DOE’s Office of Inspector General reported in February 2000 that three of the four contractors that it reviewed had either not included all functions in their make-or-buy plans or had not done the required cost-benefit analysis on work functions that could have been subcontracted. Implementing an alternative contracting and financing approach called privatization. DOE started its “privatization initiative” in 1995 as a way to reduce the cost and speed the cleanup of its contaminated sites. This initiative was primarily an alternative contracting and financing strategy to foster open competition for fixed-price contracts; to require the contractor to design, finance, build, own, and operate the facilities necessary to meet waste treatment requirements; and to pay the contractor for units of successfully treated waste. DOE’s experiences with this approach showed that privatization could achieve cost savings on projects with a well-defined scope of work and few uncertainties, such as laundry facilities for contaminated uniforms and other items at the Hanford site. However, on complex cleanup projects such as the effort at Idaho Falls to clean up Pit 9, privatization had little success in achieving cost savings, keeping the project moving forward on schedule, or getting improved contractor performance. Establishing “closure contracts” that tie performance incentives to contract completion, not to annual activities. DOE has used closure contracts at several sites that are scheduled for cleanup and closure, including the Rocky Flats site in Colorado and the Fernald site in Ohio. These contracts emphasize completing all work at a site or a portion of a site by a target date and at a target cost. Most of the fee or profit to be earned by the contractor depends upon meeting the schedule and cost targets. If the contractor can complete all work on time or sooner and below the target cost, then the contractor can earn additional fee. For example, under the Rocky Flats closure contract, the amount of incentive fee that the contractor can earn ranges from $130 million to $460 million, depending on cost and schedule performance against the targets. Since the target closure date for this contract is December 2006, it remains to be seen whether this approach will be effective in completing the work on time and at lower costs to the government. These problems reflected the lack of a systematic approach to deciding which contract type was best for a given situation. For example, we reported in May of 1998 that DOE’s use of fixed-price contracting was appropriate when projects were well-defined, when uncertainties could be allocated between DOE and the contractor, and when either adequate cost information or multiple competing bidders were available to determine a fair and reasonable price for the work. However, when these conditions did not exist, cost overruns and schedule delays could occur on these fixed-price contracts. DOE has begun to develop a more systematic approach to determining the best contract type for a given situation. For example, in October 2000, DOE issued new policy and guidance for the acquisition of capital assets such as waste treatment facilities. The guidance includes developing an acquisition plan that considers the financial, technical, and performance risks associated with a new project. This policy is consistent with DOE’s overall goal of tailoring the contract type to the work to be performed and the business and technical risks associated with that work. In addition, to strengthen oversight of major acquisitions, in November 2001 DOE issued additional guidance that requires approval of acquisition plans for projects of $5 million and above at the assistant secretary level or higher. Despite these initial steps, DOE is still developing and implementing its formal acquisition strategy, and it is too soon to tell whether this new strategy will help DOE make better decisions about how to acquire capital assets. DOE has increased the proportion of major site contracts awarded competitively, but still extends a number of these site contracts non- competitively, as allowed by procurement law, including contracts for some sites that have experienced contractor performance problems. DOE competed 56 percent of its major site contracts that were up for award or renewal from 1997 through 2001, a significant increase over the 38 percent it had competed from 1991 through 1996 (see table 1). During the 1997 through 2001 period, DOE selected new contractors for 10 of the 14 competitively awarded contracts, compared to 9 new contractors for the 11 competitive awards from 1991 through 1996. (Appendix I contains a listing of DOE’s major site contracts in 2001 and the extent to which they have been competed). The growth in competition at major DOE sites is largely a result of new regulations the department issued under contract reform. The new rules generally require competition for major site contracts and allow a contract period consisting of an initial term of up to 5 years with options to extend the contract provided that the total contract period does not exceed 10 years. Many of the contracts that DOE did not compete have been for its federally funded research and development centers for which DOE may extend contracts non-competitively under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. By 2001, all but one of the 11 contracts extended without competition fell under this exemption for research and development centers. The exception was the major site contract for the management of DOE’s West Valley Demonstration Project in New York. DOE extended the contract in 1998 and recently announced plans for another extension. According to DOE procurement officials, this recent extension was because of the limited amount of cleanup work remaining at the site and the lack of interest by other contractors to compete for the work. As part of its overall effort to increase competition for site contracts, DOE also reassessed which sites it should continue to designate as federally funded research and development centers. As a result of the reassessment, DOE has removed six of 22 sites from the federally funded research and development center designation. The department subsequently competed the contracts for two of these, the Knolls and Bettis Atomic Power Laboratories in New York and Pennsylvania. The department restructured the other four contracts and no longer regards them as major site contracts. In six other instances, although DOE has thus far decided the sites should remain designated as federally funded research and development centers, the department has competed the contracts even though federal law and regulations allow DOE to extend the contracts non-competitively. These six competed contracts included those for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In addition to its reassessment effort, in 1996 the department issued guidance that it must follow to support any recommendation for a non- competitive extension of any major site contract. Among other things, the guidance called for DOE to provide a certification that competition is not in the best interest of the department, a description of the incumbent contractor’s past performance, an outline of the principal issues and/or significant changes to be negotiated in the contract extension, and in the case of a federally funded research and development center, a showing of the continued need for the research and development center. Based on such documentation, the agency head can authorize a contract extension of up to 5 years. Table 2 lists the ten federally funded research and development centers for which DOE has awarded contracts non- competitively since this guidance was issued. DOE’s decision not to compete some of the federally funded research and development center contracts has not been without controversy. For example, in 2001, DOE extended the management and operating contracts with the University of California for the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. The University of California has operated these sites for 50 years or more and is the only contractor ever to have operated them. In recent years, we and other organizations have documented significant problems with laboratory operations and management at these two laboratories—particularly in the areas of safeguards, security, and project management. Congressional committees and others have called for DOE to compete these contracts. Even with these problems and concerns, however, DOE chose not to compete these contracts. This decision was made at the highest levels in the department and was based on national security considerations. Rather than compete these contracts, DOE intends to address these performance problems using contract mechanisms. In the 2001 contract extension, DOE required the university to focus on strengthening management performance in five areas, including initiatives for safety and project management. For the first 2 years of the 5-year contract period, the University of California must meet specific requirements before it can earn any of the $17 million in incentive fees available under the contract. DOE is to assess the university’s performance on these specific requirements on a pass/fail basis. After the first 2 years of the contract, performance in these 5 areas will be assessed as part of the regular performance measures in the contract. The department’s first (2001) annual assessment found that the contractor was meeting the required milestones for all of the improvement initiatives. However, many of the milestones in the first year involved evaluating existing systems or developing action plans. For other objectives that focus on results, such as demonstrating improved performance in nuclear facility operations, the final outcomes will not be known for several years. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether DOE will be successful in improving the University of California’s performance using these contracting tools. If the University of California does not make significant improvements in its performance, DOE may need to reconsider its decision not to compete the contracts. DOE has reported that all of its major site contracts incorporate performance-based techniques to define requirements and measure results. Before DOE initiated its contract reforms, major site contracts generally had broad statements of work that focused more on annual budgets and work plans rather than specific results to be achieved. Feesunder these contracts usually consisted of a base fee that was guaranteed (fixed) plus an award fee that was paid if the contractor met general performance expectations. In the mid-1990s, DOE began restructuring its major site contracts to use results-oriented statements of work and, for most of the major site contracts, to incorporate performance incentive fees that were designed to reward the contractor if it met or exceeded specific performance expectations in priority areas. These fees may be tied to either subjective or objective performance measures, but DOE regulations suggest the use of specific and quantifiable measures whenever possible. In 1999, DOE issued additional regulations that limited the use of base fee and established a clear preference for contracts where all of the fee was based on a contractor’s performance. Since DOE changed its policy in favor of using incentive fees, there has been a substantial shift in the type of fees available on DOE contracts. As shown in figure 1, between fiscal years 1996 and 2001, DOE decreased the total aggregate amount of base and award fee available to its contractors and substantially increased the amount of fee that is based on performance incentives. For individual contracts, the percentage of each fee type varied widely. For example, in fiscal year 2001, the Sandia National Laboratories contract had 100 percent base fee, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory contract had 100 percent performance incentive fee. In addition to shifting most of the fee available to incentive fee, in 1999, DOE also established a new contract clause making payment of fee conditional on meeting certain safety requirements and other minimum requirements in the contract. According to language in this clause, in order to receive all of the earned fee, the contractor must meet, among other requirements, minimum environment, safety, and health requirements and avoid any “catastrophic” events such as a fatality or serious workplace- related injury. Since 1999, DOE has withheld over $5 million in fees from six contractors under this conditional payment of fee clause. The largest fee withheld—$2 million—was from CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., for “failures to meet the contractually imposed minimum environment, safety, and health performance requirements” as defined by the contractor’s integrated safety management system. Although these changes reflect a marked shift in DOE’s approach, the lack of good performance measures blunted their effect. Since 1997, numerous studies and reports—both internal and external to the department— criticized DOE’s performance-based contracts for ineffective performance measures. Examples include the following: DOE’s Office of Inspector General has issued 11 reports since 1997 that found multiple problems with DOE’s performance measures. In 2001, the Inspector General reported, after reviewing the Office of River Protection Tank Farm Management, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, and Kansas City Plant contracts, that DOE was not focusing on high priority outcomes, was loosening performance requirements over time without adequate justification, and was failing to match appropriately challenging contract requirements with fee amounts. The department disagreed with this report, stating that it was not appropriate to evaluate the overall success of performance-based contracts by looking at individual performance measures. In 1999, reporting on a self-assessment of its performance-based contracting practices, DOE concluded that while significant improvements had been made in the management of performance- based contracts, several issues had arisen. These issues included difficulties with measuring the results of basic science activities, establishing performance measures that were consistent with project baselines, determining the appropriate use of incentive fees for non- profit contractors, and balancing incentives that both challenge the contractor and continue to reward performance that has been sustained at an excellent level. In its 1999 review of project management at DOE, the National Research Council found that DOE did not always take advantage of the performance-based incentive approach and did not have standard methods for measuring project performance. The council’s 2001 follow- up assessment stressed the importance of using methods such as performance-based contracting to focus contractors on achieving desired results. The council added that success would be determined by how well these methods are followed and recommended that DOE strengthen its performance-based contracting guidance and practices. In response to these and other criticisms of its performance-based incentives, DOE has taken several actions that include issuing criteria for a performance incentive development process at the field office level and focusing on developing performance incentives more directly linked to a site’s strategic objectives. For example, DOE officials said that multi-year incentives in the Hanford contract and multi-site incentives that tie together activities at four production sites—Kansas City in Missouri, Savannah River in South Carolina, Pantex in Texas, and Y-12 at Oak Ridge, Tennessee—strive to establish the strategic focus that was absent from performance incentives in earlier contracts. DOE officials pointed out that, with these new incentives, greater progress was being made. For example, the Hanford site had reached its cleanup goals for fiscal year 2001. However, it remains to be seen if contractors will meet milestones throughout the contracts’ full length and, if they do not, if DOE will require contractors to forfeit the provisional fee payments as allowed under the contracts. Although DOE has made strides in implementing its contract reform initiatives and has reviewed the performance measures in many of its contracts, the department has developed little objective information to demonstrate whether the reforms have resulted in improved contractor performance. In the early years of contract reform, DOE measured progress in terms of developing and issuing new contracting policies and guidance. As new policies were established, the department also focused on assessing its progress in implementing these policies in key areas of competition and performance-based contracting. More recently, DOE has reviewed many of its site contracts to determine, among other things, whether the performance incentives are working properly. While these steps are useful, this information does not help DOE determine outcomes—whether, for example, competing more contracts resulted in more favorable contract terms for the government or better performance from its contractors. DOE program managers and procurement officials at DOE headquarters and several sites believe that contract reforms have resulted in improved contractor performance, and they cite a number of examples where they believe contractor performance has improved. However, there are also numerous examples of contractors who performed poorly. Furthermore, DOE’s February 2002 review of its Environmental Management program observed that significant progress in cleanup and risk reduction had not been achieved despite the performance-based contracting approach. Since DOE does not have measures to determine whether the contract reform initiatives had resulted in improved performance, we examined the extent of cost overruns and schedule delays on a number of DOE’s major projects as a partial indicator of success. For these projects, cost and schedule data showed no improvement when compared to similar data in 1996. While this performance information provides only a limited view of department- wide contractor performance, it does raise questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the reform initiatives. At the outset of contract reform, DOE established specific action steps and related time frames for changing its contracting practices. For example, DOE set a goal of developing guidance by August 1994 for increasing competition in awarding contracts. Subsequently, DOE proposed new regulations concerning contract reforms in the areas of competition, performance-based contracting and fee policies. As the department’s contract reform activities shifted from issuing guidance to restructuring actual contracts, officials began to monitor the extent to which its contracting organizations adopted DOE’s contracting policy changes in key reform areas. Because the contract cycle for the large site contracts was so long—typically contracts were renewed about every 5 years—DOE encouraged early incorporation of contract reform principles as each contract came up for renewal. Over the 8 years since the contract reform initiative was introduced, DOE has primarily gauged its progress by monitoring implementation of the reforms and reviewing individual contracts rather than by developing objective measures to determine whether the reforms have resulted in improved contractor performance. In addition to tracking the number of contracts that incorporated the new requirements to use competition and performance-based features, the department reviewed the implementation of performance-based contracting for many of its major contracts. Some examples of DOE’s monitoring activities include: DOE’s annual performance reports required under the Government Performance and Results Act contained measures for both competing major site contracts and converting them to performance-based contracts. In 1999, DOE reported that it exceeded the goal of awarding at least 50 percent of the major site contracts using competitive procedures. In the reports for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, DOE met its performance goals to convert all major site contracts awarded in each year to performance-based contracts. DOE’s Office of Procurement and Assistance Management monitored the contracts awarded at major sites. For the years 1997 through 2000, the office reported that DOE met its annual goal of awarding contracts that were performance-based at all of the major sites. DOE maintains a Web site that provides information on the status of its procurement goals. These goals include increasing the use of competition in awarding contracts and of performance-based concepts in those contracts. DOE’s Web site reports that as of 2001, 26 of its major site and facility contracts were competed and that 100 percent of these major contracts are performance-based. In 1997, the department’s self-assessment of contract reform determined that progress had been made in implementing contract reforms across the complex. However, the report noted difficulties in identifying and quantifying contract reform data and recommended on- going analysis of key reform areas such as the effectiveness of fixed- price contracting. In both 1997 and 1999, the department reported on its use of performance-based incentives in major site contracts. The department documented considerable progress in developing guidance and in incorporating performance-based incentives but also found that early incorporation of performance-based concepts had resulted in some poorly structured incentives. For example, performance incentives were sometimes overly focused on process milestones rather than outcomes. The 1997 report recommended issuing guidance on how to restructure performance objectives, but not on how to assess the effectiveness of the restructured incentives. The 1999 report concluded that the quality of contractor performance incentives had improved and that the performance incentives were incorporated into contracts in a more timely manner. The report further stated that the best measure of the effectiveness of the incentives was improvement in contractor performance. The report discussed specific contracts but did not present overall data on contractor performance. Procurement and program officials in headquarters continue to be actively involved in developing and reviewing performance measures in major site contracts. DOE officials said this oversight is improving the quality of performance incentives and providing valuable information on lessons learned. They acknowledged, however, that DOE has not developed objective information on the outcomes associated with the reforms. Such results-oriented information is important to determine the extent to which the contract changes have resulted in improved contractor performance. Although objective performance information focusing on results is not available, DOE program managers and procurement officials at both DOE headquarters and field operations offices believe that contract reforms have made a difference. In support of this view, DOE officials generally provide examples that they believe demonstrate improved contractor performance. For example, officials at DOE’s Albuquerque operations office pointed out that after competing the contract for the Pantex site, the new contractor met required production levels that were not achieved by the previous contractor. These officials also mentioned that the poor performance by the previous contractor was one of the deciding factors in competing the contract for the Pantex site. In addition to the examples of improved performance provided by DOE officials, DOE’s 1999 review of its performance-based contracting practices reported that “anecdotal evidence supports that the proper use of well-structured performance-based incentives is leading to improvements in performance at some DOE sites.” One of the examples cited in this internal review was improved performance at the Rocky Flats site under a performance-based contract established in 1995. Under the previous contract with a broad statement of work, the contractor was primarily safeguarding and maintaining facilities at the site, and no buildings had been decontaminated, demolished, and removed. When DOE competed the contract in 1995 and selected a new contractor, DOE also incorporated performance measures into the contract. Consistent with these measures, the new contractor decontaminated, demolished, and removed six buildings during fiscal year 1996 and 12 during fiscal year 1998. Other examples demonstrate, however, that the instances DOE cites are not necessarily representative of the overall performance of DOE’s contractors. Examples of poor performance by DOE’s contractors include the following: DOE has experienced major cost overruns and schedule delays on the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. This facility, the size of a football stadium, is designed to produce intense pressures and temperatures to simulate in a laboratory the thermonuclear conditions created in nuclear explosions. DOE considers the facility to be an essential component of the program to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. Although DOE had incorporated performance-based measures and incentives into the overall contract with the University of California, which operates the laboratory and manages the construction project, performance problems still occurred. We reported in August 2000 that the estimated cost of this facility had increased from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion and that the scheduled completion date had been extended by 6 years to 2008. We attributed these major cost and schedule changes to inadequate management by the contractor and DOE oversight failures. We also found that the performance-based contract placed little emphasis on the National Ignition Facility project even though it dominated the laboratory’s budget and mission. DOE withheld $2 million of the fiscal year 1999 performance fee in recognition of the “significant mission disruption” caused by problems with this project. DOE officials said that the department has since modified the performance-based contract to increase the emphasis on this project and has taken additional steps to improve both contractor management and DOE oversight. DOE has had problems with cost and schedule performance on its contract for the Mound site in Ohio. In August 1997, DOE awarded a cost-plus-award fee performance-based contract for the accelerated cleanup of the Mound site. This contract called for cleaning up the site and transferring facilities to the local community by no later than September 2005 at a total estimated cost of $427 million. In May 2001, DOE’s Office of Inspector General reported that the department and the contractor had committed to that schedule without knowing whether the date was achievable and that the cost and schedule had been established with limited knowledge of the soil and building contamination. The report added that completion of this work was estimated for December 2009 at a cost of over $1 billion. DOE is becoming aware of the problems with relying heavily on anecdotal information when trying to assess outcomes. Officials in one of DOE’s largest program offices—Environmental Management, representing almost a third of the department’s overall budget—recently reported fundamental problems with their program, and with the department’s ability to manage for results. In a February 2002 review, the office stated that although the Environmental Management program had spent over $60 billion since 1989, little progress had been made toward cleaning up radioactive and hazardous wastes resulting from over 50 years of producing nuclear weapons, or toward reducing risks to the public and the environment.During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, however, most of the contractors at Environmental Management sites had earned more than 90 percent of their available performance incentive fee, indicating that the contractors were successfully achieving the performance goals established in their contracts. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management reported that if such “successes” can take place without significant progress in cleanup and risk reduction, the program has been using the wrong set of indicators to measure success. She added that Environmental Management program indicators “measured process, not progress, opinions, not results.” Among the conclusions in the report was that the Environmental Management program needed to significantly improve its management of performance-based contracts, focus on accomplishing measurable results, and align contractors’ performance fees with end points rather than intermediate milestones. Based on our review of the performance of selected projects, it does not appear that DOE’s contractors have significantly improved their performance since 1996. Because we could not determine whether DOE’s contract reform initiatives had resulted in improved performance using the department’s measures, we reviewed DOE’s ongoing projects to assess whether they were experiencing cost overruns or schedule delays. We compared current ongoing DOE projects with estimated total costs exceeding $200 million with similar information we developed in 1996 on projects with estimated total costs exceeding $100 million. In both 1996 and 2001, over half of the projects we reviewed had both schedule delays and cost increases. Furthermore, as shown in table 3, the proportion of projects experiencing cost increases of more than double the initial cost estimates or schedule delays of 5 years or more increased during the 6-year period. For example, the initial cost estimate in 1998 for the spent nuclear fuels dry storage project at Idaho Falls, Idaho, was $123.8 million with a completion date of 2001. Currently, the cost estimate for this project is $273 million with a completion date of 2006. Appendix II contains additional information on DOE’s ongoing major projects as of December 2001. The projects we reviewed—with estimated costs ranging from $270 million to $8.4 billion—may not be representative of all DOE projects. Although this comparison provides only a limited measure of contractor performance, it does raise questions about the overall impact of DOE’s contract reform initiative on improving contractor performance. The problems with DOE’s ability to track the results of contract reform reflect a broader need to develop an approach to managing its initiatives that is more consistent with best practices. As part of our review, we looked at best practices for managing improvement initiatives. We found that high-performing organizations use a systematic results-oriented management approach that includes defining goals for the initiative and gauging progress towards those goals. They also use information on results to continuously adjust the implementation of the initiative and sustain improvements. DOE’s approach to contract reform did not incorporate these best practices, and its emphasis on measuring progress in terms of implementation indicated a focus primarily on contract reform itself as a goal rather than improved performance. Furthermore, DOE faces the same fundamental challenge—lack of a results-oriented approach—in several other management improvement initiatives that, if successful, could enhance its contract reform efforts. DOE’s approach to implementing its contract reform initiatives has not followed best management practices. In our review of authoritative literature we found that leading organizations were able to sustain such management improvement initiatives by using a systematic, results- oriented approach that incorporated a rigorous measurement of progress. Such an approach typically included the following steps: (1) define clear goals for the initiative, (2) develop an implementation strategy that sets milestones and establishes responsibility, (3) establish results-oriented outcome measures to gauge progress toward the goals, and (4) use results- oriented data to evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative and make additional changes where warranted. While DOE followed an implementation strategy for its contract reform initiatives, it implemented those initiatives largely without clearly defining goals, gauging progress toward those goals with results-oriented measures, or using results- oriented data to evaluate the effectiveness of its reforms. Although DOE had set general, overarching goals for its contract reform efforts, the department did not further define those goals. As stated in the 1994 report of the Contract Reform Team, the overall goal of contract reform was to make the department’s contracting process “…work better and cost less.” The secretary’s preface to the report presented the fundamental problem: “DOE is not adequately in control of its contractors. As a result, the contractors are not sufficiently accountable to the department, and we are not in a position to ensure prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars in pursuit of our principle missions.” However, DOE did not further align those broad goals in relation to the specific contract reform efforts. For example, the department did not frame its contract reform initiatives to increase competition in terms of improved contractor accountability, better performance, or reduced costs. While increasing the number of competitively awarded contracts is a positive development, it does not by itself indicate that the department’s contracting processes work better or cost less. DOE was effective at establishing an implementation strategy that set milestones and assigned responsibility for carrying it out. For example, DOE’s February 1994 report by its contract reform team contained 48 specific reform actions, each containing a required action, establishing a deadline, and assigning a specific DOE office with responsibility for developing the reform action. These reform actions, for the most part, involved developing policies, procedures, guidance, and plans to implement reforms such as competitive procurements and performance incentives. Our 1996 assessment of DOE progress toward implementing those goals found that DOE had completed 47 of 48 reform actions. Since that time, DOE has continued to set milestones and assign responsibility for its reform initiatives. For example, following an internal review in 1997, the department developed another series of actions to improve its implementation of reform initiatives pertaining to performance-based incentives. Those actions also had milestones for completion and assigned responsibility for carrying them out. DOE did not establish results-oriented outcome measures for its contract reform initiatives. Instead, as discussed earlier, DOE generally focused on measuring the progress of implementing its reform initiatives and reviewing individual contracts, but did not develop ways to gauge progress towards its overarching reform goals of making contracting work better and cost less. A shortcoming of goals defined so generally is the lack of objective ways in which to measure progress in meeting those goals. Translating the general goal of “working better” into a more specific objective, such as having contractors complete a greater number of their projects on time and within budget, would have helped the department to identify ways it could measure results and, therefore, gauge progress towards the goals of contract reform. Finally, DOE does not have the results-oriented data to evaluate the effectiveness of its contract reform initiatives. Because the department did not develop clear goals and results-oriented measures, it does not have the results-oriented data necessary to systematically review progress, take corrective action, and reinforce success. Although DOE has received feedback on its reform efforts from internal reviews such as self- assessment reports and external reports by the DOE Inspector General, GAO, and others, these outside reviews are not a substitute for a systematic feedback process. Despite not following best practices for reform initiatives, DOE has taken steps to strengthen the management and oversight of its activities. For example, DOE has recently taken steps to integrate contract, project, and financial management functions under a single office—the Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer. DOE officials believe that this action will improve the coordination, oversight, and control of these important activities. Although DOE’s contract reform initiative has focused on increasing competition and holding contractors more accountable for results, DOE recognizes that contract reform by itself is not enough to ensure that improved contractor performance actually occurs. DOE has begun several other initiatives that, if successfully implemented, could enhance its contract reform efforts. These initiatives include efforts to strengthen its management of projects, develop and use information systems for oversight and control, and improve the training and expertise of the DOE staff overseeing contractor activities. We conducted only a limited review of these initiatives and did not fully assess DOE’s implementation against all four steps in a “best practices” approach. Nevertheless, we identified instances where, as with the contract reform initiative, DOE’s management of the initiative fell short of best management practices in one or more areas. Table 4 below outlines these initiatives, how they could enhance the contract reform efforts, and the potential management weakness that could limit their effectiveness. Although none of these initiatives have been fully implemented, their effectiveness may be limited by the same lack of a results-oriented approach to managing the initiative and sustaining improvement as does the department’s contract reform efforts. Poor performance by DOE contractors and inadequate DOE management and oversight of those contractors led us to conclude in 1990 that DOE’s contracting practices were at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Subsequently, DOE began its contract reform initiative to improve the performance and accountability of its contractors. Although DOE has undertaken a number of reforms over the years and has monitored its progress in implementing those reforms, it has no good measure of the results of the reforms. Aside from individual examples of good or poor performance on specific projects, DOE cannot tell, for example, if the contract reforms have resulted in better performance by its contractors or more favorable contract terms for the government. Limited evidence we developed suggests that contractors managing DOE’s major projects are performing no better in 2001 than on similar projects in 1996. DOE faces a fundamental challenge to ensuring the effectiveness of its contract reform initiative—developing an approach to managing the initiative that is more consistent with the best practices of high-performing organizations. DOE’s practices in managing its contract reform initiative, as well as its other initiatives such as project management, that could also help to improve contractor performance, fall short of the best practices followed by high-performing organizations. Unless DOE strengthens the way in which it manages initiatives such as contract reform, DOE may not be able to fully realize the benefits of these initiatives and ensure that its programs are adequately protected from fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. To improve the effectiveness of DOE’s contract reform initiative, as well as other management improvement initiatives, we recommend that the department develop an approach to implementing its initiatives that incorporates best practices including the key elements of (1) clearly defined goals, (2) an implementation strategy that sets milestones and establishes responsibility, (3) results-oriented outcome measures, and (4) a mechanism that uses results-oriented data to evaluate the effectiveness of the department’s initiatives and to take corrective actions as needed. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy for its review and comment. DOE’s Director, Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer responded that DOE had three main concerns about our report but agreed with our recommendation that DOE develop an approach to its management improvement initiatives, such as contract reform, that is more consistent with the practices of high- performing organizations. DOE’s first concern was that the report characterizes contract reform as DOE’s fundamental management challenge but the report also discusses program and project management issues. DOE believes this creates the misperception that the procurement system can be used to address the myriad of issues facing the department. We believe that our report fairly and accurately describes the context of contract management in DOE. Our report identifies contract management as a major management challenge for DOE, and one that we have reported on for over 10 years. The report does not suggest that contract management is DOE’s primary or most fundamental management challenge. In fact, we have issued other reports such as our December 2001 report on DOE’s major mission, structure, and accountability problems that discuss more fundamental management issues. However, within the context of those more fundamental management challenges, DOE can and should strive to effectively manage its contracts. Our report does not imply that effective contract management will solve the other problems facing the department. In fact, the report discusses initiatives other than contract reform that are under way at DOE, including the project management initiative, because those initiatives could also have an impact on the results of the contract reform initiative. DOE’s second concern was that our report concluded that its contract reform initiative was not managed in a systematic manner. DOE said that its 1994 contract reform initiative was managed systematically and included top management oversight, a matrixed implementation team, clearly defined goals and objectives, an implementation strategy, and identified outcomes. DOE also said it used internal assessments of the effectiveness of specific reform initiatives. Our analysis involved comparing DOE’s approach to contract reform with the best practices for managing improvement initiatives followed by high-performing organizations. That comparison showed that DOE’s approach to contract reform, and to several other management improvement initiatives, was not consistent with those best practices, particularly in the areas of defining measurable goals, establishing results-oriented outcome measures, or developing results-oriented data with which to measure the effectiveness of the initiatives. We revised our report to clarify this point. DOE also questioned how we could criticize its approach to contract reform when we had recommended in earlier reports that it pursue contract reform. Our report does not question the need for contract reform in DOE or the components of DOE’s reform initiative, such as increasing competition and the use of performance-based contracts. Rather, our report assesses what progress DOE has made in implementing the initiatives, whether the initiatives have resulted in improved contractor performance, and any challenges DOE faces in ensuring that its contract reform initiatives are effective. DOE’s third concern was that the report identifies a limited number of projects to support a conclusion that DOE’s contract management system is in trouble. DOE believes the problems are more likely due to program and project management issues and the risks generally associated with unique, technically complex projects and DOE’s funding and political environment. We believe that our report fairly characterizes DOE’s contract management system. Our report clearly states that DOE has developed little objective information to demonstrate whether its contract reforms have improved contractor performance. We pointed out that anecdotal examples can be used to illustrate both improved contractor performance and continued poor contractor performance. And we identify other evidence to suggest that contractor performance may not have improved. We also acknowledged that other factors, such as DOE’s approach to managing projects, could also affect the outcome of DOE’s contract reform efforts. Regarding our recommendation that DOE develop an approach to implementing its management improvement initiatives that includes the key elements found in the best practices of high-performing organizations, DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that it would incorporate our observations and recommendation into its future improvement efforts. DOE also provided technical corrections, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOE’s written comments on our draft report are included in appendix III. We conducted our review from October 2001 through August 2002, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix IV provides details on our scope and methodology. This report contains a recommendation to you. As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and to the House Committee on Government Reform not later than 60 days from the date of this letter and 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. Bechtel Hanford Inc. Fluor Hanford Inc. Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC Southeastern Universities Research Association Honeywell Federal Manufacturing and Technologies KAPL, Inc. BWXT of Ohio Midwest Research Institute Bechtel Nevada Corp. Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC BWXT Pantex, LLC Princeton University Sandia Corporation Westinghouse Savannah River Co. The following table shows the original and current cost estimates and completion dates for ongoing DOE projects with estimated costs greater than $200 million. The table does not include 10 additional DOE projects with estimated costs greater than $200 million because the projects were suspended or only recently started as of December 2001. To assess the progress that DOE has made since 1996 in implementing contract reform initiatives in the key areas of developing alternative contracting approaches, increasing competition, and using performance- based contracts, we reviewed DOE’s three self-assessment reports on contract reform efforts and GAO and DOE Office of Inspector General reports on DOE contract and project management since 1996. We also interviewed officials from DOE’s Offices of Contract Management and Procurement and Assistance Policy, and procurement officials with the National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within DOE, has its own procurement organization. However, since both entities follow the same policies, regulations, and guidance, we have not made a distinction in this report between contracts and projects of the two organizations. To assess the extent to which DOE had incorporated the key contract reforms into its major facility contracts, we obtained information on 33 contracts that DOE’s headquarters procurement office identified as site or facility management contracts. We reviewed the contract award history of these major facility contracts, to determine which contracts had been competed as of 1996 and as of 2001. To qualify as a competitively awarded contract, DOE must have issued a request for proposals and a public announcement inviting proposals. We also obtained data on annual budgets and fees available and earned for these same contractors for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. We did not attempt to validate this information provided by DOE. In addition, we reviewed documentation for major facility contracts obtained from DOE’s Albuquerque Operations Office, Richland Operations Office, and the Office of River Protection. To determine the extent to which these initiatives have resulted in improved contractor performance, we interviewed DOE officials from the Office of Contract Management and the three largest program offices— Environmental Management, Defense Programs, and Science. In addition, we interviewed procurement and program office officials at DOE’s Albuquerque Operations Office, Richland Operations Office, and the Office of River Protection. We reviewed documents they provided, including the procurement organization’s balanced scorecard. In addition, we reviewed DOE’s February 2002 review of the Environmental Management program, and numerous GAO and Inspector General reports. Because DOE did not have objective results-oriented measures of contractor performance, as a potential indicator of that performance, we developed information as of December 2001 on the cost and schedule performance of DOE’s ongoing projects and compared that information with similar information we developed in 1996 on DOE major system acquisitions. In 1996, DOE categorized a “major system acquisition” as a project with a total project cost greater than $100 million. When we began our review in January 2002, we learned that DOE had since raised the threshold of “major project” to $400 million. Since our compilation of DOE reported data revealed only 19 ongoing projects that meet the current $400 million threshold (nine of which had recently started or were on hold), we expanded our scope to projects with total project costs greater than $200 million, in order to compare results on a similar number of projects. Those projects were under the management and oversight of DOE’s site contractors or under privatization projects under DOE’s oversight. There may be other projects with total project costs greater than $200 million, but they were not identified by DOE during our review. Because DOE does not maintain centralized data on its projects, we obtained information from project management offices within DOE and its National Nuclear Security Administration. We did not verify the data obtained from DOE, but we did examine the reasonableness of these data based on information in prior GAO reports and audits. For consistency, we used, when available, preliminary budget estimates submitted to the Congress as the basis for original cost estimates and completion dates, comparing those to current cost estimates and completions dates as of December 2001. For this report, we used, wherever possible, the projects’ “total project cost,” which includes construction and operating funds. Where these costs are not available, we used the “total estimated cost,” which includes construction costs. We have footnoted the latter. (See appendix II.) To identify the challenges, if any, that DOE faces in ensuring the effectiveness of its contract reform initiatives, we reviewed the reports of the National Research Council on improving DOE project management. In addition, we reviewed reports and other documentation from the National Academy of Public Administration, the Project Management Institute, and prior GAO work to develop best practices criteria for managing improvement initiatives. We compared DOE’s implementation of its contract reform initiative to these best practices criteria to determine areas of concern. To identify the other management improvement initiatives that could impact contract reform, we reviewed the reports of the National Research Council, GAO and Inspector General; the President’s Management Agenda for fiscal year 2002; and DOE’s 5-year workforce restructuring plans. We also interviewed DOE officials in the Office of Engineering and Construction Management and the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation. We conducted our review from October 2001 through August 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to those named above, Carole Blackwell, Robert Crystal, Doreen Feldman, Molly Laster, Patricia Rennie, Carol Shulman, Stan Stenersen, and Arvin Wu made key contributions to this report. | The Department of Energy (DOE), the largest civilian contracting agency in the federal government, relies primarily on contractors to operate its sites and carry out its diverse missions, such as maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile, cleaning up radioactive and hazardous wastes, and performing research. Although federal law generally requires federal agencies to use competition in selecting a contractor, until the mid-1990s, DOE contracts for the management and operation of its sites generally fit within an exception that allowed for the use of noncompetitive procedures. Since 1996, DOE has made progress toward implementing contract reform initiative in three key areas--developing alternative contracting approaches, increasing competition, and using performance-based contracts. However, DOE continues to encounter challenges in implementing these initiatives. Although DOE has made strides in implementing contract reform initiatives, it is difficult to determine whether contractors' performance has improved because objective performance information is scarce. Over the past 8 years, DOE has primarily gauged progress by measuring its implementation of the reforms, such as the number of contracts competed each year, and by reviewing individual contract performance incentives. DOE faces a fundamental challenge to ensuring the effectiveness of its contract reform initiatives--developing an approach to managing its initiatives and sustaining improvements that would incorporate the best management practices of high-performing organizations. These practices include four key elements: (1) clearly defined goals; (2) an implementation strategy that sets milestones and establishes responsibility; (3) results-oriented outcome measures, established early in the process; and (4) systematic use of results-oriented data to evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative and make additional changes where warranted. |
U.S. And Philippines To End 117-Year-Old Feud As Church Bells Return
This week the United States and the Philippines end a 117-year-old feud. Church bells carted off by American soldiers during the U.S.-Philippines War will be formally handed in at a Manila air base.
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
This week, the United States and the Philippines end a 117-year-old feud over church bells. American soldiers seized the bells during the U.S.-Philippines War. And now those bells will be formally returned at a Manila air base.
NPR's Julie McCarthy traveled to the hometown of the bells and has this story.
JULIE MCCARTHY, BYLINE: Folklore of Balangiga...
(SOUNDBITE OF BELLS RINGING)
MCCARTHY: ...Holds that the clanging today from the belfry of St. Lawrence the Martyr Church is nothing compared to the tolling of the heavy bells the Americans carted off as war booty during the U.S.-Philippine War.
When the United States formally hands them back more than a century later, it will right a wrong for this quaint town in a frenzy about recovering the pilfered bells.
Resident Fe Campanero says time has not diminished their meaning.
FE CAMPANERO: They represent our quest for freedom. They represent our courage. They represent our faith.
MCCARTHY: The United States succeeded Spain as the new colonial power. Fighting flared across the country as Filipino nationalists fought for independence. Historian Xiao Chua says the death toll from what he calls the forgotten war was staggering.
XIAO CHUA: People do not remember that a lot of people died. Hundreds of thousands were killed.
MCCARTHY: It was 1901 when Balangiga put itself in the crosshairs, staging an attack against American soldiers occupying the town. And signaling the start of the uprising, the church bells.
Fe Campanero is the descendant of the only woman who participated in the plot. The night before the assault, men disguised as women crept past unsuspecting soldiers. The next morning, bells pealing, Campanero's great-great-aunt charged from the church.
CAMPANERO: She was waving the rosary beads around, signaling the guerrillas to go for the attack.
MCCARTHY: The native fighters killed 48 U.S. servicemen - two-thirds of the unit - the bloodiest defeat of the U.S. since Custer's Last Stand 25 years earlier. Americans called it a massacre and launched a chilling retaliation.
A kill order went out for all Filipino males 10 years old and above. The more you kill and burn, General Jacob Smith famously told his men, the more you please me.
But Chua says the most credible accounts suggest that the Americans did not wantonly kill civilians. Rather, they destroyed everything else.
CHUA: Because they were still mad, they burned the village, they killed the animals, they burned more crops. Basically, the whole of Samar was turned into howling wilderness.
MCCARTHY: From the charred St. Lawrence Church, the Americans carted off three bells - war booty, not melted down for munitions. Two bells have been at a U.S. Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., and the third with the U.S. Army in Korea.
Veterans in Wyoming put up stiff resistance to their return, but retired Navy Captain Dennis Wright argues that any U.S. claim on the basis of some deep attachment is suspect. He says the Wyoming bells sat unnoticed in a warehouse for decades. And researchers now believe it was the bell housed in Korea that signaled the Filipino attack.
Wright says the U.S. has returned many bells from other conflicts.
CAPTAIN DENNIS WRIGHT: These are about the only bells that people didn't want to relinquish. But church bells just belong in churches. They don't commemorate military deeds.
MCCARTHY: Speaking in Wyoming last month, Defense Secretary James Mattis tried to assuage those who fear that the U.S. loses something returning the bells.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JAMES MATTIS: Please hear me when I say that bells mark time, but courage is timeless.
MCCARTHY: Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez says his country doesn't begrudge those who don't want the bells returned. They saw them as a symbol of sacrifice, he says. Romualdez reflects on the handover with optimism for the sometimes-tense U.S.-Philippine relationship.
Rattled by China's inroads into the Philippines, he bats away questions about whether returning the bells now might be part of a U.S. thrust to use goodwill gestures to counter Chinese influence. Whatever the reason, he says, the bottom line is...
JOSE MANUEL ROMUALDEZ: The return of these bells will really give both countries a renewed friendship and mutual respect.
(SOUNDBITE OF CEMENT SANDING)
MCCARTHY: Workmen are busy burnishing Balangiga for the homecoming of its iconic bells. Resident Fe Campanero says it's time to put painful memories in the past.
CAMPANERO: We cannot rewrite history, but we can end this story with a beautiful note.
MCCARTHY: Everyone, she says, is a winner. Julie McCarthy, NPR News, Balangiga.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record. ||||| Philippine government officials inspect three church bells seized by American troops as war trophies more than a century ago, as they were returned to the Philippines Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018 in suburban... (Associated Press)
Philippine government officials inspect three church bells seized by American troops as war trophies more than a century ago, as they were returned to the Philippines Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018 in suburban Pasay city, southeast of Manila, Philippines. American occupation troops took the bells in 1901 from... (Associated Press)
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — For over a century, the Bells of Balangiga have not rung in the Philippines, a silence that the president last year called "painful." Now, the revered bells will once again be heard in the country.
Hundreds of Filipino villagers in 1901, armed with bolos and disguised as women, used one of Balangiga town's church bells to signal the start of a massive attack that wrought one of the bloodiest single-battle losses of American occupation forces in the Philippines. The U.S. Army brutally retaliated, reportedly killing thousands of villagers, as the Philippine-American War raged.
After the violence, the Americans took three church bells as spoils of war that Filipinos would demand for decades to be handed back.
On Tuesday, a giant U.S. Air Force cargo aircraft brought the Bells of Balangiga back to the Philippine capital in a poignant ceremony that saw U.S. defense officials and the American ambassador to Manila return the war relics 117 years after they were seized. A military brass band played the Philippine national anthem, followed by "The Star Spangled Banner."
The treaty allies then swept aside a dark episode in their long relationship with joint photographs and handshakes.
"It is my great honor to be here at this closing of a painful chapter in our history," U.S. Ambassador Sung Kim said. "Our relationship has withstood the tests of history and flourishes today."
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has said the handover is an important gesture of friendship and is in America's national security interest. Some U.S. veterans and officials had opposed the return of the bells, calling them memorials to American war dead.
At Tuesday's handover ceremony at a Philippine air force base, the bronze bells stood atop a red platform like silent symbols of a bygone era of hostilities, as American and Philippine flags flapped in the wind. Officials from both sides called for a minute of silence for the war dead.
The bells are revered by Filipinos as symbols of national pride, and their arrival on a U.S. C-130 plane and the ceremony were shown live on national TV. Two of the bells had been displayed for decades at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the third was with the U.S. Army in South Korea.
After being colonized by Spain for more than three centuries, the Philippines became a U.S. possession in 1898 in a new colonial era that began with the outbreak of the Philippine-American War.
American occupation troops seized the bells from a Catholic church following an attack by machete-wielding Filipino villagers, who killed 48 U.S. soldiers in Balangiga, on central Samar island off Leyte Gulf, according to Filipino historian Rolando Borrinaga.
The Americans retaliated, with a general, Jacob Smith, ordering troops to shoot villagers older than 10 and turn the island into a "howling wilderness," Borrinaga said. Thousands of villagers were reported to have been killed.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has had an antagonistic attitude toward the U.S. and has revitalized ties with China and Russia, asked Washington in his state of the nation address last year to "return them to us, this is painful for us."
"Give us back those Balangiga bells. ... They are part of our national heritage," Duterte said in the speech, attended by the U.S. ambassador and other diplomats.
Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said at Tuesday's ceremony that with the resolution of the issue, "It's time for healing, it is time for closure, it is time to look ahead as two nations should with a shared history as allies."
Duterte has referred to violence by Americans in Balangiga and on southern Jolo island in the early 1900s in public criticism of the U.S. government after it raised concerns about his brutal crackdown on illegal drugs in which thousands have died.
A breakthrough on the bells issue came with an amendment to a U.S. law banning the return of war relics and memorials to foreign countries. That allowed the homecoming of the Balanggiga bells, said Lorenzana, who saw the bells last year in Wyoming, where he was notified by Mattis of the U.S. decision.
Philippine officials led by Duterte are to turn over the bells on Saturday to officials and the church in Balangiga, a small coastal town where villagers, some in tears, applauded while watching troops on TV screens pry open the wooden crates containing the bells.
"The Bells of Balangiga will once again peal, it will still remind the people of Balangiga of what happened in the town square more than a century ago," Lorenzana said. "But we would also look at that history with more understanding and acceptance."
___
Associated Press journalists Bullit Marquez and Cecilia Forbes contributed to this report. ||||| MANILA — Three church bells taken from the central Philippines as war booty by American troops more than a century ago were flown to their original home Tuesday, ending a contentious flash point in relations between the two longtime military allies.
The bells were turned over by Sung Kim, the American ambassador, to the Philippine government, which had stepped up its efforts to recover the war artifacts since President Rodrigo Duterte took office two years ago.
American troops seized the bells in 1901 from the town of Balangiga on Samar Island, where they went to avenge the death of 48 fellow soldiers killed in an attack by Filipino guerrillas on an American garrison. The American troops were under orders to turn the area into a “howling wilderness” by killing every male citizen age 10 or older and capable of bearing arms.
The massacre was the deadliest of American troops since Col. George Armstrong Custer and his troops were slaughtered at the Battle of Little Bighorn 25 years earlier. ||||| Philippine government officials inspect three church bells seized by American troops as war trophies more than a century ago, as they were returned to the Philippines Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018 in suburban... (Associated Press)
Philippine government officials inspect three church bells seized by American troops as war trophies more than a century ago, as they were returned to the Philippines Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018 in suburban Pasay city, southeast of Manila, Philippines. American occupation troops took the bells in 1901 from... (Associated Press)
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — For over a century, the Bells of Balangiga have not rung in the Philippines, a silence that the president last year called "painful." Now, the revered bells will once again be heard in the country.
Hundreds of Filipino villagers in 1901, armed with bolos and disguised as women, used one of Balangiga town's church bells to signal the start of a massive attack that wrought one of the bloodiest single-battle losses of American occupation forces in the Philippines. The U.S. Army brutally retaliated, reportedly killing thousands of villagers, as the Philippine-American War raged.
After the violence, the Americans took three church bells as spoils of war that Filipinos would demand for decades to be handed back.
On Tuesday, a giant U.S. Air Force cargo aircraft brought the Bells of Balangiga back to the Philippine capital in a poignant ceremony that saw U.S. defense officials and the American ambassador to Manila return the war relics 117 years after they were seized. A military brass band played the Philippine national anthem, followed by "The Star Spangled Banner."
The treaty allies then swept aside a dark episode in their long relationship with joint photographs and handshakes.
"It is my great honor to be here at this closing of a painful chapter in our history," U.S. Ambassador Sung Kim said. "Our relationship has withstood the tests of history and flourishes today."
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has said the handover is an important gesture of friendship and is in America's national security interest. Some U.S. veterans and officials had opposed the return of the bells, calling them memorials to American war dead.
At Tuesday's handover ceremony at a Philippine air force base, the bronze bells stood atop a red platform like silent symbols of a bygone era of hostilities, as American and Philippine flags flapped in the wind. Officials from both sides called for a minute of silence for the war dead.
The bells are revered by Filipinos as symbols of national pride, and their arrival on a U.S. C-130 plane and the ceremony were shown live on national TV. Two of the bells had been displayed for decades at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the third was with the U.S. Army in South Korea.
After being colonized by Spain for more than three centuries, the Philippines became a U.S. possession in 1898 in a new colonial era that began with the outbreak of the Philippine-American War.
American occupation troops seized the bells from a Catholic church following an attack by machete-wielding Filipino villagers, who killed 48 U.S. soldiers in Balangiga, on central Samar island off Leyte Gulf, according to Filipino historian Rolando Borrinaga.
The Americans retaliated, with a general, Jacob Smith, ordering troops to shoot villagers older than 10 and turn the island into a "howling wilderness," Borrinaga said. Thousands of villagers were reported to have been killed.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has had an antagonistic attitude toward the U.S. and has revitalized ties with China and Russia, asked Washington in his state of the nation address last year to "return them to us, this is painful for us."
"Give us back those Balangiga bells. ... They are part of our national heritage," Duterte said in the speech, attended by the U.S. ambassador and other diplomats.
Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said at Tuesday's ceremony that with the resolution of the issue, "It's time for healing, it is time for closure, it is time to look ahead as two nations should with a shared history as allies."
Duterte has referred to violence by Americans in Balangiga and on southern Jolo island in the early 1900s in public criticism of the U.S. government after it raised concerns about his brutal crackdown on illegal drugs in which thousands have died.
A breakthrough on the bells issue came with an amendment to a U.S. law banning the return of war relics and memorials to foreign countries. That allowed the homecoming of the Balanggiga bells, said Lorenzana, who saw the bells last year in Wyoming, where he was notified by Mattis of the U.S. decision.
Philippine officials led by Duterte are to turn over the bells on Saturday to officials and the church in Balangiga, a small coastal town where villagers, some in tears, applauded while watching troops on TV screens pry open the wooden crates containing the bells.
"The Bells of Balangiga will once again peal, it will still remind the people of Balangiga of what happened in the town square more than a century ago," Lorenzana said. "But we would also look at that history with more understanding and acceptance."
___
Associated Press journalists Bullit Marquez and Cecilia Forbes contributed to this report. | It was the largest slaughter of American troops since Custer's Last Stand 25 years prior: The 1901 deaths of 48 soldiers who were occupying the town of Balangiga during the Philippine-American War. As the AP reports, hundreds of male villagers (and, per NPR, a single female) dressed as women, armed themselves with bolos, and sounded the signal to attack: the peal of one of the town's church bells. Then came revenge: The New York Times reports the responding US soldiers were ordered to kill every male 10 and older; they also took Balangiga's bells. On Tuesday, what President Rodrigo Duterte last year called "the spoils of war" were returned. Sung Kim, the US ambassador to the Philippines, said Duterte's plea for their return was hardly the first: The country's presidents have made such a request for nearly 30 years. But Kim said Duterte's forceful July 2017 words made a difference: "They are ours. They belong to the Philippines. They are part of our national heritage." At a ceremony in Manila Tuesday, Kim called it a "great honor to be here at this closing of a painful chapter in our history. Our relationship has withstood the tests of history and flourishes today." The bells—which had been kept at a US Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., and with the US Army in Korea—will be transferred to Balangiga on Saturday. |
In recent years, federal education legislation has placed an increased emphasis on assessment in schools. Perhaps most notably, Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ), has required all states that receive Title I-A funds to test all public school students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in the areas of reading and mathematics. These assessments are used as key indicators in an accountability system that determines whether schools are making progress with respect to student achievement. To receive Title I-A funding, states must also participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a standards-based national test given at grades 4 and 8. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446 ) requires states to use assessments to identify students with disabilities and track their progress according to individualized learning goals. In addition to assessments required by federal law, elementary and secondary school students generally participate in many other assessments, which range from small-scale classroom assessments to high-stakes exit exams. This report provides a framework for understanding various types of assessments that are administered in elementary and secondary schools. It broadly discusses various purposes of educational assessment and describes comprehensive assessment systems. Common assessment measures currently used in education are described, including state assessments, NAEP, and state exit exams. The report also provides a description and analysis of technical considerations in assessments, including validity, reliability, and fairness, and discusses how to use these technical considerations to draw appropriate conclusions based on assessment results. Finally, this report provides a brief analysis of the use of assessments in accountability systems, including implications for curriculum, students, and testing. While this report does not comprehensively examine all of the assessment provisions in federal education laws, it summarizes several of the major provisions and draws on examples from federal laws, such as IDEA and NCLB, to help situate assessment concepts in the context of federal policies. It should be noted that at this writing, NCLB provisions are still in effect in several states. Whereas in other states, alternative educational accountability systems are being developed in response to a flexibility package made available by the Secretary of Education (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) in September 2011. The flexibility package provides states with waivers exempting them from certain NCLB accountability requirements if, in their place, states develop alternative accountability systems. As it is not feasible to characterize the array of features associated with the accountability systems being developed across states, the accountability system employed under NCLB is the principal example used to discuss the application of assessments in accountability systems. A great many of the concepts related to the uses of assessments in NCLB are likely to be relevant to the use of educational assessments in other test-based accountability systems. Educational assessment is a complex endeavor involving gathering and analyzing data to support decision-making about students and the evaluation of academic programs and policies. The most common type of assessment used in current education policy is achievement testing. Although educational assessment involves more than achievement testing, this report will use the words "assessment" and "test" interchangeably. There are many ways to classify assessments in frameworks. The framework offered below is meant to provide a context for the remainder of the report and present an easily accessible vocabulary for discussing assessments. This framework addresses the various purposes of assessment, the concept of comprehensive assessment systems, and the scoring of assessments. After outlining a general assessment framework, this report will discuss current assessments in elementary and secondary schools, technical considerations in assessment, innovation in assessment, and the use of assessments in test-based accountability systems. A Glossary is provided at the end of this report to provide definitions of common assessment and measurement terms. The Glossary provides additional technical information that may not be addressed within the text of the report. An Acronym Reference is also provided at the end of this report to provide an easily accessible list of common education and testing acronyms. Educational assessment does not take place in a vacuum. Generally, assessments are designed with a specific purpose in mind, and the results should be used for the intended purpose. It is possible that a test was designed for multiple purposes, and results can be interpreted and used in multiple ways. Often, however, test results are used for multiple purposes when the test itself was designed for only one. This "over-purposing" of tests is a major issue in education and can undermine test validity. In the sections below, four general purposes of assessment are discussed: instructional, predictive, diagnostic (identification), and evaluative. Instructional assessments are used to modify and adapt instruction to meet students' needs. These assessments can be informal or formal and usually take place within the context of a classroom. Informal instructional assessments can include teacher questioning strategies or reviewing classroom work. A more formal instructional assessment could be a written pretest in which a teacher uses the results to analyze what the students already know before determining what to teach. Another common type of instructional assessment is progress monitoring. Progress monitoring consists of short assessments throughout an academic unit that can assess whether students are learning the content that is being taught. The results of progress monitoring can help teachers determine if they need to repeat a certain concept, change the pace of their instruction, or comprehensively change their lesson plans. Predictive assessments are used to determine the likelihood that a student or a school will meet a particular predetermined goal. One common type of predictive assessment used by schools and districts is a benchmark assessment, which is designed primarily to determine which students are on-track for meeting end-of-year achievement goals. Students who are not on-track to meet these goals can be offered more intensive instruction or special services to increase the likelihood that they will meet their goal. Similarly, entire schools or districts that are not on-track can undertake larger, programmatic changes to improve the likelihood of achieving the end goal. Diagnostic assessments are used to determine a student's academic, cognitive, or behavioral strengths and weaknesses. These assessments provide a comprehensive picture of a student's overall functioning and go beyond exclusively focusing on academic achievement. Some diagnostic assessments are used to identify students as being eligible for additional school services like special education services or English language services. Diagnostic assessments to identify students for additional school services can include tests of cognitive functioning, behavior, social competence, language ability, and academic achievement. Evaluative assessments are used to determine the outcome of a particular curriculum, program, or policy. Results from evaluative assessments are often compared to some sort of predetermined goal or objective. These assessments, unlike instructional, predictive, or diagnostic assessments, are not necessarily designed to provide actionable information on students, schools, or districts. For example, if a teacher gives an evaluative assessment at the end of a particular science unit, the purpose is to determine what the student learned rather than to plan instruction, predict future achievement, or diagnose strengths and weaknesses. Assessments in accountability systems are conducted for an evaluative purpose. These assessments are administered to determine the outcome of a particular policy objective (e.g., determining a percentage of students who are proficient in reading). For example, under NCLB, state assessments have been used for evaluative purposes to determine whether schools have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). State assessments will be discussed in more detail throughout this report. One assessment cannot serve all the purposes discussed above. A comprehensive assessment system is necessary to cover all the purposes of educational assessment. One type of comprehensive assessment system is a combination of formative assessments and summative assessments. Generally speaking, formative assessments are those that are used during the learning process in order to improve curriculum and instruction, and summative assessments are those that are used at the end of the learning process to "sum up" what students have learned. In reality, the line between a formative assessment and a summative assessment is less clear. Depending on how the results of an assessment are used, it is possible that one assessment could be designed to serve both formative and summative functions. The distinction, therefore, between formative and summative assessments often is the manner in which the results are used. If an assessment has been designed so that results can inform future decision making processes in curriculum, instruction, or policy, the assessment is being used in a formative manner (i.e., for instructional, predictive, and diagnostic purposes). If an assessment has been designed to evaluate the effects or the outcome of curriculum, instruction, or policy, the assessment is being used in a summative manner (i.e., for diagnostic or evaluative purposes). Formative assessment has received a lot of attention in recent years. That said, it is reasonably clear that there is not universal agreement over what constitutes a "formative assessment" in the field of education. It seems that teachers, administrators, policymakers, and test publishers use the term "formative assessment" to cover a broad range of assessments, from small-scale classroom assessments that track the learning of individual students to large-scale benchmark assessments that track the progress of a whole school or district to determine if they will meet certain policy goals. The confusion over exactly "What is formative assessment?" has led some in the testing industry to avoid the term altogether and others to offer alternative names for certain types of formative assessment. In this section, various types of assessments that have been described as formative assessments will be discussed, including classroom, interim, and benchmark assessments. Formative assessments are often used in the classroom. They can be as informal as teacher questioning strategies or as formal as written examinations. Teachers use formative assessments for both instructional and predictive purposes. The results of formative assessment can be used to determine deficits in a student's knowledge and to adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers may adjust their instruction by changing the pace of instruction, changing the method of delivery, or repeating previously taught content. After these adjustments, teachers may administer another assessment to determine if students are learning as expected. The process of administering assessments, providing feedback to the student, adjusting instruction, and re-administering assessments is what makes the assessment "formative." Perhaps in response to the apparent success of formative assessment at the classroom level, test publishers began promoting commercial formative assessment products in the form of interim assessments and benchmark assessments. Some testing experts believe that referring to interim and benchmark assessments as "formative" is inaccurate, but others believe that these assessments can be used in a formative way to determine how school or district practices need to change in order to meet policy goals. The latter position considers the use of interim or benchmark assessments as formative assessments at the school or district level as opposed to the classroom level. Instead of adjusting teaching practices to increase student learning, this type of formative assessment would require adjusting school or district practices to increase student achievement across the board. Interim and benchmark assessments can track the progress of students, schools, and districts toward meeting predetermined policy goals. For example, schools and districts have used benchmark assessments to determine if they are on-track to meet AYP goals as defined by NCLB. The term "interim assessment" has been suggested to characterize assessments that fall between those which are purely formative and summative assessments. Under this characterization, interim assessments are assessments used to track student achievement and to inform decisions at the classroom, school, or district level. Interim assessments can report on student achievement at the individual level or in the aggregate. The content and timing of the assessment is usually determined by the school or district, not the teacher, making it a less flexible classroom tool than a teacher-controlled, classroom-level formative assessment. Interim assessments can be used to inform classroom practice, but because teachers have less control over timing and content, the true value of interim assessment may lie at the school or district level. These assessments are usually used for predictive purposes—to determine whether a student, school, or district is likely to succeed on a later summative assessment and to identify those students who may need more intensive instruction. Another use of interim assessment may be to evaluate a short-term instructional program or a small aspect of the overall curriculum. A benchmark assessment is a type of interim assessment that is widely used in schools and districts. Like other types of interim assessment, benchmark assessments are primarily used to predict the likelihood of success on a later summative assessment and to identify those students who may need more intensive instruction. They are also used to determine whether a student, school, or district is on-track to meet certain policy objectives, such as AYP. Summative assessments are tests given at the end of a lesson, semester, or school year to determine what has been learned. Summative assessments are used for diagnostic or evaluative purposes. Most test results that are reported by the school or media are based on summative assessments—state assessments, NAEP, international assessments, and state exit exams. Some forms of summative assessment are considered "high-stakes" assessments because they have rewards and consequences attached to performance. For example, some states require students to pass high-stakes high school exit exams or end of course exams in order to graduate. Furthermore, under NCLB, all states used high-stakes assessments used to determine AYP. Although in this instance, the assessments have high stakes for schools and school districts, not for individual students. Not all summative assessments have high-stakes school or district consequences attached to the results. An end-of-unit mathematics test, for example, is a summative assessment used to determine a student's grade, but there are no school- or district-level consequences attached. On a larger scale, NAEP and international assessments are used to get an overall picture of national and international achievement, but, again, there are no major consequences associated with the results. Ideally, formative and summative assessments are administered in a comprehensive assessment system. In order for teachers and school administrators to use formative assessment to increase student achievement and predict outcomes on summative assessments, the two types of assessment must be closely aligned in terms of the test content and goals. One way to measure whether the assessments are in alignment is to determine the ability of a formative assessment to predict achievement on a summative assessment (i.e., determine predictive validity). The REL Mid-Atlantic conducted an analysis of the predictive validity of benchmark assessments. This analysis looked at the extent to which common, commercially developed benchmark assessments predicted performance on state assessments in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. A review of four common assessments found that only one of these benchmark assessments showed strong evidence of predictive validity with state assessments. Moreover, none of the benchmark assessments demonstrated evidence of predictive validity for state assessments in Maryland and New Jersey. The ability of benchmark assessments to predict later performance on state assessments, therefore, seems to depend heavily on the benchmark assessment used and the state in which the assessment takes place. If this pattern is indicative of national use of benchmark assessments, there is evidence to suggest that these benchmarks are not serving a formative function within a comprehensive assessment system. Without having a strong predictive relationship between benchmark assessments and state assessments, school and district personnel may be unable to use the information from the benchmark assessment to predict future achievement on summative assessments, such as state assessments used in accountability systems. Test scores are reported in a variety of ways. Sometimes scores may compare an individual to a group of peers in the form of standard scores or percentiles. Other times, scores may indicate a student is "proficient" or "advanced" in a certain subject. Misinterpreting test scores or misunderstanding the way in which scores are reported can lead to unintended negative consequences, such as making an inappropriate conclusion regarding the effectiveness of a program or policy. The following sections describe common methods of score reporting in educational assessment, including scores from norm-referenced tests (NRTs), scores from criterion-referenced tests (CRTs), performance standards, and professional judgment. A brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each method is provided. An NRT is a standardized test in which results compare the performance of an individual with the performance of a large group of students. NRTs are sometimes referred to as scores of "relative standing." NRTs compare individual scores to a normative sample, which is a group of students with known demographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, or grade in school). Comparisons are made using two statistical properties of the normative sample: the mean and the standard deviation. NRTs produce raw scores that are transformed into standard scores using calculations involving the mean and standard deviation. The standard score is used to report how a student performed relative to peers. Standard scores are often reported as percentiles because they are relatively easy for parents and educators to interpret, but there are many other types of standard scores that may be reported (e.g., z-scores, scale scores, or T-scores). Commercially available cognitive and achievement tests are often norm-referenced. For example, the Stanford Achievement Test Series (SAT10) is an NRT and was used in a national evaluation of the Reading First program. Language proficiency tests used to identify students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), such as the IPT Family of Tests, are NRTs. Tests to measure cognitive ability of students with disabilities, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), are also NRTs. NRTs are particularly useful due to their ease of administration and scoring. Commercially available NRTs usually require no further development or validation procedures, so they are relatively cost-effective and time-efficient. NRTs can be easily administered to large groups of students at the same time and are useful for making comparisons across schools, districts, or states. On the other hand, NRTs have been criticized for several reasons. Some criticize NRTs for measuring only superficial learning through multiple choice and short-answer formats instead of measuring higher-level skills such as problem solving, reasoning, critical thinking, and comprehension. Others have criticized NRTs for lacking instructional utility because they sample a wide range of general skills within a content area, but NRTs are rarely linked to the curriculum. In addition, results from NRTs can be difficult for educators to interpret because there is no designation of what score denotes mastery or proficiency. A CRT compares the performance of an individual to a predetermined standard or criterion. Like NRTs, CRTs are often standardized. They do not, however, report scores of "relative standing" against a normative sample. CRTs report scores of "absolute standing" against a predetermined criterion. CRTs are designed to determine the extent to which a student has mastered specific curriculum and content skills. "Mastery" of curriculum and content skills is usually determined through a collaborative process of professional judgment. Mastery can be defined in many ways. It may be defined as answering 80% of the items on an assessment correctly. Alternatively, it may be defined as meeting some level of proficiency within a content area based on an observation of the student performing the skills. Unlike NRTs, CRTs are not designed to differentiate between students or compare an individual student to a normative group. Because comparisons are not being made, CRTs report either scale scores or raw scores, depending on how the assessment was designed. CRT results may be reported as grades, pass/fail, number correct, percentage correct, or performance standards. They may be measured through the use of multiple choice formats, short answer, rating scales, checklists, rubrics, or performance-based assessments. CRTs are flexible and can be designed to meet various educational needs. The major advantage of CRTs is that they are versatile tests that can be used for instructional purposes. They can be directly linked to the curriculum, and the results from CRTs can be used for planning, modifying, and adapting instruction. Additionally, like commercially available NRTs, commercially available CRTs are relatively cost-effective and time-efficient. The disadvantage of CRTs is that they do not typically facilitate good comparisons across schools, districts, and states. When using CRTs, there is no normative sample, therefore, there is no common metric for comparisons. It is possible to design CRTs so that comparisons can be made, however, that would require (a) consistent standards across schools, districts, and states, and (b) consistent definitions of "mastery" across schools, districts, and states. Interest in CRTs increased throughout the 1990s due to the emphasis on standards-based reform in education. Performance standards are a type of score reporting that evolved from CRTs and standards-based reform. A CRT can often report results as either a scale score or a performance standard. A performance standard is a generally agreed upon definition of a certain level of performance in a content area that is expressed in terms of a cut score. The predetermined cut score denotes a level of mastery or level of proficiency within a content area. An assessment system that uses performance standards typically establishes several cut scores that denote varying levels of proficiency. For example, NAEP uses a system of performance standards with three achievement levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. Additionally, state assessments have used performance standards to determine AYP under the NCLB accountability system. Definitions are provided for each performance standard, describing the competencies and abilities associated with the label. Performance standards have the same advantages of CRTs. Performance standards can be directly linked to the curriculum and results can be used for planning, modifying, and adapting instruction. The main difference between reporting a score as a CRT or a performance standard is the "proficiency label," which can attach meaning to a score and provide an appropriate context. A CRT may report that a student scored 242 on a scale of 500, but the score of 242 may be meaningless to most educators and parents unless there is some context surrounding the score. Performance standards provide the context. If the proficiency cut score was predetermined to be 240, a score of 242 would be above the cut score, and therefore the student would be considered proficient in the content area. Although they provide a meaningful context for assessment results, performance standards are criticized for their somewhat arbitrary cut scores. Cut scores are usually determined through a process of consensus and professional judgment, but there is rarely any meaningful difference between the abilities of a student who scores just below the cut score and a student who scores just above the cut score. Consider the example above in which a score of 240 denotes "proficiency". One student may score 238 and not be considered proficient, while another student may score 242 and be considered proficient. In reality, the cut score of the performance standard may be making an inappropriate distinction between two students who have similar abilities. Another criticism of performance standards is that they are insensitive to student growth. Suppose the cut score for the "advanced" level is 300. A student in the previous example could move from a score of 242 to 299 within one year, making considerable progress; however, a score of 242 and a score of 299 are both considered to be within the same performance standard of "proficient." Occasionally, assessment calls for professional judgment. On a daily basis within classrooms, teachers ask questions and make judgments about students' knowledge based on students' responses. In some cases, teachers may use their professional judgment to refer a child for a special education evaluation or a language assessment. Another application of professional judgment may be the use of a rubric to evaluate a student's performance against a predetermined standard. Although scoring rubrics can be quite prescriptive, there are occasionally value-laden decisions that require teachers to make judgments about the degree to which a student met the standard. Professional judgment has the advantage of being directly tied to the curriculum and sensitive to individual student performance, however, it is subjective and susceptible to personal biases. Another type of professional judgment that is used in educational assessment is a process of professional consensus used to set performance standards. For example, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) is responsible for setting the policy for NAEP. One of the activities of NAGB is to set appropriate student achievement levels (i.e., performance standards) that denote varying levels of proficiency. This process of defining and reviewing performance standards includes the professional judgment of a representative panel of teachers, education specialists, and members of the general public. Students in elementary and secondary schools are assessed using a wide range of tests. The following sections describe some of the common types of assessments used in elementary and secondary schools; these assessments are situated within the framework described above. First, assessments that are required by federal law are discussed, followed by a discussion of assessments that are required by state policies, assessments that are administered at the discretion of local districts, and voluntary assessments. The first three sections provide a discussion of assessments that are or have been required by federal law: state assessments for AYP, NAEP, and assessments to identify students for special services. In the next section, state exit exams are discussed. These assessments are not required by federal law, but state policies often require that students participate in these assessments as a high school graduation requirement. Next, benchmark assessments are discussed. Benchmark assessments are also not required by federal law, but they are widely used by districts and states. The next section provides a discussion of international assessments. These assessments are voluntary assessments in which schools and students are periodically selected at random to participate. The final section describes the practice of linking assessments—a statistical technique used to compare scores across different tests. Since the reauthorization of the ESEA by the NCLB, a good deal of focus has been placed on state assessments used to calculate required annual progress (i.e., AYP). Under NCLB, states that participate in the Title I-A program have been required to administer standards-based assessments in reading and mathematics to students in each of grades 3-8, plus at least once in grades 10-12. Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, states were also required to administer standards-based science assessments at least once in each of three grade level ranges (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). NCLB provisions have required that at least 95% of all students (and at least 95% of students in all demographic subgroups used for AYP determinations) participate in the state assessment in order for a school or LEA to make AYP. NCLB has allowed states to develop individualized state standards and individualized state assessments that appropriately measure these standards. Results from the state assessments have been used in the determination of AYP within the NCLB accountability system. Although state assessments may be individualized, they have been subject to several legislative requirements. NCLB has required that state assessments be used for the purposes for which they are valid and reliable, and that they must meet professionally recognized technical standards. Under NCLB, assessments must be aligned with challenging academic content and academic achievement standards, and they must produce coherent results that report whether students attained the achievement standards. Achievement standards, under NCLB, must include, at a minimum, three levels. In a three-level system, these achievement levels are often referred to as basic, proficient, and advanced. NCLB has required the state educational agency (SEA) to provide evidence to the Secretary that the chosen assessments are consistent with the above requirements, including providing evidence of the technical quality of the instrument. Under NCLB, all students with disabilities have been required to participate in state assessments. The majority of students with disabilities have participated in the general state assessment; however, a subset of students with disabilities may take alternate assessments. The requirements for the administration of alternate assessments and the use of alternate assessments in the NCLB accountability system are outlined in regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education. In school year 2007-2008, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) reported data on various features of state assessments required under NCLB. The CCSSO reported that states were using both NRTs and CRTs in their state assessment systems. Under NCLB, if a state chooses to use an NRT, it must use an "augmented" NRT, which is aligned with state content and performance standards. In the 2007-2008 school year, at the elementary and middle school level, 2 states were using NRTs only, 35 states were using CRTs only, and 14 states were using a combination of NRTs and CRTs. At the high school level, 3 states were using NRTs only, 37 states were using CRTs only, and 11 states were using a combination of NRTs and CRTs. Examples of NRTs used for state assessments include the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the SAT 10. Examples of CRTs used for state assessments include the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP). The state assessments were using a variety of test formats. Of 42 states with reported data, 7 states were using multiple choice only, 1 state was using extended response only, and 34 states were using a combination of formats. Of the 34 states that were using a combination of testing formats, 34 states were using multiple choice, 31 states were using extended response, 24 states were using short answer, and 4 states were using fill-in-the blank. In September 2010, ED awarded grants to two consortia of states to develop new state assessments. Consistent with NCLB state assessment requirements, the consortia are developing reading and mathematics assessments for grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. At this time, 44 states and the District of Columbia have joined at least one of the two consortia working on developing common assessments. The goal of both consortia is to implement common assessments that are aligned with the common core standards for reading and mathematics by school year 2014-2015. State assessments are summative assessments used for evaluative purposes. Results from the augmented NRTs and CRTs are reported as the percentage of students reaching a performance standard (e.g., basic, proficient, advanced). Schools are held accountable for the percentage of students scoring "proficient" or above. The goal of NCLB is to achieve 100% proficiency by the end of school year 2013-2014. The percentage of proficient students cannot be compared across states. Because each state had the discretion to develop its own assessment and choose its own cut scores denoting proficiency, there is no common measure of proficiency. If a State A chose a low cut score to denote proficiency and State B chose a high cut score to denote proficiency, State A may have a higher percentage of students reaching proficiency than State B. It would not be appropriate to conclude, however, that State A had higher student achievement levels overall. The NAEP is a series of assessments that have been administered since 1969. NAEP tests are administered to students in grades 4, 8, and 12, and they cover a variety of content areas, including reading, mathematics, science, writing, and, less frequently, geography, history, civics, social studies, and the arts. NAEP policies are established by NAGB, which is responsible for selecting the areas to be assessed, designing the assessment methodology, and developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results. NAGB is an independent, bipartisan group of governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public. NAEP is administered uniformly to students within states (and some large urban districts) and serves as a common metric for understanding student achievement across the nation. NAEP is administered and scored by ED with assistance from contractors. There are several types of NAEP assessments. The NAEP national assessment began in 1969 and tests students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in all nine content areas (reading, mathematics, science, writing, geography, history, civics, social studies, and the arts); however, each subject is not assessed during every administration. The NAEP state assessment began in 1990. The state assessment is administered every other year to students in grades 4 and 8 in the areas of reading and mathematics. States that receive Title I-A funding under NCLB are required to participate in these assessments. The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) assessments are given every four years and track the trends in reading and mathematics achievement since the 1970s. It is administered to a nationally representative sample of students ages 9, 13, and 17. The LTT differs from other NAEP assessments in that it has used identical questions since its original administration. The consistency of the questions allow for tracking overall national progress over time. NAEP is a summative assessment used for evaluative purposes. NAEP is a CRT and, like state assessments, the results are reported as the percentage of students reaching a performance standard (e.g., basic, proficient, advanced). Unlike state assessments, however, the performance standards of basic, proficient, and advanced are consistent, which allows comparisons to be made across states. NAEP does not report results for individual students because no student is administered the entire NAEP assessment. Students who are selected to participate take only a sample of the possible items. The scores from all students are aggregated to produce results for groups and subgroups. NAEP reports achievement results for groups of students by grade and content area (e.g., grade 4 reading and grade 8 reading) and by subgroup (e.g., gender, ethnic minorities, students with disabilities). It is important to note that the meaning of "proficiency" is not consistent across state assessments and NAEP. For any given state, the percentage of students who are proficient in reading on the state assessment and the percentage of students who are proficient in reading on NAEP can vary greatly. As discussed earlier, states had the discretion to design their own assessments and choose their own cut scores to denote proficiency. State assessments were not based on NAEP assessment frameworks and states did not choose cut scores consistent with NAEP. It is possible, however, to compare NAEP scores across states. For example, it is valid to compare the percentage of proficient students on a NAEP 4 th grade reading assessment in State A to the percentage of proficient students on a NAEP 4 th grade reading assessment in State B. Schools are required by law to provide special services to eligible students with disabilities and LEP students. To receive special services through the schools, a student must be found "eligible" for services based on a battery of assessments. For eligible students with disabilities, IDEA requires that students receive special education and related services. For eligible LEP students, ESEA requires that students receive supplemental English language instruction. IDEA and ESEA provide general guidelines to determine a student's eligibility for services, but states and districts have some flexibility in the use and interpretation of assessments for eligibility determinations. To be covered under IDEA, a student with a disability must meet two criteria. First, the student must be in one of several categories of disabilities, and second, the student must require special education and related services as a result of the disability in order to benefit from public education. The law does not, however, provide educational definitions of these disability categories. Each state is required to develop its own educational definition of these disability categories outlined by IDEA. Because the definitions of these disability categories vary across states, the assessments used to identify a student with a disability is specific to the state and the suspected disability. Although the actual assessments can vary across states, IDEA specifies several requirements for special education evaluations. In conducting an evaluation, a local educational agency (LEA) must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent. The decision of which assessments to use depends on the disability in question and the domain to be assessed (i.e., functional, developmental, or academic). Most students with disabilities are assessed on a variety of skills and competencies outside of traditional academic assessments. For example, it is common in the assessment of students with disabilities to measure skills such as basic language, behavior and social competency, cognitive functioning, and motor skills. LEAs are responsible for interpreting the scores of these assessments and determining a student's eligibility for services based on state definitions of disability. ESEA defines an LEP student as a student whose native language is a language other than English and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may inhibit the individual from meeting proficient levels of achievement, succeeding in the classroom, or participating fully in society. The law does not provide national eligibility criteria for LEP students. Based on the federal definition, each state determines their own eligibility criteria for LEP students to receive supplemental English language instruction. Because the eligibility criteria vary across states, the assessments used to identify a student as an LEP student also varies across states. In general, there are two major components: a home language survey and an English language assessment. LEAs are responsible for interpreting the responses on the home language survey and interpreting scores on the English language assessment to determine LEP eligibility based on state criteria. In addition to this initial assessment, Title I-A of NCLB requires that LEP students be assessed annually in English language skills (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, and listening). Assessments used to identify students for special services can be used as either formative or summative assessments, depending on their purpose and administration. Regardless of whether the assessment is formative or summative, these assessments are used for diagnostic purposes in order to determine a comprehensive profile of strengths and weaknesses for individual students. These assessments are a mixture of NRTs and CRTs, depending on the needs of the student and the eligibility criteria of the state. Though not required by federal law, an increasing number of states require students to pass exit exams to graduate from high school. A state "exit exam" typically refers to one or more tests in different subject areas, such as language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. These tests can usually be taken more than once throughout high school. Exit exams can take several forms, including minimum competency exams, comprehensive exams, end-of-course exams, or some combination of the three. A minimum competency exam focuses on basic skills below the high school level. Comprehensive exams are aligned with state standards and typically assess 9 th or 10 th grade knowledge in several subject areas. End-of-course exams assess knowledge related to specific high school courses, such as Algebra I or U.S. History. In general, there has been a movement away from minimum competency exams toward comprehensive exams and end-of-course exams. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) publishes information state policies regarding high school exit exams annually. Very few studies of the impact of state exit exams on student achievement have been conducted. A recent national study examined the relationship between high school exit exams and achievement in reading and mathematics as measured by NAEP. The results of this study indicate that high school exit exams do not lead to increases in reading and mathematics achievement and may reduce graduation rates. Furthermore, authors of this study reported that students who receive a diploma in states with required exit exams are not more successful in the labor market than students who receive diplomas in states that do not require exit exams. Other state-level studies have reported similar findings. Several reports on California's exit exam found that the exit exam may increase dropout rates and decrease enrollment in postsecondary education. State exit exams are summative assessments used for evaluative purposes. These assessments have high stakes for individual students, but there are no school- or district-level consequences associated with the results. Most exit exams are CRTs, aligned with state standards and specific curricula. Because exit exams can be taken more than one time, it is possible that they serve as a formative assessment for instructional purposes, as well. Performance on the first exit exam could serve to modify or adapt instruction in a formative way. States' use of exit exams as a formative assessment, however, has not been studied. Benchmark assessments are mid-year assessments that are usually administered to determine whether a school is on-track to meet its end-of-year goals. They are used at the discretion of school administrators and the particular type of benchmark assessment is chosen at the local level. Since NCLB increased the consequences associated with performance on state assessments, there has been more demand for commercially developed benchmark assessments that are aligned with state content standards and assessments. Typically, SEAs or LEAs hire the original test publisher or an independent contractor to conduct alignment studies between benchmark assessments and state content standards. Examples of commercially developed benchmark assessments include 4Sight Math and Reading, STAR Math and Reading, Study Island Math and Reading, and TerraNova Math and Reading. Benchmark assessments are usually considered formative assessments and occasionally referred to as "interim assessments." Most benchmark assessments report scores as performance standards. They can be used for instructional purposes if teachers use the results to identify deficits in students' knowledge and modify their instruction accordingly. Benchmark assessments are also used for predictive purposes, and well-designed benchmark assessments are closely aligned with a state assessment so that schools can predict the likelihood of making desired progress or making AYP. International assessments allow educators, administrators, and policymakers to get a sense of how students in the United States perform relative to other countries. Since the mid-1990s, students in the United States have participated in several international assessments, including the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Participation in international assessments is voluntary and the countries that choose to participate can vary from one administration to the next. Generally, a representative sample of schools and a representative sample of students within schools are selected to participate in international assessments. The primary purpose of PISA is to report on broad subject-area "literacy" that is not directly tied to a particular curriculum or content framework. PISA assesses 15-year-olds' performance in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy. The first administration of PISA was in 2000; it is administered every three years. PIRLS is an assessment of reading achievement, behavior, and attitudes of 4 th grade students in the United States and students who are in the equivalent of 4 th grade in other countries. It was first administered in 2001 to students in 35 countries. PIRLS reports results in two ways. First, it reports national averages, which allow countries to be compared to each other. Second, PIRLS reports the percentage of students in each country that reach international benchmarks. Like PISA, PIRLS does not report results for individual students. TIMSS is an assessment of science and mathematics achievement of students in grades 4 and 8 in the United States and equivalent grades in other countries. It has been administered every four years since 1995. Like the other international assessments, TIMSS reports national averages which allow countries to be compared to each other, but it does not report results for individual students. Several states have started using TIMSS results in international benchmarking studies. Within the context of these studies, some states can compare student performance within their state to other countries that participated in TIMSS. The aforementioned international assessments are summative assessments used for evaluative purposes. Usually, international assessment results are reported as a simple rank ordering of countries taking the assessment. Results describe which countries scored above the "international mean" and which scored below the mean. Because the "international mean" is highly variable depending on the countries that participate from administration to administration, it is quite possible that any particular country can score above the mean on one administration and below the mean on the next administration. Furthermore, this shift can happen even when students in that country make large gains in achievement. Students in elementary and secondary schools participate in many different assessments. Although each assessment has a unique purpose, some feel that students are required to participate in too many assessments, potentially detracting from instructional time at school. Due, in part, to the time involved in administering assessments, there has been interest in statistically linking assessments so that results can be compared across different assessments. If linkages between assessments could be established, students could participate in one assessment, and the score could potentially be used to estimate how well they would score on other assessments. The process of linking assessments incorporates the use of statistical analyses to connect the scores from one test with those of another, regardless of the equivalence of the scales. The most common example of linking is the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales. These two systems express temperature using two different scales, but they are easily linked with a simple equation. This process is fairly simple because there is a common understanding of what constitutes "temperature." The process of linking educational assessments, however, is much more complex because there is less agreement on what constitutes "reading achievement" or "mathematics achievement." If statistical linkages could be achieved, it would allow policymakers to interpret performance across state assessments using a common metric. Comparing all states to a common metric would, in essence, allow states to be compared to each other, even if they use different assessments and different performance standards. Furthermore, linking techniques based on a common metric may allow individual states to be compared to international assessments. If linking assessments became a common practice, it could greatly reduce the number of assessments administered to students because student performance could be compared across assessments without the necessity of all students participating in the same assessment. Administering fewer assessments may reduce the testing burden and increase the amount of time schools could use for instruction. Congress asked a committee from the National Research Council (NRC) to study the feasibility of developing a common metric to link scores from existing commercial and state assessments to each other and to NAEP. To determine the feasibility of linking these assessments, the committee considered the validity and practicality of making statistical linkages. After a review of studies attempting to link NAEP with state assessments and an independent evaluation, the NRC concluded that (1) comparing state assessments to each other using a common metric was not feasible, and (2) linking state assessments to NAEP is problematic and any inferences drawn from these links may be misleading. The inferences drawn from linking two tests can be adversely affected by differences in content, format, and the use of the tests being linked, as well as the consequences attached to the two tests. If two tests vary greatly along these dimensions (as many state assessments and NAEP tend to vary) the inferences drawn from the linkage may not be valid. There has been some progress, however, linking assessments in limited contexts. For example, studies have demonstrated that it may be feasible to link NAEP results for grade 8 mathematics to results on the TIMSS. Statistical linking is more feasible in this case because NAEP and TIMSS use similar constructs, testing frameworks, and scoring, and they test students in the same grade. The statistical linkage between NAEP and TIMSS allows individual states to be compared to other countries in mathematics performance. This type of linkage could be particularly useful, given the recent increased interest in international benchmarks. This section will discuss technical considerations in assessment, such as validity, reliability, and fairness. It is generally the responsibility of the test developer to investigate technical characteristics of an assessment and to report any relevant statistical information to test users. Usually, this information is reported in testing manuals that accompany the assessment. It is the responsibility of the test user to administer the test as intended and to use the reported information concerning validity, reliability, and fairness to interpret test results appropriately. Learning how to evaluate the validity, reliability, and fairness of an assessment allows test users to make appropriate inferences. An inference is a conclusion that is drawn from the result of a test. Inferences may be either appropriate or inappropriate based on a number of technical and contextual factors. This section will conclude with a discussion on how to avoid making inappropriate inferences from educational assessments. It will also highlight some of the issues to consider when making inferences from high-stakes assessments vs. low-stakes assessments. Validity is arguably the most important concept to understand when evaluating educational assessments. When making instructional or policy decisions on the basis of an assessment, the question is often asked, "Is the test valid?" Validity, however, is not a property of the test itself. Validity is the degree to which a certain inference from a test is appropriate and meaningful. The question to be asked, therefore, is "Is the inference being drawn from the test result valid?" The distinction between these questions may seem unimportant, but consider the following example. Often times, teachers, administrators, or policymakers would like to support multiple conclusions from the same assessment. Some of these conclusions, or inferences, may be valid and others may not. Consider the SAT Reasoning Test, which is taken by many high school students. The SAT is a college entrance examination, and its purpose is to measure critical thinking skills that are needed for success in college. Suppose a group of high school seniors in School A scored well on the SAT and a group of high school seniors in School B scored poorly. One possible valid inference from this result is that seniors from School A are more likely to succeed in college. There are, however, many possible inferences that may be less valid. For example, one could infer that School A had a better academic curriculum than School B. Or, one could infer that School A had better teachers than School B. Neither of these inferences may be valid because the SAT was designed for the purpose of predicting the likelihood of success in college and not for the purposes of evaluating teachers or curriculum. The validity of an inference, therefore, is tied inextricably to the purpose for which the test was created. When an assessment is created or when a new use is proposed for an existing assessment, a process of validation should occur. Validation involves collecting evidence to support the use and interpretation of test scores based on the test construct. In testing, a construct is the concept or characteristic that a test is designed to measure. The process of validation includes, at a minimum, investigating the construct underrepresentation and construct irrelevance of the assessment instrument. Construct underrepresentation refers to the degree to which an assessment fails to capture important aspects of the construct. For example, if the assessment is designed to measure addition and subtraction skills, the entire construct would include addition, addition with carrying, subtraction, subtraction with borrowing, two-digit addition, two-digit addition with carrying, and so forth. If the assessment does not measure all the skills within a defined construct, it may be susceptible to construct underrepresentation, and the inference based on an assessment score may not reflect the student's actual knowledge of the construct. Similarly, construct irrelevance can threaten the validity of an inference. Construct irrelevance refers to the degree to which test scores are affected by the content of an assessment that is not part of the intended construct. Again, if an assessment was designed to measure addition and subtraction skills, any test items that contain multiplication or division would create construct irrelevance, and the inference based on the assessment score may not reflect the student's actual knowledge of the construct. Construct underrepresentation is investigated by answering the question, "Does the assessment adequately cover the full range of skills in the construct?" Construct irrelevance is investigated by answering the question, "Are any skills within the assessment outside of the realm of the construct?" These two questions are investigated using statistical procedures that examine properties of the assessment itself and how the properties of the assessment interact with characteristics of individuals taking the test. One important consideration is to determine if the degree of construct underrepresentation or construct irrelevance differentially affects the performance of various subgroups of the population. If, for example, there was a moderate degree of construct irrelevance (e.g., multiplication questions on an assessment designed to measure addition and subtraction skills), students from advantaged subgroups may be more likely to score well on a test than students from disadvantaged subgroups, even if both subgroups have equal knowledge of the construct itself. The construct irrelevance, therefore, may lead to an invalid inference that advantaged students outperform disadvantaged students in a given construct (in this example, addition and subtraction skills). There are many other types of evidence that may be collected during validation. For example, test developers might compare student scores on the assessment in question with existing measures of the same construct. Or, test developers might investigate how well the assessment in question predicts a later outcome of interest, such as pass rates on a high-stakes exam, high school graduation rates, or job attainment. Validation is not a set of scripted procedures but rather a thoughtful investigation of the construct and proposed uses of assessments. Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement when the testing procedure is repeated on a population of individuals or groups. It describes the precision with which assessment results are reported and is a measure of certainty that the results are accurate. The concept of reliability presumes that each student has a true score for any given assessment. The true score is the hypothetical average score resulting from multiple administrations of an assessment; it is the true representation of what the student knows and can do. For any given assessment, however, the score that is reported is not a student's true score, it is a student's observed score. The hypothetical difference between the true score and the observed score is measurement error. Reliability and measurement error are inversely related. The lower the measurement error, the higher the reliability. Furthermore, as reliability increases, it increases the likelihood that a student's observed score and a student's true score are reasonably equivalent. Reliability can be reported in multiple ways. The most common expressions of reliability in educational assessment are the reliability coefficient, range of uncertainty, and consistency of classification. The reliability coefficient is a number that ranges from 0 to 1. It is useful because it is independent of the scale of the assessment and can be compared across multiple assessments. A reliability coefficient of 0 implies that a score is due completely to measurement error; a reliability coefficient of 1 implies that a score is completely consistent and free of measurement error. There is no rule of thumb for deciding how high a reliability coefficient should be; however, most commercially available assessments report reliability coefficients above 0.8, and many have reliability coefficients above 0.9. The most common types of reliability coefficients used in educational assessment are alternate-form coefficients, test-retest coefficients, inter-scorer agreement coefficients, and internal consistency coefficients. Alternate-form coefficients measure the degree to which the scores derived from alternate forms of the same assessment are consistent. For example, the SAT, which is used as a college entrance examination, has multiple forms that are administered each year. A high alternate-form reliability coefficient provides some certainty that a student's score on one form of the SAT would be reasonably equivalent to the student's score on another form of the SAT. Test-retest coefficients measure the stability of an individual student's score over time. If the NAEP reading subtest was administered to a student today and re-administered in two weeks, one would expect that the student would have comparable scores across the two administrations. A high test-retest reliability coefficient provides a measure of certainty that a student's score today is similar to the student's score in the near future. Inter-scorer agreement coefficients measure the degree to which two independent scorers agree when assessing a student's performance. A high inter-scorer agreement coefficient provides a measure of certainty that a student's score would not be greatly affected by the individual scoring the assessment. Internal consistency coefficients are slightly more complicated. Internal consistency coefficients are a measure of the correlation of items within the same assessment. If items within an assessment are related, a student should perform consistently well or consistently poorly on the related items. For example, a mathematics assessment may test multiplication and division skills. Suppose a student is proficient with multiplication but has not yet mastered division. Within the mathematics assessment, the student should score consistently well on the multiplication items and consistently poorly on the division items. A high internal consistency coefficient provides a measure of certainty that related items within the assessment are in fact measuring the same construct. The decisions regarding the type of reliability coefficients to investigate and report depend on the purpose and format of the assessment. For example, many assessments do not use alternate forms, and there would be no need to report an alternate-form coefficient. As another example, consider a test that was designed to measure student growth over a short period of time. In this case, it may not make sense to report a test-retest reliability coefficient because one does not expect any stability or consistency in the student's score over time. Test developers also consider the format of the test. In tests with multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank formats, inter-scorer agreement may not be of great concern because the scoring is relatively objective; however, in tests with constructed responses, such as essay tests or performance assessments, it may be important to investigate inter-scorer agreement because the scoring has an element of subjectivity. As stated above, reliability describes the precision with which assessment results are reported and is a measure of certainty that the results are accurate. Often times, results can be reported with greater confidence if the observed score is reported along with a range of uncertainty. In educational assessment, the range of uncertainty is usually referred to as a confidence interval. Under the NCLB accountability system, some states have used confidence intervals to report the results of state assessments. A confidence interval estimates the likelihood that a student's true score falls within a range of scores. The size of the confidence interval, or the size of the range, depends on how certain one needs to be that the true score falls within the range of uncertainty. A confidence interval is calculated by using an estimated true score, the standard error of measurement (SEM) , and the desired level of confidence. The confidence interval is reported as a range of scores with a lower limit and an upper limit. In education, it is common to see 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence intervals. The following hypothetical example illustrates how the size of the confidence interval (i.e., the range of scores) can change as the degree of confidence changes. If the estimated true score of a student is assumed to be 100 and the SEM is assumed to be 10: A 90% confidence interval would be 84 to 116 (a range of 32). In this case, about 90% of the time, a student's true score will be contained within the interval from 84 to 116. There is about a 5% chance that the student's true score is lower than 84 and about a 5% chance that the student's true score is higher than 116. A 95% confidence interval would be 80 to 120 (a range of 40). In this case, about 95% of the time, the student's true score will be contained within the interval from 80 to 120. There is about a 2.5% chance that the student's true score is lower than 80 and about a 2.5% chance that the student's true score is higher than 120. A 99% confidence interval would be 74 to 126 (a range of 52). In this case, about 99% of the time, the student's true score will be contained within the interval from 74 to 126. There is about a 0.5% chance that the student's true score is lower than 74 and about a 0.5% chance that a student's true score is higher than 126. The illustration above demonstrates that the range of scores in a confidence interval increases as the desired level of confidence increases. A 90% confidence interval ranges from 84 to 116 (a range of 32) and a 99% confidence interval ranges from 74 to 126 (a range of 52). Consistency of classification is a type of reliability that is rarely reported but can be very important to investigate, especially when high-stakes decisions are made with the results of educational assessments. When assessments are used to place students and schools into discrete categories based on performance (e.g., proficient vs. not proficient or pass vs. fail), the consistency of classification is of interest. Within school settings, consistency of classification is particularly important when using performance standards to place students in achievement levels based on state assessments (i.e., basic, proficient, advanced). For example, if the classification of students into achievement levels for AYP purposes is not consistent over short periods of time, the accountability system may become highly variable and unreliable. Another example of the importance of consistency of classification is the use of state exit exams to award high school diplomas (i.e., pass/fail). Without consistency in classification, the system that awards diplomas to high school seniors may be unreliable. Consistency of classification has not been well studied in these instances, but statistical modeling demonstrates that it is possible to have considerable fluctuations in classification depending on the reliability of the assessment and the predetermined cut score used to categorize students. Consistency of classification is also relevant for decisions that determine eligibility for services, such as the classification of students with disabilities. Students who are suspected to have a disability are assessed using a wide-range of diagnostic assessments. Results of these assessments are interpreted based on state definitions of "disability" and, if students are determined to be eligible, they receive special education services. Some research has begun to investigate the consistency of states' "disability" classifications over time. In an Office of Special Education Program's annual report to Congress, it was reported that approximately 17% of elementary students who received special education services in the year 2000 no longer received such services in 2002. Similar results have been reported for students with disabilities in preschool. While it is possible that students become "declassified" and ineligible for special education services due to their improvement in academic skills, it is likely that the rate of "declassification" is also affected by the reliability of assessments used to determine their initial eligibility and the cut scores that are used in state definitions of disability. Fairness is a term that has no technical meaning in testing procedures, but it is an issue that often arises in educational assessment and education policy, generally. Educational assessments are administered to diverse populations, and all members of the population should be treated equally. The notion of fairness as "equal treatment", however, has taken several forms: (1) fairness as a lack of bias, (2) fairness as equitable treatment in the testing process, (3) fairness as equality in outcomes of testing, and (4) fairness as opportunity to learn. Bias is a common criticism in educational assessment, however, it is not well documented or well understood. Test bias exists if there are systematic differences in observed scores based on subgroup membership when there is no difference in the true scores between subgroups. For example, bias can arise when cultural or linguistic factors influence test scores of individuals within a subgroup, despite the individual's inherent ability. Or, bias can arise when a disability precludes a student from demonstrating his or her ability. Bias is a controversial topic and difficult to address in educational assessment. There is no professional consensus on how to mitigate bias in testing. There are statistical procedures, such as differential item functioning, that may be able to detect bias in specific test items, however, such techniques cannot directly address the bias in the interpretation of assessment results. Test bias, if present, undermines the validity of the inferences based on assessment results. It is important to note that a simple difference in scores between two subgroups does not necessarily imply bias. If a group of advantaged students performs higher on a reading assessment than a group of disadvantaged students, the test may or may not be biased. If the advantaged students and the disadvantaged students have the same reading ability (true score), and the advantaged students still score higher on the reading assessment (observed score), bias may be present. If, however, the advantaged students have higher reading ability and higher scores on the reading assessment, the test may not be biased. Fairness as equitable treatment in the testing process is less controversial and more straightforward than the issue of bias. There is professional consensus that all students should be afforded equity in the testing process. Equity includes assuring that all students are given a comparable opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the construct being tested. It also requires that all students are given appropriate testing conditions, such as a comfortable testing environment, equal time to respond, and, where appropriate, accommodations for students with disabilities and LEP students. Finally, equitable treatment affords each student equal opportunity to prepare for a test. This aspect of equitable treatment may be the most difficult to monitor and enforce. In some schools or districts, it is common practice to familiarize students with sample test questions or provide examples of actual test questions from previous assessments. In other districts, this type of test preparation may not be routine. Furthermore, some students receive test preparation services outside of the classroom from private companies, such as Kaplan, Inc. or Sylvan Learning. The amount of test preparation and the appropriateness of this preparation is not consistent across classrooms, schools, and districts and can undermine the validity of inferences drawn from assessments. There is no professional consensus that fairness should ensure equality in the outcomes of testing. On the other hand, when results are used for high-stakes decisions, such as the use of state exit exams for high school graduation, the issue of "equality in outcomes" can arise. The question of fairness arises when these tests are used to exclude a subgroup of students from certain privileges, like earning a high school diploma. For example, if a subgroup of advantaged students is more likely to pass a state exit exam than a subgroup of disadvantaged students, the advantaged students are more likely to graduate from high school, receive a diploma, pursue higher education, and obtain a job. The disadvantaged students are less likely to graduate from high school, which further disadvantages them in their pursuit of higher education or job attainment. "Equality in outcomes" is more likely to be a concern with high-stakes assessments, such as state assessments and state exit exams, than with low-stakes assessments, such as NAEP and international assessments. Fairness as opportunity to learn is particularly relevant to educational assessment. Many educational assessments, particularly state assessments used to determine AYP, are aligned with school curriculum and designed to measure what students know as a result of formal instruction. All students within a state are assessed against the same content and performance standards for AYP. If all students have not had an equal opportunity to learn, is it "fair" to assess all students against the same standard? If low scores are the result of a lack of opportunity to learn the tested material, it might be seen as a systemic failure rather than a characteristic of a particular individual, school, or district. The difficulty with affording all students equal opportunity to learn is defining "opportunity to learn." Is exposure to the same curriculum enough to give students the opportunity to learn? Even if all students are exposed to the same curriculum, does the overall school environment influence a student's opportunity to learn? If students are exposed to the same curriculum within the same school environment, does the quality of the classroom teacher influence a student's opportunity to learn? Test users have a responsibility to examine the validity, reliability, and fairness of an assessment to make appropriate inferences about student achievement. Unfortunately, there is no simple checklist that will help determine if an inference is appropriate. Instead, test users must conduct a thoughtful analysis of the construct of the assessment, purpose of the assessment, the type of scores reported by the assessment, the evidence concerning the validity, reliability, and fairness of the assessment, and the context in which the assessment results will be used. If these issues are not carefully considered, inappropriate inferences can lead to a variety of unintended consequences. The sections that follow provide some guidance in the form of sample questions that test users may wish to ask themselves before making an inference about a test score. These guidelines are not intended to be an exhaustive list of considerations but rather a starting point for learning to draw appropriate conclusions from assessments. Questions about the construct: What is the content area being assessed (e.g., reading, mathematics)? What is the specific construct that is being measured within the content area (e.g., mathematics computation, mathematical problem solving, measurement, geometry)? Does the construct measure general knowledge within a content area, or is it specifically aligned with the curriculum? Understanding the construct of an assessment can have important implications when comparing the results of two tests. Consider, for example, the international assessments described above, PISA and TIMSS. Both assessments measure mathematics achievement, but they measure different mathematical constructs. PISA was designed to measure basic "mathematical literacy" whereas TIMSS is curriculum-based and was designed to measure what students have learned in school. Results from the 2006 PISA administration reported that the average U.S. score in mathematics was lower than international average. Results from the 2007 administration of the TIMSS reported that the average U.S. score in mathematics was higher than the international average. Based on these results, a novice test user may be tempted to conclude that within one year, students in the U.S. improved in mathematics achievement compared to other countries. There are several reasons why this conclusion is inappropriate, one of which is that PISA and TIMSS measure very different constructs. Questions about the purpose: What was the intended purpose of the assessment when it was designed (e.g., instructional, predictive, diagnostic, evaluative)? How will teachers, administrators, and policymakers use the results (e.g., formative assessment vs. summative assessment)? Understanding the original purpose of the assessment will help test users determine how the results may be interpreted and how the scores may be used. For example, a state assessment that was designed for evaluative purposes may not lend itself to using scores to modify and adapt instruction for individual students. Most state assessments are strictly summative assessments, and it is difficult to use them in a formative manner because the results may not be reported in a timely fashion to the teachers and the items may not be sensitive to classroom instruction. Alternatively, a benchmark assessment that was designed for predictive purposes may report results in a more timely manner and allow teachers to target their instruction to students who scored poorly. Benchmark assessments are often aligned with state assessments, however, scores on benchmark assessments should not be considered definitive indicators of what state assessment scores will be. Questions about scores: Does the score reported compare a student's performance to the performance of others (e.g., NRT)? Does the score reported compare a student's performance to a criterion or standard (e.g., CRT, performance standard)? Does the score determine whether a student is proficient within a certain content area (e.g., performance standards)? Does the score show growth or progress that a student made within a content area? Misinterpreting scores is perhaps the most common way to make an inappropriate inference. To avoid an inappropriate inference, a test user should fully investigate the scale of the assessment and the way in which scores are reported. If scores are reported from NRTs, a student's score can be interpreted relative to the normative sample, which is a group of the student's peers. NRTs cannot, however, determine whether a student met a predetermined criterion or whether a student is proficient within a particular content area. If scores are reported from CRTs, either in the form of criterion-referenced scores or performance standards, a student's score can be interpreted relative to a predetermined standard or criterion. CRTs and performance standards, however, were not designed to make particularly meaningful comparisons between students who participated in the same assessment. Because of the use of performance standards in state assessments, it is particularly important for test users to understand what they do and do not report. Performance standards are used primarily because they can be easily aligned with the state content standards and provide both a score and some meaningful description of what students know. Performance standards, however, can be particularly difficult to interpret. Students are classified into categories, such as basic, proficient, or advanced, based on their performance on an assessment. All students within the "proficient" category, however, did not score equally well. Furthermore, scores from performance standards do not lend themselves to interpret a student's growth. A student can score at the lower end of the proficient category, make considerable progress over the next year, and still be in the proficient category at the end of the year. Alternatively, a student could score at the high end of the basic category, make minimal progress over the next year, and move up into the proficient category. Because of these qualities of performance standards, test users should be very cautious equating the performance of students within the same category and making assumptions about growth based on movement through the categories. Questions about technical quality: Did the test developers provide statistical information on the validity and reliability of the instrument? Was the issue of fairness and bias addressed, either through thoughtful reasoning or statistical procedures? What kind of validity and reliability evidence was collected? Does that evidence seem to match the purpose of the assessment? Have the test developers reported reliability evidence separately for all the subgroups of interest? Commercially available assessments are accompanied by a user's manual that reports validity and reliability evidence. Smaller, locally developed assessments do not always have an accompanying manual, but test developers should have validity and reliability evidence available upon request. It is a fairly simple process to determine whether evidence has been provided but a much more difficult task to evaluate the quality of the evidence. A thorough discussion of how to evaluate the technical quality of an assessment is beyond the scope of this report. In light of the current uses of assessments in schools, however, some issues are noteworthy. First, because schools are required to report state assessment results for various subgroups (i.e., students with disabilities and LEP students), it is important that validity and reliability be investigated for each subgroup for which data will be disaggregated. Doing so will reduce the likelihood of bias in the assessment against a particular subgroup. Second, the type of reliability evidence provided should be specific to the assessment. For example, an assessment with constructed responses, such as essay tests or performance assessments, will have a degree of subjectivity in scoring. In this case, it is important to have strong evidence of inter-scorer reliability. In other cases when the assessment format consists of multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank items, inter-scorer reliability may be of lesser importance. A test like the SAT Reasoning Test which relies on several alternate forms should report alternate-form reliability. Without a high degree of alternate-form reliability, some students will take an easier version of an assessment and others will take a more difficult version. Unequal forms of the same assessment will introduce bias in the testing process. Students taking the easier version may have scores that are positively biased and students taking the harder version may have scores that are negatively biased. Third, no assessment is technically perfect. All inferences based on an observed score will be susceptible to measurement error, and some may be susceptible to bias. Questions about the context: Is this a high-stakes or a low-stakes assessment? Who will be held accountable (e.g., students, teachers, schools, states)? Is the validity and reliability evidence strong enough to make high-stakes decisions? Are there confounding factors that may have influenced performance on the assessment? What other information could be collected to make a better inference? The context in which an assessment takes place may have implications for how critical a test user must be about making an inference from a test score. In a low-stakes assessment, such as a classroom-level formative assessment that will be used for instructional purposes, conducting an exhaustive review of the reliability and validity evidence may not be a worthwhile endeavor. These assessments are usually short, conducted to help teachers adapt their instruction, and have no consequences if the inference is not completely accurate. On the other hand, for a high-stakes assessment, like a state exit exam for graduation, it is important to examine the validity and reliability evidence of the assessment to ensure that the inference is defensible. Consider the consequences of a state exit exam with poor evidence of validity due to a high degree of construct irrelevance. Students would be tested on content outside of the construct and may perform poorly, which may prevent them from earning a high school diploma. Or, consider a state exit exam with poor evidence of reliability due to a high degree of measurement error. Students who are likely to score near the cut score of the assessment may pass or fail largely due to measurement error. Sometimes when making an inference for a high-stakes decision, certain protections are placed on the testing process or the test result. For example, in terms of a state exit exam for high school graduation, some states allow students to take the assessment multiple times to lessen the probability that measurement error is preventing them from passing. Or, in some cases, a state will consider collecting additional data (such as a portfolio of student work) to determine whether a student has met the requirements for receiving a high school diploma. In other high-stakes assessments, such as state assessments for AYP, some states use confidence intervals in addition to observed scores to report student achievement. Several states have chosen to use 95% or even 99% confidence intervals to increase the certainty of inferences based on test scores. NCLB greatly increased the emphasis on student assessment. Under NCLB, student scores on state assessments are used as key indicators in an accountability system that determines whether schools are making progress with respect to student achievement. Some have viewed this shift towards test-based accountability as a positive move because it places more emphasis on developing rigorous content standards in reading, mathematics, and science and teaching to the standards. Test-based accountability as implemented by NCLB also leads to increased attention on traditionally underperforming subgroups of students, including disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and LEP students. On the other hand, test-based accountability has been criticized for narrowing the curriculum and focusing all instruction on the tested subjects of reading and mathematics at the expense of other subjects. The current practice of test-based accountability may also create incentives to set low expectations for proficiency and to focus on a subset of children who are near the proficiency level instead of focusing on children at all achievement levels. Another criticism is that the increased emphasis on test-based accountability can lead to score inflation, which may inhibit policymakers from measuring the actual impact of accountability. In the sections below, the potential positive and negative implications of test-based accountability are discussed, including implications for curriculum, students, and testing. It is important to note that the issues discussed below are specific to current test-based accountability systems under NCLB; however, all test-based accountability systems may not have the same positive and negative implications. One potentially positive outcome of test-based accountability has been an increased focus on state-level content standards and teaching to those standards. Under NCLB, states have been required to develop rigorous content standards for reading and mathematics, which many see as core subjects that will lead to improved learning in other content areas. There is some evidence that using content standards and assessments can help teachers focus their instruction and obtain feedback on the effectiveness of their instruction. There are also some data to suggest that high-performing schools have a stronger alignment between state content standards and school curriculum. Furthermore, schools that include teachers in the development of these standards tended to have a higher degree of teacher "buy-in" to the standards. On the other hand, test-based accountability may be affecting the curriculum in less desirable ways. One criticism of test-based accountability systems is that they lead to a narrowing of the curriculum. There are several ways in which these systems might narrow the curriculum. First, the time spent administering the actual assessments, sometimes called the "testing burden," could detract from classroom instruction. Second, test-based accountability systems may lead to increases in test preparation, leaving less time for instruction. There is some evidence to suggest that teachers feel pressure to "teach to the test" and engage in test preparation activities at the expense of instruction. Test-preparation activities take several forms, including altering typical classroom assignments to conform to the format of an expected response on the state assessment (e.g., if the state assessment requires a five paragraph constructed response, teachers may assign a disproportionate number of five-paragraph essays). Third, in test-based accountability systems, teachers report reallocating instructional time towards tested subjects and away from non-tested subjects. Surveys of teachers have consistently reported that their instruction emphasizes reading and mathematics over other subjects like history, foreign language, and arts. Although there is consistency in the survey results, it is difficult to understand the extent to which instructional time is reallocated towards tested subjects. Most of these reports do not collect data through experimental observation, but rather they rely on self-reported data from teachers and administrators, which is often less reliable. NCLB has required states to disaggregate student assessment data for major subgroups, including racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and LEP students. Under NCLB, schools are held accountable for the performance of each of these subgroups, and each subgroup shares a common goal of reaching 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. Designing an accountability system in this way has increased the attention given to the achievement of certain subgroups that may have been previously masked by overall student performance. In general, disaggregating data by subgroups has been seen as a positive step in terms of equity in education because the performance of all subgroups "counts" towards AYP. Supporters of disaggregation believe that it leads to increased access to rigorous academic curriculum for students who otherwise may not have had access to such curriculum due to low expectations of performance. Along with the increased attention to subgroups of students, there has been increased attention to the achievement gaps between white students and minority students and between economically advantaged students and disadvantaged students. Over the last several decades, a general goal of public education has been to "close the achievement gap," and thus, improve equity in education. By disaggregating assessment results, NCLB has led to consistent measurement of the achievement gap and allows researchers to examine the size of the achievement gap over time. One of the unintended consequences of NCLB accountability is the way instruction may be focused on students just below the "proficient" level, possibly at the expense of other students. Under NCLB's test-based accountability system, the goal is for 100% of students to reach proficiency by 2014. In an effort to raise the percentage of proficient students, schools and teachers may target instructional time and resources towards those students who are near proficiency. Since time and resources are a zero-sum game, fewer instructional resources may be available for students who are far below proficiency or even those who achieve at advanced levels. This disincentive to focus instructional resources on all children has led to possible alternative methods of measuring achievement, including growth models. Within certain accountability systems, the use of growth models may give teachers and schools credit for student growth, even if the growth occurs far below the proficiency level. Test-based accountability systems use high-stakes assessments to make decisions about students, teachers, and schools. Under NCLB, individual schools are held accountable for student achievement, and if schools fail to meet their AYP goals, there are consequences. In an effort to avoid these consequences, schools often make conscious efforts to prepare students for high-stakes assessments. Although these efforts are often undertaken with good intentions, they can lead to score inflation. Score inflation is a phenomenon in which scores on high-stakes assessments tend to increase at a faster rate than scores on low-stakes assessments. The validity of an inference is greatly reduced when score inflation is present. Test preparation can take many forms, and it is difficult to distinguish appropriate test preparation from inappropriate test preparation. Many schools provide test preparation to young students who have little experience with standardized testing, and this form of test preparation can actually increase the validity of a test score because it is less likely that students will do poorly due to unfamiliarity with the testing process. Other test preparation strategies, such as working more effectively or working harder, are also usually desirable. Test preparation begins to affect validity in a negative way, however, when there are excessive amounts of alignment between test items and curriculum, excessive coaching of a particular type of item that will appear on the test, or even outright cheating. Studying the prevalence of score inflation is difficult because school districts may be reluctant to give researchers access to test scores for the purpose of investigating possible inflation. Nevertheless, several studies have documented the problem of score inflation by comparing gains on state assessments (high-stakes) to those made on NAEP (low-stakes). Studies have consistently reported discrepancies in the overall level of student achievement, the size of student achievement gains, and the size of the achievement gap. The discrepancies indicate that student scores on state assessments may be inflated and that these inflated scores may not represent true achievement gains as measured by another test of a similar construct. In this case, the validity of the inference made from state assessments may be questioned. One possible way to reduce the problem of score inflation is to consistently use a low-stakes "audit" assessment, such as NAEP, to corroborate gains on state assessments. If gains on state assessments generalize to another "audit" assessment, it increases the likelihood that gains are due to true achievement gains. This type of corroboration may help policymakers separate the policies that lead to true student achievement from those that lead to score inflation. Appendix A. Glossary Appendix B. Acronym Reference | In recent years, federal education legislation has placed an increased emphasis on assessment in schools. Perhaps most notably, Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), requires states to test all students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in the areas of reading and mathematics. These assessments are used as key indicators in an accountability system that determines whether schools are making progress with respect to student achievement. To receive Title I funding, states must also participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a standards-based national test given at grades 4 and 8. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to use assessments to identify students with disabilities and track their progress according to individualized learning goals. In addition to assessments required by federal law, elementary and secondary school students generally participate in many other assessments, which range from small-scale classroom assessments to high-stakes exit exams. This report provides a framework for understanding various types of assessments that are administered in elementary and secondary schools. It broadly discusses various purposes of educational assessment and describes comprehensive assessment systems. Common assessment measures currently used in education are described, including state assessments, NAEP, and state exit exams. The report also provides a description and analysis of technical considerations in assessments, including validity, reliability, and fairness, and discusses how to use these technical considerations to draw appropriate conclusions based on assessment results. Finally, this report provides a brief analysis of the use of assessments in accountability systems, including implications for curriculum, students, and testing. |
CLOSE USA Today Sports' Rachel Axon tells you the 5 things to watch for during the final day of competition at the Rio Olympics on Sunday, August 21st. USA TODAY Sports
Aug 20, 2016; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; USA celebrates after beating Spain in the women's basketball gold medal match during the Rio 2016 Summer Olympic Games at Carioca Arena 1. Mandatory Credit: RVR Photos-USA TODAY Sports ORG XMIT: USATSI-322390 ORIG FILE ID: 20160820_pjc_su1_267.JPG (Photo: Bob Rosato, RVR Photos-USA TODAY Sports)
RIO DE JANEIRO — Two days before the U.S. women’s basketball team would win its sixth consecutive gold medal, downing Spain 101-72, Diana Taurasi was asked about its unprecedented dominance and whether there was enough mainstream recognition.
“Hey, we’ll see after Saturday,” the 34-year-old guard had quipped after a semifinal win over France. “Run around naked. We’ll all get attention, win or lose.”
Instead, they undressed yet another would-be opponent and showed yet again why they’re so deserving of global attention. The win brought its eight-game margin of victory average to a whopping 37.2 points in what was a 49th consecutive win
By the time their latest dominant deed was done, Taurasi wasn’t quite as consumed with the notion of how many people had tuned in. She was too busy sharing a tearful hug with her old college coach, Connecticut’s Geno Auriemma, who took over the national program in 2010 and has been there for two of the four Olympic golds Taurasi won alongside point guard Sue Bird and forward Tamika Catchings. Young Brittney Griner hoisted fellow first-time Olympian, Elena Delle Donne, into the air as they soaked it all in on the court. All around Taurasi, it was more of the same.
Reflection. Appreciation. Celebration. No matter the ratings.
“I mean you guys are here now,” Taurasi, who had 17 points (including five three pointers), said to a mass of media. “We’re doing something, and basketball is really important to a lot of people in the U.S., and no one takes it more serious than women. We play year round. We sacrifice a lot of things to make sure that we bring this home. And you know what? It’s ok. We’re happy.”
Her premise is on point, though.
Even for fans who may not enjoy the WNBA action that all 12 of these women will now resume, theirs is the rare super team that more than lives up to the billing. The chemistry issues that dogged their U.S. male counterparts during these Games did not apply to the women, Auriemma blending the best in a seamless and collectively selfless way. Taurasi is nothing short of electric, having spent the past 16 years on the global stage showcasing the rare combination of play and personality that makes her such the entertainer.
It was all there to see in the finale.
Taurasi and guard Lindsay Whalen shared the team-high in scoring with 17 points, while forward Maya Moore had 14 points, six assists and five rebounds. Eleven of the 12 players scored. As a group, Team USA shot a scorching 59% from the field against a Spain team they downed 103-63 in group play.
As is always the case with this team, there was little doubt about the final outcome. Spain trailed by just three points midway through the second quarter, but back-to-back Taurasi three-pointers helped sparked Team USA during a 22-8 that put them by 49-32 at halftime. By the time the fourth quarter arrived – thanks to a 39-25 edge in that period - it was nothing but their latest laugher as they led 88-57.
If this were Taurasi’s last Olympics – and she’s not quite sure yet if that’s the case – it was the perfect way to go.
“A couple of those threes, I just had to laugh and shake my head,” said Delle Donne, the 26-year-old small forward and reigning MVP in the WNBA who came off the bench throughout the Games and had 10 points against Spain. “It’s just fun to watch. I idolized her so much growing up, and to be able to play alongside her and see some of that craziness that I saw when I was a young kid falling in love with the game, was really cool for me.”
And therein lies the scary part. Even if Taurasi, Bird and Catchings all call it quits, this shelf is still plenty stocked for this run to continue.
“I keep talking to ‘E’ (Delle Donne) about how we’ve got to do what ‘D’ (Taurasi) and Sue did – that could be us, with Stewie (21-year-old forward Brianna Stewart) as well,” the 25-year-old Griner said. “That could be us. … We’re still young. We’re still learning. We just got our diapers off.”
From the old to the new, worth watching indeed.
PHOTOS: EVERY U.S. MEDAL ||||| Cuba's Arlen Lopez, left, fights Uzbekistan's Bektemir Melikuziev during a men's middleweight 75-kg final boxing match at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Saturday, Aug. 20, 2016. (AP... (Associated Press)
Cuba's Arlen Lopez, left, fights Uzbekistan's Bektemir Melikuziev during a men's middleweight 75-kg final boxing match at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Saturday, Aug. 20, 2016. (AP Photo/Vincent Thian) (Associated Press)
RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — The latest on the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro (all times local):
5:10 p.m.
The dominant U.S. women's basketball team won a sixth consecutive Olympic gold medal in impressive fashion, routing Spain 101-72 on Saturday.
Diana Taurasi and the Americans played nearly flawless basketball in Rio, and were never challenged. They have won 49 consecutive games in the Olympics with only one of those decided by single digits.
They won by nearly 40 points a game, but fell short of the record 102.4 points the 1996 team averaged.
The U.S., which beat Spain by 40 in a preliminary round game, got off to a slow start and only led 21-17 after the first quarter. Then the Americans got going with a 16-3 run in the second that blew the game open and the rout and celebration was on.
___
3:40 p.m.
MEDAL ALERT: Arlen Lopez gave Cuba its second boxing gold medal of the day, beating Uzbekistan's Bektemir Melikuziev by unanimous decision in the middleweight final.
Lopez swept the scores 30-27, 29-28 and 29-28.
He joined bantamweight Robeisy Ramirez as Cuba's two gold medalists of the day. Cuba finished the boxing tournament with three golds and six total medals.
___
3:20 p.m.
Karch Kiraly's top-ranked U.S. women's volleyball team has earned an Olympic bronze medal, hardly the color the Americans planned for when they came to Brazil chasing the program's first gold in history.
The U.S. topped the Netherlands 25-23, 25-27, 25-22, 25-19 Saturday, bouncing back for bronze two days after a heartbreaking five-set defeat to Serbia in the semifinals.
After Kim Hill's ace on match point, the U.S. women fell into an embrace and Kiraly hugged his coaches and brought his team together for a cheer.
The Netherlands shined playing in its first Olympics since 1996 in Atlanta, where they finished fourth and surprised many as the Dutch put women's volleyball on the map with their gutsy, never-give-up style.
___
3:15 p.m.
Sadiq Umar scored a pair of goals and Nigeria won the Olympic bronze medal by holding off Honduras 3-2 on Saturday in Belo Horizonte.
It was Nigeria's third overall Olympic medal in soccer. The West African nation won gold at the 1996 Olympics with a 3-2 victory over Argentina, and won the silver in 2008, falling to Argentina 1-0 in the final.
The medal was a reward for an Olympic tournament that got off to a rocky start. Nigeria's arrival in Brazil was delayed until just hours before the team's opening match because of a flight mix-up in Atlanta.
Honduras, which challenged with a pair of late goals, heads home from Brazil empty-handed but the team's appearance in the medal round was its best-ever finish at the Olympics.
Brazil plays Germany in the gold-medal match later Saturday at Rio's famed Maracana Stadium.
___
3:15 p.m.
Two-time world champion Aleksander Lesun of Russia has surged to the lead in men's modern pentathlon through the bonus fencing round.
The favorite to win gold in Rio, Lesun won the one-touch fencing event to build a commanding lead after two of five events. Lesun has 592 points, with Egypt's Omar El Geziry and Great Britain's Joseph Choong tied for second with 569.
Lesun is the current world record holder for overall points and fencing. He has never finished worse than third in seven world championships, but was a disappointing fourth at the 2012 London Games.
___
3 p.m.
MEDAL ALERT: Cuban boxer Robeisy Ramirez used a strong third round to finish off top American prospect Shakur Stevenson and win Olympic boxing gold in the bantamweight final.
The fight was even on the scorecards through two rounds. Ramirez, now a two-time Olympic gold medalist, won 29-28 on two scorecards. The 19-year-old Stevenson, fighting out of Newark, New Jersey, won one card 29-28.
Ramirez celebrated gold with a backflip in the ring.
Stevenson, who had been cheered on by retired great Floyd Mayweather earlier in the tournament, pulled his vest over his face and walked off to a railing to compose himself. With a towel over his head, Stevenson sobbed and was consoled by his family. He lost an international bout for the first time in his career.
___
3 p.m.
Christian Presciutti scored four goals to help Italy beat Montenegro 12-10 in the bronze-medal match in men's water polo.
It's the second straight Olympic medal for Italy, which lost to Croatia in the London final. Coupled with the silver for Italy's women's team on Friday, it's the only country to medal in both water polo tournaments in Rio de Janeiro.
Montenegro finished fourth for the third straight Olympics.
Aleksandar Radovic scored with 1:57 left to get Montenegro within one. But Matteo Aicardi, wearing a mask to protect his broken nose from earlier in the tournament, connected on a long-range skip shot to help close it out for Italy.
Valentino Gallo added three goals for Italy, which lost 10-8 to Serbia in the semifinals.
___
2:50 p.m.
The Tonga flag-bearer who became an unexpected sensation at the Rio Games after marching shirtless into the opening ceremonies has lost his chance for a gold medal in the men's taekwondo heavyweight division.
Pita Taufatofua, ranked 157th in the world, had an unfortunate pairing in the first round with the division's No. 2 seed, Sajjad Mardani of Iran. Mardani demolished Taufatofua 16-1 amid fans chanting "Tonga!" in the arena.
Taufatofua described his opponent's attacking leg as "a nightmare" and said his slow start in the fight cost him.
Taufatofua said he wasn't expecting the enormous reaction to his appearance in the opening ceremony and hinted that he might have something special — but quick — planned for the closing celebrations.
"Don't blink or you'll miss it," he warned.
___
2:30 p.m.
MEDAL ALERT: British fighter Nicola Adams has won her second-straight Olympic boxing gold medal.
Adams, the first woman to win an Olympic boxing title at the London Games, made it back-to-back gold with a unanimous decision victory over French boxer Sarah Ourahmoune.
Adams swept the scorecards 39-37 to win lightweight gold and become the first two-time women's Olympic boxing champion.
Ourahmoune had a big rally in the second and third rounds to keep the fight a bit closer than expected. But Adams won the decisive fourth round on all three cards and thumped her chest and pointed toward the sky when the decision was announced.
___
2:20 p.m.
MEDAL ALERT: Jenny Rissveds of Sweden pulled away late from Maja Wloszczowska of Poland to win gold at the women's mountain bike race.
The riders were alone together at the head of the field starting the last of the six-plus lap race. Rissveds then powered away on the first long uphill of the 3-mile course, building an insurmountable lead on Wloszczowska.
Rissveds finished with a time of 1 hour, 30 minutes, 15 seconds — which was 37 seconds faster than the silver medalist. Catharine Pendrel held off Canadian teammate Emily Batty for the bronze.
___
2:05 p.m.
Tom Daley of Britain has stunningly failed to qualify for the men's 10-meter platform diving final.
He finished 18th and last in the semifinals, when 12 divers moved on to the final later Saturday. Daley was first after the preliminaries on Friday, with China's two divers in second and third. Those scores didn't carry over to the semis.
Aisen Chen of China topped the semis with 559.90 points. His teammate, Qui Bo, was second at 504.70. Ivan Garcia of Mexico was third at 497.55. Bo earned silver four years ago in London.
Defending Olympic champion David Boudia of the United States was in jeopardy, but finished 10th to advance. His teammate, Steele Johnson, finished 13th, six points out of the last qualifying spot.
Daley earned bronze in 2012 and was well positioned to upset the Chinese in Rio. But he botched his second and third dives before rallying in the fourth and fifth rounds. He needed high scores on his sixth and last dive to grab a spot in the semis, but his score of 50.40 was the lowest of anyone in the round.
___
2:05 p.m.
Inbee Park's first victory of the season might just be the biggest of her career — a gold medal in women's golf.
Park made three straight birdies early in the final round Saturday, never let anyone closer than three shots the rest of the way and closed with a 5-under 66 for a five-shot victory at Olympic Golf Course.
Lydia Ko of New Zealand didn't stand a chance, and neither anyone else.
Ko, the No. 1 player in women's golf, made an 8-foot birdie putt on the final hole for a 69 to claim the silver. Shanshan Feng of China shot 69 and took the bronze.
Park, battling a thumb injury all year that led to speculation she was going to retire, had not faced top competition in two months and missed the last two majors on the LPGA Tour. She took time off to prepare for the Olympics, but when she missed the cut in a Korean LPGA event, the 28-year-old from South Korea heard chatter that she should give up her spot to another player in better form.
Instead, she reminded her golf-mad nation why she ranks among the best.
___
1:40 p.m.
MEDAL ALERT: Inbee Park of South Korea wins the gold medal in women's golf with a 5-under 66 for a five-shot victory. Lydia Ko holed an 8-foot birdie putt on the 18th to take the silver. Shanshan Feng of China wins the bronze.
___
1:40 p.m.
Serbia counted down the final minute before running to midcourt to celebrate, capping off its first Olympics in women's basketball with a bronze medal by beating France 70-63 on Saturday.
Jelena Milovanovic scored 18 points for the Serbs, who were jumping up and down on the bench with hands clasped waiting for the final horn. The crowd helped count down the final seconds and after the game the Serbia team tossed coach Marina Maljkovic into the air a couple of times.
France leaves its third Olympics without any hardware after taking silver at the 2012 London Games.
The Serbs appeared stunned after their loss to Spain in the semifinals Thursday. They rebounded well, racing out to a 12-3 lead and were up 18-10 after the first quarter. When France went up 40-37, Serbia finished the third quarter scoring on an 18-2 run and never trailed again.
Endy Miyem led France with 18 points.
___
1:40 p.m.
A three-cyclist pack led the women's mountain bike race halfway through.
Jenny Rissveds of Sweden, Jolanda Neff of Switzerland and Maja Wloszczowska of Poland were bunched up at the head of the 31-woman field about halfway through the six-plus lap race.
Each lap is just more than 3 miles. Reigning world champ Annika Langvad of Denmark was in ninth, 34 seconds behind the leaders.
___
1:35 p.m.
The U.S. protest in the men's 4x100 meter relay has been rejected, and Canada will keep the bronze medal.
The Americans were disqualified from the final, won by Jamaica, for an illegal baton exchange in the first passing zone.
Officials ruled Mike Rodgers handed the stick to Justin Gatlin before it reached the 20-meter zone.
The United States finished third, but minutes later, the team was disqualified, and the U.S. protested.
It marked the ninth time since 1995 that the U.S. men have either been disqualified or failed to finish the 4x100 at world championships or the Olympics.
___
1:30 p.m.
They came for a third-straight Olympic gold, but Norway's women's handball team had to settle for bronze.
After being defeated in the semifinals by Russia, Norway recovered well to beat the Netherlands 36-26 in Saturday's bronze medal game.
Nora Mork scored seven goals for Norway, which led 19-13 at half time and played strong defense in the second half to hold off a Dutch fightback.
Norway has now won a women's handball medal at six of the last eight Olympics, including gold in 2008 and 2012.
__
1:25 p.m.
Serbia's defending Olympic taekwondo champion Milica Mandic is through to the quarterfinals at the Rio de Janeiro Olympics after a commanding performance in her first-round match Saturday morning.
Mandic overpowered Norwegian fighter Tina Skaar, using a series of head kicks in the third round that gave her a significant lead. Mandic won by a score of 8 to 2.
Mandic won the gold medal in the women's heavyweight category at the London Games and also took a silver at the European championships in May. She is seeded sixth at the Olympics and will next face Britain's Bianca Walkden, the current world champion in the quarterfinals on Saturday afternoon.
In the men's division, Anthony Obame, who won Gabon's first Olympic medal in London, a silver, lost to Britain's Mahama Cho in the first round. Obame still could have a chance to fight for a bronze medal in the repechage competition.
___
1:15 p.m.
Gwen Jorgensen gave the U.S. its first Olympic triathlon gold medal Saturday, crushing the field at breezy Copacabana Beach in 1 hour, 56 minutes and 16 seconds.
Nicola Spirig of Switzerland, who won gold in London four years ago when Jorgensen was bamboozled by a flat tire, crossed 40 seconds later for the silver medal. Vicky Holland outsprinted British teammate Non Stanford to win the bronze.
Jorgensen was drafting with Spirig for the entire run after they dismounted their bikes together but after smiling at Spirig with about two kilometers left, Jorgensen made her breakaway and wouldn't be challenged.
As she approached the blue ribbon, the former All-American track athlete and swimmer at the University of Wisconsin turned and Spirig wasn't anywhere in site. Jorgensen flipped up her goggles, acknowledged the cheers with a wide smile and grabbed the tape above her head after crossing the finish.
Then, she broke down in tears.
The only other American to win an Olympic triathlon medal was Susan Williams, the silver medalist at the 2004 Athens Games.
___
1:05 p.m.
MEDAL ALERT: Gwen Jorgensen of the U.S. wins the women's Olympic triathlon at Copacabana Beach in 1 hour, 56 minutes, 16 seconds. Nicola Spirig of Switzerland, who won gold in London, takes the silver and Vicky Holland of Britain wins bronze.
___
1 p.m.
FAILED TO QUALIFY: Tom Daley of Britain has failed to qualify for the men's 10-meter platform diving final. He finished 18th and last in the semifinals. He led after the preliminaries. Four years ago, Daley earned bronze on home soil in London.
___
1 p.m.
Great Britain's James Cooke has set an Olympic modern pentathlon record in swimming to lead after one event.
Cooke finished the 200-meter race in 1 minute, 55.60 seconds, breaking the record of 1:55.70 set by Egypt's Amro El Geziry at the 2012 London Games.
Cooke has 354 points, one ahead of El Geziry with four events to go.
___
AP Summer Games website: http://summergames.ap | The USA women's basketball team won Olympic gold for a historically impressive sixth time in a row Saturday, defeating Spain 101-72 in Rio, USA Today reports. The team has now won 49 games in a row. And only once has an opponent come within 10 points of Team USA during that streak. The Americans posted an average margin of victory of 38.5 points in Rio and "simply had no peers in these Olympics." The AP states Team USA played "nearly flawless" basketball. Diana Taurasi and Lindsay Whalen led the way against Spain with 17 points each. A 16-3 Team USA run in the second quarter effectively ended any hope Spain had for the upset. It's the fourth gold medal for Taurasi, Sue Bird, and Tamika Catchings. |
IRS prepares separate sets of financial statements showing the results of its operations for (1) administrative operations, which include $8 billion in payroll and other expenses, and (2) custodial functions, which reflect $1.4 trillion in tax collections. IRS began preparing these annual statements starting with those for fiscal year 1992 as part of a pilot program under the CFO Act of 1990. We have been unable to express an opinion on the reliability of these financial statements for any of the 4 fiscal years from 1992 through 1995. We identified fundamental problems with both the administrative and the financial statements and IRS has not yet fully corrected them. Until resolved, they will continue to prevent us from expressing an opinion on IRS’ financial statements in the future. The following sections outline these problems and IRS’ improvement plans and progress. Each year, IRS spends billions of dollars in operating expenses to (1) process tax returns, provide taxpayer assistance, and manage tax programs, (2) enforce tax laws, and (3) develop and maintain information systems. For fiscal year 1995, IRS reported $8.1 billion in operating costs, including $5.3 billion for payroll and other personnel costs and $2.8 billion for the cost of goods and services, such as rent, printing, and acquiring and maintaining automatic data processing equipment. Our initial financial audits identified serious problems in accounting for and reporting on IRS administrative operations, which has resulted in IRS making improvement in these areas. For example, IRS has successfully implemented a financial management system (which according to Treasury, conforms to the government’s Standard General Ledger) to account for its appropriated funds, which has helped IRS to correct some of its past transaction processing problems that diminished the accuracy and reliability of its cost information, and transferred its payroll processing to the Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center and, as a result, improved its accounting for payroll expenses. These improvements have made IRS’ accounting for its administrative operations much better today than it was 4 years ago. For example, we are now able to substantiate IRS’ payroll expenses of about $5 billion. However, the following two major problems still need to be fully corrected. A significant portion of IRS’ reported $3 billion in nonpayroll operating expenses for goods and services could not be verified. The amounts IRS reported as appropriations available for expenditure for operations could not be reconciled fully with Treasury’s central accounting records showing these amounts, and in the past, hundreds of millions of dollars in gross differences had been identified. We found several problems in attempting to substantiate amounts IRS reported as having been spent for goods and services. IRS did not have support for when and if certain goods or services were received and, in other instances, did not have support for reported expense amounts. For example, IRS accepts Government Printing Office (GPO) bills as being accurate and records an expense in its financial records without first verifying that the printing goods and services being billed were actually delivered and accepted. Also, in instances where IRS could provide information showing proper receipt and acceptance of goods and services, expenses were often recorded in the wrong fiscal year. This problem occurs because (1) IRS offices that receive and accept goods and services do not always forward to IRS accounting offices evidence supporting these actions and (2) IRS accounting offices used inconsistent, and in some cases incorrect, policies and procedures for recording expenses. Ensuring that goods and services have been received and properly accounted for are fundamental accounting steps and controls. Over the past 4 years, we have recommended that IRS revise its procedures to incorporate the requirements that accurate receipt and acceptance data on invoiced items be obtained prior to payment and that supervisors ensure that these procedures are carried out, and revise its document control procedures to require IRS units that actually receive goods and services to promptly forward receiving reports to accounting offices so that these transactions can be properly accounted for. IRS believes the core issue for correcting its receipt and acceptance problems relate to properly accounting for transactions with other federal agencies. IRS plans to address this issue by completely and accurately documenting its current accounting systems and control procedures for procuring, receiving, accepting, and paying for goods and services through other federal agencies, such as GPO and the General Services Administration, and recording the related budgetary, expense, and cash disbursement transactions; identifying and evaluating the reliability of available documentary evidence and systems, which until this point have been developed and utilized primarily to meet operational rather than financial reporting objectives; working with other federal agencies to explore ways to improve the timeliness, nature, and extent of documentation supporting interagency payments that would allow IRS to properly account for these interagency transactions; and developing both short- and long-term improvements to its accounting systems and control procedures, including modifications to its automated systems to allow for direct interfaces between its operating systems and its general ledger accounting system. IRS is now beginning to deal with this problem in a comprehensive way. To that end, it has engaged an accounting firm for assistance in carrying out this plan. We are closely monitoring IRS’ and its contractor’s progress because, only through an intense, concerted effort, will the proposed solutions be implemented on time for the fiscal year 1996 audit. Also, we could not verify the accuracy of IRS’ Fund Balance with Treasury accounts that are related to IRS’ appropriation accounts for its operations. The Fund Balance accounts are used to record cash receipts and cash disbursements for these appropriations. These accounts are much like checking accounts with a bank, and their balances represent the amount of appropriations available to IRS for expenditure. Accordingly, like bank checking accounts, each month, these accounts must be reconciled with the bank’s records, and any differences reported to the bank. In this case, the banker is the Treasury and the differences are great. These accounts have been unreconciled in each of the years we have audited IRS’ financial statements. The net reconciling differences are made up of gross differences in the hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, we reported last year that IRS was researching $13 million in net differences that consisted of $661 million of increases and $674 million of decreases. We have recommended that IRS promptly resolve differences between IRS and Treasury records of IRS’ cash balances and adjust accounts accordingly and promptly investigate and record suspense account items to appropriate appropriation accounts. In fiscal year 1995, IRS hired a contractor to provide information on the differences between IRS and Treasury records through fiscal year 1995 and established a task force to resolve the differences the contractor identified. IRS found that documentation was no longer available to resolve prefiscal year 1993 differences, which resulted in $10 million of net positive cash reconciling differences being written off. IRS has not yet completed the research necessary to resolve fiscal year 1993, 1994, and 1995 differences. Further, additional research is required to resolve differences held in IRS’ Suspense Accounts and Budget Clearing Accounts at Treasury. To this end, IRS has developed plans to complete its posting of adjustments to its appropriation accounts for fiscal year 1995 based on our review of these adjustments, and engage a contractor to assist in completing its reconciliation of balances remaining in its Budget Clearing Accounts and Suspense Accounts. IRS plans to complete the necessary adjustments to its records and Treasury’s records prior to the closing of its books for fiscal year 1996. In addition to completing this research, IRS must ensure that effective processes and procedures are in place to routinely reconcile its Fund Balance with Treasury accounts. In this regard, IRS has created a unit to manage the reconciliation of these accounts on an ongoing basis. Overall, IRS’ success in resolving the basic accounting and control issues involving its administrative operations will be indicative of its commitment and ability to resolve larger and more complex issues involving accounts receivable and revenue accounting. We could not verify the validity of either the $113 billion of accounts receivable or the $46 billion of collectible accounts receivables that IRS reported on its fiscal year 1995 financial statements. In our audit of IRS’ fiscal year 1992 financial statements, after performing a detailed analysis of IRS’ receivables as of June 30, 1991, we estimated that only $65 billion of about $105 billion in gross reported receivables that we reviewed was valid for financial reporting purposes and that only $19 billion of the valid receivables was collectible. At the time, IRS had reported that $66 billion of the $105 billion was collectible. In our audit of IRS’ fiscal year 1992 financial statements, we recommended that IRS take steps to ensure the accuracy of the balances reported in its financial statements by, in the long-term, identifying which assessments currently recorded in the masterfile represent valid receivables and designating new assessments that should be included in the receivables balance as they are recorded. We recommended also that, until these capabilities are implemented, IRS rely on statistical sampling to determine what portion of its assessments represent valid receivables. Subsequently, we helped IRS develop a statistical sampling method that, if properly applied, would allow it to reliably estimate and report valid and collectible accounts receivable on its financial statements. We evaluated and tested IRS’ use of the method as part of our succeeding financial audits and found that IRS made errors in carrying out the statistical sampling procedures, which rendered the sampling results unreliable. For the fiscal year 1995 audit, for the first time, IRS tried, also without success, to specifically identify its accounts receivable. Further, IRS’ accounting and reporting for accounts receivable is hampered by the limitations of its financial management system. IRS’ system is not designed to specifically identify and separately track from detailed taxpayer records those owing taxes reportable as accounts receivable. To mitigate this system’s limitation in fiscal year 1995, IRS reported accounts receivable by using the uncollected assessment information from its computer system’s master files, which were automatically sorted into either compliance assessments or financial receivables. In this way, IRS planned to identify the amount specifically related to financial receivables and report it as valid accounts receivable as of September 30, 1995. However, when we tested a sample of the automated sorting results, we found cases in which the financial management system’s data were incorrect, and thus, did not properly segregate compliance assessments from financial receivables. We identified instances in which compliance assessments were classified as financial receivables, and thus, incorrectly included as accounts receivable; and other cases in which financial receivables were classified as compliance assessments, and thus, improperly excluded from accounts receivable. Based on the testing results, we concluded that the process IRS used in 1995 was unreliable for projecting the total inventory of outstanding assessments. Consequently, the accounts receivable reported on the fiscal year 1995 financial statements could not be relied on. IRS’ plans call for improving accounts receivable reporting in the short term by analyzing, by September 30, 1996, its inventory of uncollected assessments to determine ways to resolve issues concerning the financial management system’s underlying data limitations and reliably determining, by January 6, 1997, the estimated amount of accounts receivable that is collectible. Also, IRS needs to review and update current policies and procedures for maintaining documentation supporting accounts receivable, and when necessary, train employees to properly record detailed taxpayer transactions. Currently, IRS is reviewing its policies for retaining documentation supporting accounts receivable. In addition, IRS will be challenged to fully meet the federal accounting standards for accounting for accounts receivable, which become effective for fiscal year 1998. IRS will need to design its financial management system to analyze all outstanding amounts to properly identify and report valid accounts receivable and the amount expected to be collected; track all activity affecting IRS’ accounts receivable balance, including collections as a result of enforcement efforts, tax abatements, and aging of receivables; and provide dollar information about its compliance assessments. Our audit of IRS’ fiscal year 1995 financial statements found that the amounts of total revenue (reported to be $1.4 trillion for fiscal year 1995) and tax refunds (reported to be $122 billion for fiscal year 1995) could not be verified or reconciled to accounting records maintained for individual taxpayers in the aggregate and the amounts reported for various types of taxes collected (social security, income, and excise taxes, for example) could not be substantiated. Our financial audits have found that IRS’ financial statement amounts for revenue, in total and by type of tax, were not derived from its revenue general ledger accounting system or its master files of detailed individual taxpayer records. The revenue accounting system does not contain detailed information by type of tax, such as individual income tax or corporate tax, and the master file cannot summarize the taxpayer information needed to support the amounts identified in the system. As a result, IRS relied without much success on alternative sources, such as Treasury schedules, to obtain the summary total by type of tax needed for its financial statement presentation. To substantiate the Treasury figures, our audits attempted to reconcile IRS’ master files—the only detailed records available of tax revenue collected—with Treasury records. For fiscal year 1994, for example, we found that IRS’ reported total of $1.3 trillion for revenue collections taken from Treasury schedules was $10.4 billion more than what was recorded in IRS’ master files. Because IRS was unable to satisfactorily explain— and we could not determine—the reasons for this difference, the full magnitude of the discrepancy remains uncertain. In addition to the difference in total revenues collected, we also found large discrepancies between information in IRS’ master files and the Treasury data used for the various types of taxes reported in IRS’ financial statements. For fiscal year 1994, for example, some of the larger reported amounts in IRS’ financial statement for which IRS had insufficient support were $615 billion in individual taxes collected—this amount was $10.8 billion more than what was recorded in IRS’ master files; $433 billion in social security insurance taxes collected—this amount was $5 billion less than what was recorded in IRS’ master files; and $148 billion in corporate income taxes—this amount was $6.6 billion more than what was recorded in IRS’ master files. Thus, IRS did not know and we could not determine if the reported amounts were correct. These discrepancies also further reduce our confidence in the accuracy of the amount of total revenues collected. Contributing to these discrepancies is a fundamental problem in the way tax payments are reported to IRS. About 80 percent, or about $1.1 trillion, of total tax payments are made by businesses and typically include (1) taxes withheld from employees’ checks for income taxes, (2) Federal Insurance Compensation Act (FICA) collections, and (3) the employer’s matching share of FICA. IRS requires business taxpayers to make tax payments using federal tax deposit coupons. The payment coupons identify the type of tax return to which they relate (such as a Form 941, Quarterly Wage and Tax Return) but do not specifically identify either the type of taxes being paid or the individuals whose tax withholdings are being paid. For example, a payment coupon indicating that a deposit relates to a Form 941 return can cover payments for employees’ tax withholding, FICA taxes, and an employer’s FICA taxes. Because only the total dollars being deposited are indicated on the coupon, IRS knows that the entire amount relates to a Form 941 return but does not know how much of the deposit relates to the different kinds of taxes covered by that type of return. Consequently, at the time tax payments are made, IRS is not provided information on the ultimate recipient of the taxes collected. Furthermore, the type of tax being collected is not distinguished early in the collection stream. This creates a massive reconciliation process involving billions of transactions and subsequent tax return filings. For example, when an individual files a tax return, IRS initially accepts amounts reported as a legitimate record of a taxpayer’s income and taxes withheld. For IRS’ purposes, these amounts represent taxes paid because they cannot be readily verified to the taxes reported by an individual’s employer as having been paid. At the end of each year, IRS receives information on individual taxpayers’ earnings from the Social Security Administration. IRS compares the information from the Social Security Administration to the amounts reported by taxpayers with their tax returns. However, this matching process can take 2-1/2 years or more to complete, making IRS’ efforts to identify noncompliant taxpayers extremely slow and significantly hindering IRS’ ability to collect amounts subsequently identified as owed from false or incorrectly reported amounts. Consistent with this process, IRS’ system is designed to identify only total receipts by type of return and not the entity which is to receive the funds collected, such as the General Fund at Treasury for employee income tax withholdings or the Social Security Trust Fund for FICA. Ideally, the system should contain summarized information on detailed taxpayer accounts, and such amounts should be readily and routinely reconciled to the detailed taxpayer records in IRS’ master files. Also, IRS has not yet established an adequate procedure to reconcile the revenue data that the system does capture with data recorded and reported by Treasury. Further, documentation describing what IRS’ financial management system is programmed to do is neither comprehensive nor up to date, which means that IRS does not yet have a complete picture of the financial system’s operations—a prerequisite to fixing the problems. Beginning with our audit of IRS’ fiscal year 1992 financial statements, we have made recommendations to correct weaknesses involving IRS’ revenue accounting system and processes. They include addressing limitations in the information submitted to IRS with tax payments by requiring that payments identify the type of taxes being collected, implementing procedures to complete reconciliations of revenue and refund amounts with amounts reported by the Treasury, and documenting IRS’ financial management system to identify and correct the limitations and weaknesses that hamper its ability to substantiate the revenue and refund amounts reported on its financial statements. The problem of identifying collections by type of tax results from inherent limitations in IRS’ present financial system. To correct this problem in the short term, IRS has developed a methodology that uses software programs IRS believes will capture from its revenue financial management system the detailed revenue and refund transactions that would support reported amounts in its future financial statements. In short, this approach is directed at developing reasonable estimates of taxes by type of tax collected by using the capabilities of IRS’ present systems. To reconcile IRS’ tax revenue data with Treasury’s balances, IRS’ plans call for the extracts from these software programs to be available in accordance with the following schedule: Data for the first 6 months of fiscal year 1996 will be available by October 1, 1996. Data for the entire fiscal year will be available by January 15, 1997. To provide an allocation of taxes between social security, income, and excise taxes, IRS plans call for the extracts from these software programs to be available in the following timeframes: Allocations for the first three quarters of fiscal year 1996 are due by November 30, 1996. An allocation for the final quarter of fiscal year 1996 is due by January 30, 1997. Also, regarding the issue of reconciling accounting records with individual taxpayer accounts, IRS is trying to better understand the differences between its systems and Treasury’s records. To gain this understanding, IRS plans to soon complete documentation of its revenue financial management system in the near future. This is critical to (1) aid in identifying better interim solutions for reporting revenues and refunds and (2) provide better insights on the longer term system fixes needed to enable IRS to readily and reliably provide the underlying support for its reported revenue and refund amounts. IRS has not yet put in place the necessary procedures to routinely reconcile activity in its summary accounting records with that maintained in its detailed master file records or taxpayer accounts. This problem is further exacerbated by IRS’ financial management system, which was not designed to support financial statement presentation and thus significantly hinders IRS’ ability to identify the ultimate recipient of collected taxes. Longer term system fixes are necessary to achieve more reliable reporting of these amounts. In this regard, as part of Tax Systems Modernization, IRS has designed the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) to electronically receive deposits from businesses. EFTPS is planned to be operational by the end of 1996. If implemented as designed, EFTPS will have the capability to collect actual receipt information for excise and social security taxes. However, not all employers will be required to use EFTPS to make their federal tax deposit payments. According to IRS officials, approximately 20 percent of the employers that make federal tax deposit payments will have the option of remaining with the current system, which provides limited information. Therefore, even if employers that use EFTPS are required to provide additional information on social security and excise taxes, to the extent that some businesses still make deposits using the current system, IRS will not have the complete information it needs to determine collections from excise and social security taxes. In addition, IRS will have to make changes to meet criteria for determining revenue that are contained in federal accounting standards, which will be effective for fiscal year 1998. This will require IRS to account for the source and disposition of all taxes in a manner that enables accurate reporting of cash collections and accounts receivable and appropriate transfers of revenue to the various trust funds and the general fund. To achieve this, IRS’ accounting system will need to capture the flow of all revenue-related transactions from assessment to ultimate collection and disposition. Also, IRS’ revenue accounting system does not meet the government’s standard general ledger or other financial management systems requirements. According to IRS, these requirements are not being met because the revenue accounting system was designed more than 10 years ago to post transactions to taxpayers’ accounts. IRS is in the initial stages of developing a new revenue financial accounting system that is expected to meet the government’s standard general ledger and other financial management systems requirements. However, the new system is not expected to be completed until after 1998. IRS’ capability to develop and make automated systems changes is an area of continuing concern, as we have discussed in our reports and testimonies on IRS’ Tax Systems Modernization (TSM). (See attachment I.) In March 1996, we testified before the Subcommittee on IRS’ significant challenges in financial management and systems modernization, which are central to IRS’ guardianship of federal revenues and ability to function efficiently in an increasingly technological environment. In summary, IRS has initiated actions that begin to implement the dozens of recommendations we have previously made to correct management and technical problems in developing TSM. Many of these actions are still incomplete and do not yet respond fully to any of our recommendations. As a result, until IRS makes more progress in correcting its management and technical weaknesses, its ability to develop systems and make changes to correct financial management problems will be hampered. The CFO Act, as expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, requires the 24 CFO Act agencies to prepare, and subject to audit, financial statements covering all accounts and associated activities of each office, bureau, and activity of the agency. This requirement begins with agencies’ financial statements for fiscal year 1996. Audit reports are to be prepared by March 1, 1997, and each year thereafter. In addition to agencywide financial statements, the expanded CFO Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to annually prepare consolidated financial statements depicting the Executive Branch’s financial status. This requirement begins with financial statements for fiscal year 1997; GAO is to audit them by March 31 of each year, beginning in 1998. IRS’ financial information will provide significant input to the preparation and audit of both Treasury’s agencywide and the governmentwide financial statements. For example, with $1.4 trillion in tax revenue, IRS accounts for the vast majority of the government’s total reported fiscal year 1995 revenue and IRS’ $113 billion in reported accounts receivables is over two-thirds, or about 68 percent, of the government’s total fiscal year 1995 accounts receivables, which Treasury reported to be more than $166 billion. Also, IRS financial reporting affects the financial reports of the government agencies for which IRS collects tax receipts, such as the Social Security Administration for the Social Security Trust Fund and the Department of Labor for the Unemployment Trust Fund. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, to meet federal accounting standards, IRS will have to disclose the reasons for any continuing noncompliance with the laws relating to the disposition of tax revenue to trust funds and the amount of overfunding or underfunding, if reasonably estimable. As a central government financial management leader, it is essential for the Department of the Treasury to ensure that the problems IRS faces in preparing financial statements on its operations are promptly resolved so that these problems do not delay the preparation, or affect the credibility, of Treasury’s agencywide financial statements. Also, unless IRS’ financial management problems are dealt with, they will affect the ability to render an opinion on the governmentwide financial statements. In summary, it will be essential for IRS to follow-through and ensure that its planned short-term, interim actions are completed on schedule to improve the reliability of IRS’ financial statements, and we will continue to work with IRS in doing so. We also will continue to monitor IRS’ efforts to complete our recommendations and implement longer term systems improvements. The Subcommittee’s continued oversight of IRS’ progress in implementing the CFO Act and preparing auditable financial statements will provide important impetus as well. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to now respond to any questions. Financial Audit: Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1992 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-93-2, June 30, 1993) Financial Audit: Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1993 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-94-120, June 15, 1994) Financial Audit: Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1994 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-95-141, August 4, 1995) Financial Audit: Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1995 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-96-101, July 11, 1996) IRS Operations: Significant Challenges in Financial Management and Systems Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-96-56, March 6, 1996) Tax Systems Modernization: Management and Technical Weaknesses Must Be Overcome To Achieve Success (GAO/T-AIMD-96-75, March 26, 1996) Tax Systems Modernization: Progress in Achieving IRS’ Business Vision (GAO/T-GGD-96-123, May 9, 1996) Letter to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, on security weaknesses at IRS’ Cyberfile Data Center (AIMD-96-85R, May 9, 1996) Financial Audit: Actions Needed to Improve IRS Financial Management (GAO/T-AIMD-96-96, June 6, 1996) Tax Systems Modernization: Actions Underway But IRS Has Not Yet Corrected Management and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-96-106, June 7, 1996) Tax Systems Modernization: Cyberfile Project Was Poorly Planned and Managed (GAO/AIMD-96-140, August 26, 1996) Internal Revenue Service: Business Operations Need Continued Improvement (GAO/AIMD/GGD-96-152, September 9, 1996) Internal Revenue Service: Critical Need to Continue Improving Core Business Practices (GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-96-188, September 10, 1996) The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO discussed the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) efforts to prepare reliable financial statements and improve its financial management, focusing on: (1) IRS implementation of GAO recommendations to correct financial management weaknesses; (2) IRS progress in addressing major problems that have prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on its financial statements; (3) IRS problems in developing Tax Systems Modernization (TSM); and (4) how IRS financial management weaknesses affect Department of the Treasury and governmentwide financial statements. GAO noted that: (1) IRS is implementing some short-term interim strategies to resolve financial management problems in time for its fiscal year 1996 financial statement audit; (2) IRS will need to make more sweeping changes and devise long-term solutions to fully address problems in its accounting for administrative operations, reporting accounts receivable, and accounting for revenue; (3) many IRS actions for correcting management and technical problems in developing TSM are incomplete and do not fully respond to the recommendations; (4) IRS financial information provides significant input to and greatly affects the preparation and audit of Treasury and governmentwide financial statements; and (5) it will be essential for IRS to follow through on its short-term and long-term efforts to improve its financial statements and financial management systems. |
In a raucous campaign-style rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night, Donald Trump mocked Christine Blasey Ford, who in wrenching testimony at a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee last week said the supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager.
As hundreds of supporters cheered, Trump delivered a crude imitation of Ford from her testimony, in which she vividly described a violent sexual assault she alleges Kavanaugh committed against her in the early 1980s, while admitting that certain details of the time and place were lost to memory.
Early on Wednesday, the Republican senator Jeff Flake, a key member of the Senate judiciary committee that held the hearing, called Trump’s remarks “kind of appalling”.
Sign up for the US morning briefing
Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 20 women, whose allegations he has denied and dismissed. But last week he called Ford a “very credible witness” and said: “I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman.”
At his rally, the president mocked Ford’s testimony with a question-and-answer patter that brought cheers from the crowd in Southaven, Mississippi.
“How did you get home?” Trump said, echoing a question Ford was asked by the committee. “I don’t remember,” the president said.
“How did you get there? ‘I don’t remember.’ Where is the place? ‘I don’t remember.’ How many years ago was it? ‘I don’t know.’ What neighborhood was it? ‘I don’t know.’ Where’s the house? ‘I don’t know.’”
Trump defends Kavanaugh but says 'a lot will depend' on FBI investigation Read more
Trump concluded the riff by lamenting the personal cost to Kavanaugh of Ford’s allegations and by insinuating that Ford was part of a partisan conspiracy. “They destroy people, these are really evil people,” Trump said.
But Flake countered on Wednesday morning.
“To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right. It’s just not right, and I wish he had not done it,” Flake said on NBC. He was standing next to the Democratic senator and fellow committee member Chris Coons of Delaware.
Flake triggered an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh last Friday when, at the last minute and after being confronted by two protesters in an elevator on Capitol Hill, he agreed to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination – but only if there was a week delay for law enforcement to investigate allegations of serious sexual misconduct against the judge. The White House then ordered the investigation.
Flake made his about-face having signaled moments earlier that he would vote to approve Kavanaugh outright, then huddling in frantic negotiations with Democratics on the committee. He has since continued his strong stance of questioning Kavanaugh’s nomination.
On Tuesday night after the remarks, Michael Bromwich, a member of Ford’s legal team, condemned “a vicious, vile and soulless attack”.
Writing on Twitter, he said of Ford, and Trump: “Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice.”
Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) A vicious, vile and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice. https://t.co/UJ0bGxV1EZ
Last week’s day of drama had followed an extraordinary hearing by the committee the day before when Kavanaugh and Ford gave dueling testimony about a party in their high school years at which Ford says the then 17-year-old Kavanaugh attempted to rape her, when she was 15. He furiously disputed the account in an emotional and partisan display.
In contrast to Trump’s portrayal on Tuesday evening, Ford accurately placed multiple people in Kavanaugh’s contemporaneous social circle – as established by his archived calendars from the era – at the scene, and gave a clear account of the alleged attack itself.
In her testimony, she said: “I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.”
Kavanaugh is Trump’s second pick to fill a supreme court vacancy. The confirmation process for Trump’s first pick, Neil Gorsuch, proceeded to a vote without significant controversy.
Hundreds of law professors sign letters rejecting Kavanaugh nomination Read more
But Kavanaugh has been waylaid by accusations of sexual assault by Ford and two other women who have spoken out publicly, and by doubts about his testimony before the Senate, which included conspiracy-mongering and dubious descriptions of his high school and college years.
Speaking under oath before the Senate committee, Kavanaugh denied any drinking problem and denied bragging about sexual conquests in a high school yearbook entry.
Former classmates have since stepped forward to say that Kavanaugh was a frequent drunk. The New York Times on Tuesday published a handwritten letter by Kavanaugh instructing friends participating in an upcoming holiday rental to “warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us”.
In testimony last Thursday, Ford described attending a house party in the Washington DC suburbs in the early 1980s at which she was pushed into a bedroom where a drunk Kavanaugh held her down, groped her, tried to strip her and left her fearing for her life.
Republicans have insinuated that Ford mistook Kavanaugh’s identity.
Ford told the Senate she was “100%” certain that he was her attacker, Kavanaugh said he was “100%” certain he was not. ||||| President Trump mocked the account of a woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of assault and told a Mississippi crowd that the #MeToo movement was unfairly hurting men.
Trump, in a riff that has been dreaded by White House and Senate aides, attacked the story of Christine Blasey Ford at length — drawing laughs from the crowd. The remarks were his strongest attacks yet of her testimony.
“ ‘I don’t know. I don’t know.’ ‘Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it?’ ‘I don’t know. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember,’ ” Trump said of Ford, as he impersonated her on stage.
“I don’t remember,” he said repeatedly, apparently mocking her testimony.
Ford has said the incident happened in an upstairs room and that she is “100 percent” certain it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her, although she has acknowledged that her memories of other details of the evening remain unclear.
Trump then told the crowd that men were going to be fired from their jobs after being unfairly accused of sexual harassment. Trump himself has been accused of harassment by many women and has been caught on tape bragging about groping women.
“Think of your husbands. Think of your sons,” Trump told the crowd.
He said that Kavanaugh’s life was “in tatters” and urged the crowd to think about his family. And in an apparent swipe at all of Kavanaugh’s accusers, he declared: “These are really evil people.”
In a tweet after the rally, Michael Bromwich, an attorney for Ford, called Trump’s remarks “a vicious, vile and soulless attack” on his client.
“Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice,” Bromwich said.
Trump made the remarks at a freewheeling rally that comes as the FBI investigates allegations that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted female students while in high school and college.
In her testimony last week, Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her decades ago when they were both teenagers. Kavanaugh has angrily denied the allegations.
Trump had previously refrained from attacking Ford personally, although he sent a tweet last month in which he questioned why Ford or her parents had not “immediately” filed charges with local law enforcement after the alleged incident.
Tuesday’s attack could further inflame tensions in the pitched battle over Kavanaugh’s confirmation — and alienate moderate key votes like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
Trump had no words of comfort for women like Ford who say they were attacked, raped or sexually assaulted.
Trump’s aides have repeatedly urged him not to take on Ford, saying there is no benefit.
Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with the Kavanaugh drama, aides say, and sees it as key to the midterms.
The president lavished praise on Kavanaugh at the rally, and the crowd responded with similar enthusiasm, breaking out into chants of, “We want Kavanaugh! We want Kavanaugh!”
But Trump also seemed to distance himself from his own nominee, even as he told the crowd he needed their support to get him through.
“I don’t even know him. I met him for the first time a few weeks ago. It’s not like I want to protect my friend,” Trump said.
Speaking for more than an hour, Trump touched on several of his favorite topics, including his new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the crowd size at his events and the state of the economy.
He also mocked Democrats as acting “holier than thou” and focused on several potential 2020 presidential contenders by name, including former vice president Joe Biden, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). At one point, he also appeared to suggest that one Senate Democrat drinks too much, offering no proof for his attacks but urging the crowd to Google the senator’s name.
Trump was visiting Mississippi to rally support for Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) ahead of the November election. Hyde-Smith, the state’s first female senator, was appointed to succeed longtime Sen. Thad Cochran (R), who resigned in April amid health concerns. She faces three opponents in the nonpartisan special election for the remaining two years of Cochran’s term: Republican Chris McDaniel and Democrats Mike Espy and Tobey Bartee.
Espy, if elected, would become the first black senator to represent Mississippi since shortly after the Civil War.
Trump threw his support behind Hyde-Smith in August, declaring in a tweet that she had helped him “put America First!” If no candidate earns more than 50 percent of the vote on Nov. 6, the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff on Nov. 27.
The rally was Trump’s second of four this week, part of a final campaign push with a little over one month to go until the midterms. He heads to Minnesota on Thursday and Kansas on Saturday.
Earlier Tuesday night, the New York Times published a bombshell report detailing how Trump received hundreds of millions of dollars from his father’s real estate empire, undercutting the image Trump has long crafted of himself as a self-made man. Much of the money was funneled by Fred Trump to his children through the use of shell companies and other schemes that allowed him to avoid paying taxes on it, the Times reported.
Trump made no mention of the story during the rally. But the event’s start was slightly delayed until just after White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a statement pushing back on the article and suggesting that the newspaper should apologize for its reporting.
“Fred Trump has been gone for nearly twenty years and it’s sad to witness this misleading attack against the Trump family by the failing New York Times. Many decades ago the IRS reviewed and signed off on these transactions,” Sanders said in the statement, which did not cite any specifics of the report.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said Tuesday evening that it is reviewing the allegations in the article and “vigorously pursuing all appropriate avenues of investigation.”
Sonmez reported from Washington. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
Oct. 3, 2018, 12:46 AM GMT / Updated Oct. 3, 2018, 11:37 AM GMT By Jonathan Allen
SOUTHAVEN, Miss. — President Donald Trump on Tuesday repeatedly mocked Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, despite having said just days ago that he found her Senate testimony last week "very credible."
In a one-man reenactment of Ford's appearance before the Judiciary Committee, with his voice alternating between an impression of her and of her inquisitor, Trump challenged the veracity of the testimony that paused his nominee's confirmation.
The extended ridicule of Ford, delivered at the Landers Arena in deeply conservative DeSoto County, stood in stark contrast to the respectful way in which Trump and his aides had previously treated her testimony, even as they have stood by Kavanaugh and his assertion that he never assaulted her.
"I had one beer!" Trump said, characterizing Ford's testimony about her level of intoxication as a teenager when she says she was attacked at a small get-together in Montgomery County, Md., in the early 1980s.
"How did you get home?" the president asked, taking on the role of prosecutor.
"I don't remember," he said in his Ford voice.
"How did you get there?" Trump continued in his reenactment of the Senate hearing.
"I don't remember," he replied in the Ford voice.
Trump then mockingly asked and answered a series of questions with the responses "I don't remember" and "I don't know."
President Donald Trump's tone on Ford shifted sharply Tuesday night. Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images
One thing Ford did remember clearly — which Trump didn't mention — is that she was "100 percent" certain that it was Kavanaugh who had attacked her.
The crowd in this county, which favored Trump 65 percent to 31 percent in 2016, cheered with gusto in the midst of his banter with himself.
"A man’s life is shattered," the president said of Kavanaugh after making fun of Ford's testimony. "These are really evil people."
Michael Bromwich, an attorney for Ford, called Trump's performance "a vicious, vile and soulless attack" and said the president is "a profile in cowardice."
The Senate has delayed a final vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation while the FBI looks into multiple allegations of sexual misconduct that have been lodged against him. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.
The president's tone on Ford's testimony clashed with his assessment last week.
"I thought her testimony was very compelling, and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman," Trump said of Ford while speaking to reporters on Friday.
But his new approach was welcome here, where several rally-goers said they did not believe Kavanaugh had assaulted Ford, and some said that he should be confirmed whether or not he had.
"You have to forgive," said Michele Stuber, 55, of Holly Springs Mississippi. "If everybody in Congress had to 'fess up to everything they'd done ... there'd be nobody left."
She said she's upset by the idea that an accuser should be believed automatically.
"I hate to see our whole culture going in that direction," she said.
A short time later, Trump echoed those sentiments from the stage, characterizing Julie Swetnick's allegation that Kavanaugh was present at a gang rape as particularly outlandish.
"Guilty until proven innocent," he said. "That’s very dangerous for our country."
Within minutes, the crowd started chanting "lock her up" in reference to Hillary Clinton, Trump's vanquished 2016 rival who has not been charged with — much less convicted of — any crime.
Trump advised women to "think of your son, think of your husband." Earlier in the day he had fretted about the potential for false allegations to hurt the accused, saying then it was "a very scary time for young men in America."
Justin Hanna, 33, of Savannah, Tenn., said he agreed with the president.
Men can get in trouble "if you look at a girl the wrong way or you talk to a girl," he said. "It's just a different world we're living in now. It's not for the best in some aspects."
As he has done with increasing intensity in recent days, Trump took aim at the Democratic Party and individual lawmakers.
He accused Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., of imbibing too much — perhaps revealing who he was talking about during a Monday Rose Garden ceremony when he said he had seen a Democratic senator "compromised" by alcohol abuse.
"Look under 'Patrick Leahy slash drinking,'" he said.
He also fired off barbs at Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — both members of the Judiciary Committee — as well as "globalists," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
And he attacked the "fake news media," as he often does. However, his remarks this time came on the heels of an in-depth New York Times report on how he acquired his wealth from his father — using aggressive tax avoidance schemes and not primarily, as he often claims, through his own ingenuity and business acumen.
Ostensibly, Trump was in town to help Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who is locked in a three-way race with fellow Republican Chris McDaniel and Democrat Mike Espy, with the top two finishers in the first round squaring off in a general election. But Trump made clear at the very top of his remarks that he's thinking about his own re-election.
"I have to start by saying 2020 is looking really easy," he said. ||||| Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Tuilleadh eolais
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Tuilleadh eolais
Níorbh fhéidir an freastalaí a theagmháil. An dtriailfidh tú arís é? Cuirtear an bun-Tweet san áireamh Bíodh meáin mar chuid de
Trí ábhar Twitter a leabú i do láithreán gréasáin nó aip, tá tú ag aontú le Comhaontú an Fhorbróra agus Polasaí an Fhorbróra.
Réamhamharc | When Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, President Trump struck a respectful tone, saying he found her "very credible." That tone went out the window at a rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night, where the president mocked Ford's testimony in front of a cheering crowd, NBC reports. The audience in Southaven laughed as Trump mimicked Ford answering questions on her alleged sexual assault. "I had one beer!" he said. "How did you get home?" he continued. "'I don’t remember.' How did you get there? 'I don’t remember.' Where is the place? 'I don’t remember.’ How many years ago was it? ‘I don’t know.' What neighborhood was it? 'I don’t know.' Where’s the house? 'I don’t know.'" Trump went on to hint that Ford was part of a partisan conspiracy to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, saying the Supreme Court nominee's life was in "tatters," the Guardian reports. "They destroy people, these are really evil people," he said. After the rally, Michael Bromwich, an attorney for Ford, slammed Trump's "vicious, vile, and soulless attack," the Washington Post reports. "Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well?" he tweeted. "She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice." (Earlier Tuesday, Trump said this is a "very scary time for young men in America.") |
Between January 1999 and May 2000, the U.N. Security Council adopted 10 resolutions authorizing new peacekeeping operations or significantly expanding existing ones, including 8 resolutions for operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Table 1 lists the eight decisions and the dates respectively of the executive branch decisions to support the operations, the letters informing the Congress of these decisions, and the U.N. Security Council votes. The U.N. and multilateral operations in these three locations were undertaken to help resolve long-standing internal conflicts. The estimated cost of the ongoing U.N. operations in these locations represented over half of the $2.7 billion estimated cost of U.N peacekeeping operations in 2001. Although peace agreements or cease-fires had been reached or were imminent in these three locations, violence continued and the political accords appeared tenuous. The following paragraphs briefly describe the situations in these three locations to provide some context for the eight executive branch decisions. Appendix III provides additional information about key events related to these decisions. Since 1975, when Indonesia forcibly incorporated East Timor, the United States had supported some form of self-determination for the former Portuguese colony with a population of about 800,000 people. In 1983, Portugal and Indonesia began regular talks aimed at resolving East Timor’s status; in June 1998, Indonesia agreed to enter U.N.-mediated talks about autonomy for East Timor. In January 1999, Indonesia’s President announced his support for offering the people of East Timor a choice between autonomy within Indonesia or independence. On May 5, 1999, Indonesia and Portugal concluded a general agreement that, among other things, called for the establishment of a U.N. operation to conduct a free and fair vote for the people of East Timor to choose the territory’s future status—either autonomy within Indonesia or independence. Despite this agreement, pro-autonomy factions, supported by local militia and the Indonesian military, attempted to use violence to intimidate pro- independence factions and influence the outcome of the vote. There also was uncertainty about the Indonesian security forces’ willingness to allow a free and fair vote. The conflict in Sierra Leone began in 1991, when rebel forces (the Revolutionary United Front) began attacking government forces near the Liberian border. Sierra Leone’s army at first tried to defend the government with the support of military forces provided by the Economic Community of West African States, but the army itself overthrew the government in 1992. Despite the change of power, the rebel forces continued their attacks. The army relinquished power in 1996 after parliamentary and presidential elections. Rebel forces, however, did not participate in the elections and did not recognize the results. A November 1996 peace agreement between the government and the rebels (the Abidjan Accord) was derailed by another military coup d’état in May 1997. This time the army joined forces with the rebels to form a ruling junta and the elected government was forced into exile in Guinea. In February 1998, the West African military forces launched an attack that led to the collapse of the junta and the restoration of the elected government. In July 1998, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone to monitor the situation and help the combatants reach an overall peace agreement. In July 1999, the combatants signed the Lomé Peace Agreement, under which U.N. and West African peacekeeping forces would share in helping to provide security and disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate the combatants. During the 8 years of fighting, an estimated 500,000 Sierra Leone citizens were forced to flee to neighboring Guinea, Liberia, Gambia, and other locations. Of the estimated 6 million people remaining in Sierra Leone, 2.6 million could not be reached by humanitarian agencies and 370,000 were internally displaced. These populations suffered severe human rights abuses, including mutilations, amputations, summary executions, torture, and sexual abuse. The Congo conflict grew out of the instability that followed the Rwandan crisis of 1994 and eventually involved the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and five regional states, several Congolese rebel groups, and groups responsible for the Rwandan genocide. According to a U.N. report, this conflict was “characterized by appalling, widespread and systematic human rights violations, including mass killings, ethnic cleansing, rape and destruction of property” and its effects had “spread beyond the subregion to afflict the continent of Africa as a whole.” In August 1998, the Southern Africa Development Community and the Organization for African Unity announced the start of a regional initiative to negotiate an end to the Congo conflict. On July 10, 1999, six states signed the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement and 5 days later, on July 15, the U.N. Secretary General proposed establishing a U.N. operation to help monitor implementation of the cease-fire agreement. Directive 25 stated that U.S. and U.N. involvement in peacekeeping must be both selective and effective. This principle was underscored by the 1996 U.S. National Security Strategy Report, which stated that “the United States must make highly disciplined choices about when and under what circumstances to support” peacekeeping operations and directed officials to “undertake a rigorous assessment of requirements before voting to support operations.” To this end, Directive 25 required executive branch decision-makers to consider specific factors in deciding whether to support a proposed operation. These factors included questions about a proposed operation’s (1) political context, such as whether it advanced U.S. interests and the consequences of inaction were judged unacceptable, and (2) feasibility, such as whether it had appropriate forces, financing, and mandate to accomplish its mission and its anticipated duration was tied to clear objectives and realistic exit criteria. Directive 25 established these factors to help executive branch officials identify proposed operations’ basic political, military, and resource shortfalls but did not require that all or any particular factors be present in a proposed operation before it was approved. The directive stated that decisions would be based on the cumulative weight of the factors, with no single factor being an absolute determinant. However, the directive also stated that the United States generally would support only well-defined peace operations linked to concrete political solutions. Executive branch officials extensively considered all Directive 25 factors before deciding to support the authorization or expansion of the U.N. operations. Executive branch assessments of proposed operations identified concerns about some directive factors and shortfalls in others. Executive branch officials decided to support the operations because most factors were present and, in their judgment, U.S. interests were advanced by supporting regional allies, creating or maintaining regional stability, or addressing humanitarian disasters. Following interagency deliberations, senior executive branch officials directed State and Defense officials to strengthen the proposed operations before the U.N. Security Council voted or to develop plans to address the risks that the shortfalls posed. For the eight decisions, we found that the executive branch used a systematic process that resulted in a full consideration of all Directive 25 factors. The process for making these decisions involved the consideration of Directive 25 at the following three levels: Individual agencies. The State and Defense Departments and the National Security Council were the primary agencies that assessed the proposed operations. Individual agency deliberations included relevant regional, functional, legal, and legislative affairs experts. Peacekeeping Core Group. This interagency working group, chaired by the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs, was comprised of assistant and deputy assistant secretaries of State, Defense, and other U.S. departments and agencies. The core group brought together the individual agency assessments and developed consensus recommendations for senior decision-makers for each of the eight decisions. Deputies Committee. This interagency decision-making group, chaired by the Deputy Adviser to the President for National Security Affairs or his designee, was typically comprised of the undersecretaries of State and Defense and similar officials from other agencies. For these eight decisions, the Deputies Committee made the final decision to vote for the proposed operation. Interactions between these three levels were iterative and supported by extensive intelligence reporting. Figure 1 illustrates the process used to make these eight decisions. For the eight decisions we reviewed, we found that executive officials prepared and reviewed hundreds of records considering all applicable Directive 25 factors before deciding to support the proposed operations. These records included decision memorandums, situation assessments, concept papers, and summaries of interagency discussions. For five of the eight decisions, the State Department prepared comprehensive Directive 25 analyses that candidly assessed the proposed operations, including identifying basic political, military, and resource shortfalls. Analysis of these records showed that executive branch officials considered all applicable Directive 25 factors before making their decisions. Before the late May 1999 decision to support the U.N. Mission in East Timor, for example, executive branch officials prepared 19 assessments of the proposed operation, including a comprehensive Directive 25 analysis. These assessments considered all applicable Directive 25 factors, for example, whether (1) there was support among U.N. member states for U.N. action in Indonesia and (2) the parties consented to the deployment of a U.N. force. Before the August 1999 decision to support the expansion of the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, executive branch officials prepared 16 assessments of the proposed operation, including a comprehensive Directive 25 analysis. These assessments considered all applicable Directive 25 factors, for example, whether the expanded operation had adequate financing and forces to carry out its mission. In making all eight decisions, executive branch officials also considered assessments provided by other governments, the U.N. Secretariat, diplomatic envoys and negotiators, regional organizations, and others operating in the areas of concern. For the eight decisions, the Peacekeeping Core Group met several times specifically to consider applicable Directive 25 factors for the proposed operations and develop options and recommendations for senior decision- makers. The Deputies Committee met less frequently to consider and act on the options and recommendations developed by the core group. For example, our analysis of executive branch records showed that the core group met nine times between March and late May 1999 specifically to discuss the proposed U.N. Mission in East Timor. During this same period, the Deputies Committee met three times to consider and act on the core group’s recommendations. Similarly, between February and early August 1999, our analysis showed that the core group met eight times to discuss the proposed expansion of the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone. During this same period, the Deputies Committee met twice to consider and act on the core group’s recommendations. According to executive branch officials, these meetings were supplemented by frequent informal contacts between members of the core group and Deputies Committee. For example, core group members participated in weekly conference calls. At the time the eight decisions were made, executive branch assessments indicated that the proposed operations advanced U.S. interests. In defining U.S. interests, executive branch officials used the definitions in the annual U.S. national security strategy reports. These reports defined U.S. interests as (1) vital—those interests that affect the safety and survival of the United States; (2) important—those interests that affect U.S. national well-being, including commitments to allies; and (3) humanitarian and other—those interests related to U.S. values. Executive branch officials judged that the proposed operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo advanced important and humanitarian and other U.S. interests. For all operations, the consequences of inaction also were judged unacceptable. Other than the definitions in the annual national security strategy reports, we could find no criteria to guide executive branch officials in making judgments about these two Directive 25 factors. At the time the eight decisions were made, executive branch assessments identified at least one Directive 25 shortfall in all of the proposed operations and several shortfalls in six of them. Most of these shortfalls were related to the proposed operations’ operational feasibility, such as whether they had adequate means for carrying out their missions and their duration was tied to clear objectives and realistic exit criteria. Executive branch assessments also identified concerns about some factors. On the basis of our analysis of executive branch records, figure 2 summarizes executive branch assessments of the Directive 25 factors for the proposed operations at the time of the eight Deputies Committee decisions. The following sections briefly describe the Directive 25 shortfalls identified in executive branch assessments of the proposed operations. As shown in figure 2, executive branch assessments of the proposed U.N. Mission in East Timor identified four Directive 25 shortfalls. First, assessments questioned whether the preconditions for a peacekeeping operation (a cease-fire in place and the parties consent to the deployment of a U.N. force) existed in East Timor. Violence against pro-independence factions continued and, despite the Indonesian government’s announced consent to the operation, Indonesian security forces appeared to be supporting this violence. Second, assessments questioned whether, in the face of this continuing violence, there was a clear understanding of where the proposed operation would fit between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Third, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation’s mandate was appropriate. Despite concern about violence, the proposed operation did not include peacekeeping troops primarily because Indonesia objected to the deployment of such forces. Additionally, the role and objectives of the civilian police component were unclear given the scope of the violence. Fourth, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation’s exit criteria were realistic because there was a gap of several months between the end of the operation and a proposed follow-on U.N. operation. On May 27, 1999, the Deputies Committee decided the United States would vote in the U.N. Security Council to authorize the proposed peacekeeping operation. Factors considered in this decision included U.S. interests in aiding Australia and ending the violence in East Timor, regional support for U.N. action, and the judgment that U.N. action was East Timor’s best opportunity for democratic development. Executive branch assessments of the proposed International Force in East Timor identified one Directive 25 shortfall. As shown in figure 2, assessments questioned whether the operation’s duration was linked to realistic criteria for ending the operation. The operation’s general exit strategy was to restore peace and security to East Timor and then transfer responsibility for maintaining peace and security to the proposed U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor. However, at the time executive branch officials made their decision, the specific timing and criteria for this transfer were uncertain. The Deputies Committee decided that the United States would vote in the U.N. Security Council to authorize the proposed multilateral peace enforcement operation. As before, factors considered in this decision included U.S. interests in aiding Australia and ending the violence in East Timor. Led by Australia, the multinational force began deploying in East Timor on September 20, 1999. Executive branch assessments of the proposed U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor identified one Directive 25 shortfall. As shown in figure 2, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation had adequate means—specifically, forces and financing—to carry out its extensive nation-building tasks. In particular, assessments questioned whether the United Nations could recruit sufficient troops and international civilians to staff the operation. Although not identifying a clear shortfall in international support for U.N. action in East Timor, several assessments noted some members states’ concerns about whether the proposed operation would violate Indonesia’s sovereignty. On October 8, 1999, the Deputies Committee decided that the United States would vote for the proposed peace enforcement and nation-building operation. Factors considered in this decision included U.S. interests in aiding important regional allies and the judgment that a U.N. operation was the best choice for administering East Timor during its transition to independence. As shown in figure 2, executive branch assessments of the proposed expansion of the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone identified three shortfalls. First, assessments questioned whether the preconditions for a peacekeeping operation existed in Sierra Leone. Fighting continued in some areas of the country, and there was concern about whether the rebels and Liberia truly consented to the deployment of an expanded U.N. force. Second, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation had adequate means to carry out its mission in the face of potential rebel resistance. Third, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation’s duration was linked to realistic criteria for ending it. Concerns included whether the proposed milestones for completing some tasks were realistic and whether rebel forces would disarm and relinquish control of diamond-producing areas, as called for in the Lomé Peace Agreement. On August 5, 1999, the Deputies Committee decided to support the proposed expansion of the peacekeeping operation. Factors considered in this decision included U.S. interests in resolving the conflict in Sierra Leone, maintaining regional stability, and ending the violence against innocent civilians. Executive branch assessments of the proposed U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone identified four shortfalls, as shown in figure 2. First, assessments again questioned whether the preconditions for a peacekeeping operation existed in Sierra Leone. Fighting continued in some areas of the country, and there was continuing concern about whether the rebels and Liberia truly consented to the deployment of an expanded U.N. force. Second, assessments questioned whether, in the face of continuing violence, there was a clear understanding of where the proposed operation would fit between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Third, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation had adequate means to carry out its mission—identifying shortfalls in its forces, financing, and mandate. One concern was whether some proposed troop contingents had adequate training and equipment to deal effectively with rebel resistance. Fourth, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation’s duration was linked to clear objectives and realistic criteria for ending it. One concern was whether rebel forces would disarm and relinquish control of diamond- producing areas. On October 8, 1999, the Deputies Committee decided that the United States would vote to authorize this new peacekeeping operation. Factors considered in this decision included the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of inaction, particularly continued human rights abuses by rebel forces, and support for U.N. action by U.N. Security Council members and important regional states, including Nigeria, Guinea, and Ghana. As shown in figure 2, executive branch assessments of the proposed expansion of the U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone identified three shortfalls. First, assessments questioned whether there was a clear understanding of where the proposed operation would fit between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. One concern was whether a peace enforcement operation could maintain the neutrality and consent needed to carry out some peacekeeping tasks. Second, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation had adequate means to carry out its mission, expressing concern about whether its forces, financing, and mandate were appropriate. One concern was whether some proposed troop contingents—which were poorly trained and equipped—could effectively carry out peace enforcement tasks. Third, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation’s duration was linked to clear objectives and realistic criteria for ending it. A continuing concern was whether the rebels would disarm and relinquish control of diamond-producing areas. On January 24, 2000, the Deputies Committee decided that the United States would vote to expand the U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone and authorize it to use force to accomplish some tasks. Factors considered in this decision included U.S. interests in preventing this conflict from spreading to neighboring states, the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of inaction, and international support for U.N. action. Executive branch assessments of the proposed U.N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo identified four shortfalls, as shown in figure 2. First, assessments questioned whether the preconditions for a peacekeeping operation existed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fighting continued in some areas of the country, and it was uncertain whether the warring parties consented to the deployment of a U.N. force. Second, assessments questioned whether, in the face of continuing violence, there was a clear understanding of where the proposed operation fit between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Third, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation had adequate means—appropriate forces, financing, and mandate—to carry out its mission. Concerns included whether U.N. forces would have adequate protection and could move about the vast country effectively. Fourth, assessments questioned whether the proposed operation’s duration was linked to clear objectives and realistic criteria for ending it. One concern was the potential for the United Nations to become more deeply involved in the conflict. In recognition of such shortfalls, the United States rejected proposals to deploy a large (up to 30,000 troops) U.N. peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Instead, the Deputies Committee decided on July 23, 1999, that the United States would vote to support a small monitoring operation. Factors considered in this decision included U.S. interests in resolving the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which involved several regional states; maintaining regional stability; and preventing the resurgence of genocide and mass killings in Central Africa. As shown in figure 2, executive branch assessments of the proposed expansion (phase II) of the U.N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo identified three Directive 25 shortfalls. These assessments reflected the same basic concerns identified in executive branch assessments of the initial operation (previously described). Again, in recognition of such shortfalls, the United States rejected proposals to deploy a large U.N. peacekeeping force. Instead, the Deputies Committee decided on January 24, 2000, that the United States would vote to support a proposed peacekeeping operation that would deploy up to 5,537 troops (including up to 500 observers) in phases. Under the proposal, these phased deployments were tied to the attainment of specific objectives related to the shortfalls, such as the parties establishing a durable cease- fire. As before, factors considered in the decision included U.S. interests in resolving the conflict, restoring regional stability, and humanitarian concerns. As part of the process of making the eight decisions, executive branch officials attempted to improve the operations’ chances of success by shaping their mandates and forces to eliminate identified shortfalls. For example, concerned that objectives for the U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone were unclear, the Peacekeeping Core Group directed officials at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations to work with other U.N. member states and U.N. officials to link the objectives more directly to helping the government and the rebels implement the Lomé Peace Agreement. This was accomplished before the Deputies Committee decided to support the operation and allowed executive branch officials to change their assessment of this Directive 25 factor to reflect that the operation had clear objectives (see fig. 2). Additionally, concerned that the presence of regional peacekeeping forces was vital to the success to this operation, the Deputies Committee and Peacekeeping Core Group directed State and Defense officials to develop options for providing financial and logistical support to encourage the continued engagement of regional forces. In other cases, for example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, executive branch officials “helped shape the scope and scale of the U.N. mission…to ensure achievable objectives…and avoid overextending the and sending in peacekeepers before the conflict was ripe for resolution or a political settlement was still in the making.” In all eight decisions where Directive 25 shortfalls could not be addressed adequately before the U.N. Security Council voted, executive branch officials worked to mitigate the risks associated with these weaknesses by reducing the shortfalls’ impact on the operations. For example, concerned about the capability of forces serving in the U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone, the Deputies Committee and the Peacekeeping Core Group directed U.S. officials to (1) contact U.N. members and officials to seek more capable forces and (2) develop options for providing logistical support for some troop contingents. Furthermore, concerned about whether the cease-fire would hold in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Deputies Committee directed U.S. officials to monitor compliance closely and apply diplomatic pressure to the warring parties to observe the cease-fire agreement. Our analysis of executive branch records identified similar attempts to address other Directive 25 shortfalls for the eight decisions we reviewed. Appendix IV provides information about some of the actions taken by the executive branch to address Directive 25 shortfalls. The executive branch provided a substantial amount of information to the Congress about the proposed operations in consultations before or just after the decisions to support them. This information described how the proposed operations advanced U.S. interests, the conflicts that the proposed operations were intended to address, and other related considerations. Executive branch consultations about the two decisions regarding proposed operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo also described Directive 25 shortfalls, which helped build support in the Congress for the decisions to vote for deploying these operations. However, for the other six decisions we found little or no evidence that executive branch officials informed the Congress about the proposed operations’ Directive 25 shortfalls either in consultations with the Congress before the executive branch decided on the operations or in the information provided to the Congress in writing just after the decisions were made. Additionally, aside from the shortfall issue, executive branch officials had considerable detailed information about the proposed operations well in advance of the time they provided this information to the Congress. Our analysis of executive branch records and transcripts of monthly peacekeeping briefings for the Senate, supplemented by our observation of similar briefings for the House, showed that the executive branch began providing information to the Congress about the proposed operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as long as 4 to 6 months before the eight decisions. At monthly peacekeeping briefings, executive officials provided information about the status of ongoing U.N. operations and proposals for new or expanded operations. At these briefings, executive branch officials provided copies of key U.N. Secretary General reports, the U.N. Security Council’s upcoming calendar and work program, and monthly reports of peacekeeping finances and troop contributions. Additionally, senior executive branch officials briefed Members of Congress and their staffs about the U.N. Secretary General’s proposals for proposed peacekeeping operations and related topics. For example, in February 2000, senior officials provided a special briefing to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations about the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The briefing included detailed information about the factions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the role of neighboring states in the conflict, such as Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Administration officials also testified several times before the Congress about the operations and had separate telephone discussions and other meetings as noted in their log of congressional contacts. For seven of the eight decisions we reviewed, the executive branch informed the Congress in writing of its decision to support the proposed operation within a few days of the Deputies Committee’s decision. These letters were dated at least 15 days before the U.N. Security Council voted on the matter and were transmitted to the Congress for the purpose of meeting one of the peacekeeping reporting requirements in the U.N. Participation Act. The information required to be provided for each proposed operation includes the “anticipated duration, mandate, and command and control arrangements…the planned exit strategy, and the vital national interests to be served.” These letters provided the Congress with the most comprehensive and detailed information it received about the proposed operations. As discussed in the following section, executive branch consultations— such as briefings and reports—provided the Congress with substantial information about the U.S. interests in the proposed operations and details about their mandate, cost, and exit strategy. However, these consultations provided limited information about Directive 25 shortfalls. Figure 3 shows the typical timing and content of consultations with the Congress about the seven decisions. Although neither Directive 25 nor the U.N. Participation Act required that the executive branch consult with the Congress about operational shortfalls in the proposed operations, executive branch officials recognize that “U.S. policy-makers’ views on the shortfalls, challenges and risks associated with successfully undertaking an operation” should be addressed comprehensively during consultation discussions with the Congress. Our analysis of executive branch records and transcripts of monthly peacekeeping briefings for the Senate, supplemented by our observation of similar briefings for the House, showed that the executive branch provided the Congress with substantial information about the U.S. interests in all of the proposed operations and general information about their mandates, cost, and exit strategies. However, we found no evidence that the Congress was informed about most shortfalls identified in executive branch assessments of the proposed operations for East Timor and Sierra Leone. As previously discussed, these shortfalls included judgments that the proposed operations lacked adequate means to carry out their missions or their duration was not linked to realistic exit criteria. In contrast, our analysis showed that the Congress was informed about most shortfalls identified in executive branch assessments of the proposed operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. According to congressional staff, this information provided the Congress with an opportunity to develop a more informed opinion about the proposed operations and better convey to policy-makers its views about them. The following examples illustrate our findings about the content of executive branch consultations. Prior to the May 1999 decision to support the U.N. Mission in East Timor, executive branch assessments identified four Directive 25 shortfalls in the proposed operation. For example, 13 assessments questioned whether the operation’s mandate was appropriate, in part because the role and objectives of the civilian police component were unclear. Similarly, five assessments questioned whether the operation’s duration was tied to realistic exit criteria. In the months before the May decision, executive branch officials briefed the Congress at least 10 times about peacekeeping issues. Our analysis of executive branch and congressional records showed that those briefings provided substantial information about (1) how the proposed operation would advance the United States’ substantial security, political, and commercial interests in Indonesia; (2) the threat to international peace and security posed by the violent attacks in civilians; and (3) the necessity of U.N. action to ensure a free and fair vote. Additionally, these briefings provided information about one shortfall— concerns about whether the preconditions for a peacekeeping operation existed in East Timor. However, these briefings did not provide information about the other three shortfalls identified in executive branch assessments. Moreover, our analysis showed that these three shortfalls were not cited in the reports and other written material provided to the Congress. Prior to the August 1999 decision to support the expansion of the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, executive branch assessments identified three shortfalls in the proposed operation. For example, six assessments questioned whether the rebels truly consented to the deployment of an expanded U.N. force and the proposed operation had adequate means to carry out its mission in the face of potential rebel resistance. In the months before the August decision, executive branch officials briefed the Congress at least 16 times about peacekeeping issues. Our analysis of executive branch and congressional records showed that six of those briefings provided substantial information about the threat to international peace and security posed by the humanitarian crisis and the danger of the conflict spreading to neighboring countries. These briefings also provided information about how the proposed operation would advance U.S. interests in supporting the West African peacekeeping force in providing regional security. Additionally, these briefings provided information about one shortfall—concerns about whether the preconditions for a peacekeeping operation existed in Sierra Leone because of uncertain rebel consent. However, these briefings did not provide information about the other two shortfalls; moreover, these two shortfalls were not cited in the reports and other written material provided to the Congress. Prior to the February 2000 decision to support the expansion of the U.N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, executive branch assessments identified three shortfalls in the proposed operation. For example, six assessments questioned whether the operation had adequate means—appropriate forces, financing, and mandate—to accomplish its mission and its duration was tied to realistic exit criteria. In the months before the February decision, executive branch officials briefed the Congress at least 12 times about peacekeeping issues. Our analysis of executive branch and congressional records showed that, in contrast to the previous two examples, those briefings provided substantial information about all three shortfalls. Moreover, our analysis showed that these three shortfalls were cited in the reports and other written material provided to the Congress. The February 7 letter informing the Congress of the decision to support the proposed operation, for example, clearly cited executive branch concerns that the warring parties were not observing the cease-fire and that the U.N. force would have to provide for its own security and protection in many areas because the parties lacked the capability. According to congressional staff, this information helped the Congress develop an informed opinion about the risks associated with this operation and reflected similar information provided in briefings and other consultations that occurred before the notification. Figure 4 summarizes our analysis of the information the executive branch provided to the Congress about the Directive 25 shortfalls that existed at the time the Deputies Committee decided the United States would vote for the operations. In each case in which the figure identifies a lack of consultation about a shortfall, our analysis of executive branch records showed that assessments consistently had identified a shortfall in this factor before the decision to support the operation in the U.N. Security Council. Our analysis also showed that executive branch assessments had identified shortfalls in other factors, but figure 4 does not include these shortfalls because assessments of these factors changed during the decision-making process. Senior executive branch officials told us that they did not consult with the Congress about some Directive 25 shortfalls because (1) the administration had not reached a consensus on whether they were actual shortfalls and (2) it had not decided whether to support the operations. Additionally, executive branch officials stated that congressional committees, members, and staff had ample opportunity to ask questions about the shortfalls but did not pose specific questions to the executive branch about Directive 25 weaknesses. Moreover, according to one executive branch official, the administration provided considerable negative information about the operations, but it was up to the Congress to reach its own conclusion. Finally, executive branch officials said that it could be more forthcoming in briefing the Congress if the briefings were held in secure settings. According to these officials, the information about shortfalls was sensitive, and many of the briefings were held in relatively open forums. If the information were to become publicly known, it could be used to undermine U.S. strategy and U.N. operations. Despite these issues, executive branch officials said that the concerns expressed by the Congress during the consultations were integrated into the executive branch’s decision-making deliberations. Our review of executive branch records showed that officials did consider anticipated congressional reactions during the decision-making process. For example, the executive branch often internally discussed the reaction of congressional Members and staff to the costs and availability of troops to support the operations, particularly with the proposed expansion of the operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The information provided to the Congress in writing by the executive branch for the purpose of meeting the consultation requirements established by the U.N. Participation Act provided the Congress with the most comprehensive and detailed information it received about the proposed peacekeeping operations. The executive branch provided this information at about the same time that the U.N. Secretary General first made recommendations to the U.N. Security Council about the composition and mandate of the proposed operations. However, U.S. officials knew many details about the likely shape of the operations well before this time, because they had been working with other U.N. members and U.N. officials to develop and refine them. Although neither Directive 25 nor the U.N. Participation Act required the executive branch to provide such information sooner than it did, earlier disclosure of this information would have provided the Congress with more time to assess and develop an informed opinion about the proposed operations. The following two examples involving East Timor illustrate this issue. The executive branch informed the Congress of its intent to vote for the U.N. Mission in East Timor in a letter dated May 27, 1999—just over 2 weeks before the U.N. Security Council authorized the operation. This letter provided the Congress with the most complete information it had received to date about the proposed operation’s purpose, composition, mandate, financing, exit strategy, and relationship to U.S. national interests. The letter also informed the Congress for the first time that the executive branch anticipated a U.N. operation to administer the transition to independence if the people of East Timor rejected autonomy and Indonesia ended the territory’s annexation. However, executive branch officials had been working since early April 1999 to develop a conceptual framework for a series of operations in East Timor. On April 8, for example, executive branch officials had completed a paper outlining a conceptual framework for three potential operations in East Timor. This paper proposed three sequential operations—one to organize and conduct a free and fair vote to determine East Timor’s future status, one to stabilize East Timor following the vote, and one to organize and direct its transition to autonomy or independence. This paper noted that the stabilization mission might require a multinational force and that the transition mission would involve development assistance and the creation of governmental and economic institutions. Additionally, on May 7, executive branch officials completed a detailed Directive 25 analysis of the proposed U.N. Mission in East Timor. During April and May 1999, executive branch officials briefed congressional staff four times about U.N. peacekeeping issues, but our analysis showed that they did not provide details about the proposed East Timor operations at these briefings. The executive branch informed the Congress of its intent to vote for the U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor in a letter dated October 8, 1999—about 2-½ weeks before the U.N. Security Council authorized the operation. As before, this letter provided the Congress with the most complete information it had received to date about the proposed operation’s purpose, composition, mandate, financing, exit strategy, and relationship to U.S. national interests. However, in August 1999, the executive branch had completed a paper that (1) described in detail many components of the proposed operation (as one of several possible contingencies) and (2) directed U.S. officials to work with U.N. and other officials in developing more detailed plans for these components. By early September 1999, the executive branch had completed a full concept of operations for this operation. During August and September, executive branch officials briefed congressional staff several times about U.N. peacekeeping issues, but our analysis showed that they did not provide details about the proposed East Timor operation at these briefings. Executive branch officials told us that, although they provided considerable information to the Congress about potential or proposed peacekeeping operations in East Timor and other locations, they did not provide some detailed information sooner because it was related to (1) their routine, ongoing work with U.N. and other officials and did not represent a unified executive branch position and (2) the internal deliberative process of the executive branch. For the cases we examined, the driving factors in the decisions to support operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were the executive branch judgments that the operations advanced U.S. interests and that the consequences of inaction were unacceptable. Directive 25 served as a framework for identifying shortfalls and tasks to be undertaken to strengthen the proposed operations. Consequently, the decisions we examined clearly demonstrated a trade- off—proceed with operations judged to advance U.S. interests but accept the risk of failure inherent in operations having Directive 25 shortfalls. Consultation with the Congress did occur, but information about the full range of executive branch officials’ views on the benefits, challenges, and risks associated with supporting the operations in East Timor and Sierra Leone was not provided to the Congress so that it could develop a fully informed opinion and make decisions about appropriating funds for the operations. In contrast, more complete information about the benefits, risks, and challenges associated with supporting the operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was provided to the Congress. This positive model of consultation helped in developing congressional support for the executive branch’s decisions on these operations and was consistent with the expectations of Directive 25 and the spirit of the U.N. Participation Act. To improve executive branch consultations with the Congress, we recommend that the Secretary of State and other appropriate officials provide the Congress with timely, detailed, and complete information about Directive 25 shortfalls for all proposed new or substantially revised peacekeeping operations and the plans to mitigate the shortfalls. The timing of providing such information to the Congress is a matter of judgment; however, at a minimum, this information should be provided no later than at the time the Congress is informed in writing about the decisions to support such operations. Although Presidential Decision Directive 25 was issued by the Clinton administration, the Bush administration continues to use this guidance and is required by law to consult with the Congress about peacekeeping decisions. Accordingly, we obtained comments from the current administration (the National Security Council and the Departments of State and Defense) regarding its evaluation of this report and our recommendation on consultation. The National Security Council and the State Department provided written comments on this report. Their comments are reprinted in appendixes V and VI. The Defense Department elected not to provide written comments, but a Defense official told us that the Department concurred with State’s written comments. The Departments of State and Defense also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into this report as appropriate. The State Department did not characterize its views on this report. However, in reference to our recommendation, State said that it intended to continue to provide the Congress with timely, detailed and complete information about all new or substantially revised U.N. peacekeeping operations, including known potential and actual problem areas. Noting that the timing of the provision of this information is a matter of judgment, State said that it planned to continue to provide this information in a timely way, no later than the time that the Congress is informed in writing about decisions to support such operations. The National Security Council said that it appreciated the opportunity to review our report, had taken note of its findings, but did not have any comments on the report. The Acting Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations wrote that the Council understood the importance of consulting with the Congress on peacekeeping missions and looked forward to working closely with the Congress on these and other important national security issues. As arranged with your office, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of the report unless you publicly announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees and to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of Defense. Copies will also be made available to other interested parties upon request. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII. Since the end of the Cold War, U.N. and other multilateral peacekeeping operations have been an important component of U.S. foreign policy. For the eight decisions we reviewed, annual U.S. national security strategy reports and several Presidential Decision Directives provided guidance to executive branch officials making decisions about U.S. support for these operations, managing these operations once authorized, and consulting with the Congress about these matters. Additionally, the Congress in recent years has enacted peacekeeping notification and reporting requirements to enhance its ability to play a more effective role on these matters. Several U.S. policies established the basic framework for executive branch decision-making about U.S. support for U.N. or other multilateral peacekeeping operations. Annual U.S. national security strategy reports defined U.S. national interests. Several Presidential Decision Directives established the basic framework for U.S. national security decision- making and provide specific guidance to executive branch officials for making decisions about U.S. support for peacekeeping operations and managing these operations once authorized. Annual U.S. national security strategy reports recognize that, since there are always many demands for U.S. action, U.S. national interests must be clear. Toward this end, these reports established a three-level basic hierarchy of U.S. interests to guide executive branch decisions about national security matters, including peacekeeping. Table 2 describes these interests. In addition to defining U.S. national interests, the 1996 U.S. National Security Strategy Report recognized that, to maximize the benefits (to U.S. interests) of U.N. peace operations, the United States must make highly disciplined choices about when and under what circumstances to support or participate in these operations. Presidential Decision Directive 2 (Organization of the National Security Council), issued in March 1993, established the basic framework for executive branch decision-making on national security issues, consistent with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This directive established two senior-level interagency committees, known as the Principals and the Deputies Committees. The Principals Committee was the senior interagency forum for the consideration of policy issues affecting U.S. national security. The committee’s function was to review, coordinate, and monitor the development and implementation of national security policy. It was intended to be a flexible forum for Cabinet-level officials to meet to discuss and resolve issues not requiring the President’s participation. Members of the committee were as follows in 1999-2000: Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (chair) Secretary of State (or Deputy Secretary) Secretary of Defense (or Deputy Secretary) U.S. Representative to the United Nations Director of Central Intelligence Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs The Secretary of Treasury, the Attorney General, and other heads of departments and agencies were invited as needed. The Deputies Committee was the senior sub-Cabinet interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting U.S. national security. The committee’s function was to review and monitor the work of the interagency process and to focus attention on policy implementation. It assisted the Principals Committee by addressing policy decisions below the Principals’ level and was the main forum for making decisions on U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping. Members of the committee were as follows in 1999-2000: Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (chair) Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs Other senior department and agency officials were invited as needed. Presidential Decision Directive 25 (Clinton Administration Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations), issued in May 1994, charged executive branch officials with making “disciplined and coherent choices” about when and under what circumstances to support or participate in these operations. It directed executive branch officials to consider a range of factors to determine operations’ political and practical feasibility when deciding whether to vote in the U.N. Security Council for proposed U.N. or U.N.-authorized peacekeeping operations. Directive 25 stated that (1) these factors were an aid in executive branch decision-making and did not constitute a prescriptive device and (2) decisions would be made on the cumulative weight of the factors, with no single factor necessarily being an absolute determinant. Table 3 lists the Directive 25 factors. Directive 25 instructed U.S. officials to apply additional factors when deciding whether to recommend to the President that U.S. personnel participate in proposed multilateral operations. For operations that were likely to involve combat, it directed U.S. officials to apply even more rigorous factors in their decision-making. Directive 25 assigned the State Department primary responsibility for managing and funding peacekeeping operations in which U.S. combat troops did not participate. It assigned the Defense Department primary responsibility for managing and funding those peacekeeping operations in which U.S. combat troops participated and for all peace enforcement operations. However, the Defense Department never actually received this responsibility. An interagency working group—known as the Peacekeeping Core Group—managed day-to-day Directive 25 decision-making and implementation for U.N. peacekeeping operations. This group was chaired by the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs and consisted of assistant and deputy assistant secretaries of U.S. government Departments and agencies. Directive 56 (Managing Complex Contingency Operations), issued in 1997, guided executive branch officials in managing implementation of ongoing, smaller-scale contingency operations, including some multilateral peacekeeping operations. Directive 68 (International Public Information), issued in 1999, guided executive branch officials in coordinating public information activities in support of complex contingency operations, including multilateral peacekeeping operations. Directive 71 (Strengthening Criminal Justice Systems in support of Peace Operations and Other Complex Contingencies), issued in 2000, guided executive branch officials in improving U.S. response to the criminal justice aspects of peacekeeping operations to aid in the successful transition to durable peace and a timely exit of peacekeepers. Presidential Decision Directive 25 recognized that sustaining U.S. support for U.N. and multilateral operations requires that the Congress and the American people understand and accept the value of such operations as tools for advancing U.S. interests. Toward this end, Directive 25 stated that the “Congress must…be actively involved in the continuing implementation of U.S. policy on peacekeeping” and that the “Congress and the American people must…be genuine participants in the processes that support U.S. decision-making on new and on-going peace operations.” Directive 25 recognized that the executive branch traditionally “has not solicited the involvement of Congress or the American people on matters related to U.N. peacekeeping.” It concluded that this “lack of communication is not desirable in an era when peace operations have become numerous, complex, and expensive.” Directive 25 instructed executive branch officials to undertake six specific initiatives “to improve and regularize communication and consultation” with the Congress about U.N. peacekeeping to ensure that sufficient public and congressional support existed for proposed operations. Additionally, the Congress has enacted peacekeeping consultation and reporting requirements to enhance its ability to play a more effective role on these matters. The U.N. Participation Act of 1945, as amended, for example, requires the President to (1) consult with and provide information to the Congress in writing at least 15 days before the U.N. Security Council votes to authorize or expand U.N. peacekeeping operations and (2) consult monthly with the Congress on the status of U.N. peacekeeping operations, including anticipated operations. Table 4 summarizes the consultation, notification, and reporting requirements for U.N. peacekeeping operations. Our study is based on a review of eight executive branch decisions made between May 1999 and February 2000 to vote in the U.N. Security Council to authorize or expand the operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see table 1). The Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, House Committee on International Relations, asked us to assess how executive branch officials used Presidential Decision Directive 25 in deciding to support the authorization or expansion of peacekeeping operations in these locations and how the officials consulted with the Congress about the decisions. Specifically, we assessed whether executive branch officials considered all applicable Directive 25 factors before making their decisions and identified shortfalls in any of these factors at the time the decisions were made and how the executive branch officials consulted with the Congress during the decision-making process, including the timing and content of the information provided. To assess whether executive branch officials considered all applicable Directive 25 factors, we collected and analyzed information from more than 200 National Security Council and State and Defense Department records related to these decisions. These records included summaries of conclusions of Deputies Committee and Peacekeeping Core Group meetings, decision memorandums, concept and briefing papers, and Directive 25 analyses (prepared for five of the eight decisions). We used a checklist of Directive 25 factors to collect information from these records about executive branch consideration and assessment of Directive 25 factors. We entered information into a database and analyzed it to determine whether executive branch officials (1) considered all Directive 25 factors before deciding to vote to authorize or expand U.N. operations, (2) identified Directive 25 shortfalls at the time they made their decisions, and (3) took actions to address identified shortfalls. To gain an understanding of the wider context in which these decisions were made, we supplemented this analysis by (1) reviewing several hundred other executive branch records, such as State and Defense Department intelligence analyses, and (2) discussing our analysis of the eight decisions with State and Defense Department and National Security Council officials. As we informed you several times, executive branch officials, citing deliberative process concerns, denied us full and complete access to records related to the eight decisions in our study, particularly records created during the earlier stages of the decision-making process.Although executive branch officials briefed us about some of the information in these records, as discussed in our auditing standards, this lack of full and complete access limited our ability to form independent and objective opinions and conclusions about the process used by U.S. decision-makers to weigh various assessments and arrive at an interagency position. As a result, we limited the scope of our study primarily to the outcome of the decision-making process—that is, whether executive officials considered Directive 25 factors in making decisions, not how they considered them and arrived at decisions. For example, although our analysis showed that State and Defense officials’ assessments of some Directive 25 factors differed at some points, we were unable to determine how executive branch officials reached consensus on these factors during the interagency process. Consequently, this report does not discuss such issues. Because most of the records we examined were classified, some of the information in this report is necessarily general. To assess executive branch consultations with the Congress about the eight decisions, we collected and analyzed information from both executive branch and congressional records. Executive branch records included State and Defense Department summaries of monthly and special briefings, notification letters and reports required by U.S. law, the State Department’s congressional contact log, and written statements of senior executive branch officials testifying before Senate and House committees. Congressional records included transcripts of monthly executive branch briefings for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and written statements by committee and subcommittee chairmen and other Members of Congress. We examined these records to determine whether executive branch officials had complied with the consultation and reporting requirements in Directive 25 and relevant laws. For example, we determined whether executive branch officials had notified the Congress in writing of their decisions before the U.S. Representative to the United Nations voted in the U.N. Security Council. We used a checklist of Directive 25 factors to collect information from executive branch and congressional records about executive branch consultations for the eight decisions. We entered this information into a database and analyzed it to determine the timing and content of information provided to the Congress. We conducted our work from March 2000 to July 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following tables present timelines of the key international and U.S. events leading up to the approval of the proposed U.N. and multilateral operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the eight decisions we reviewed. Table 5 presents a timeline of key events leading up to the approval of the U.N. Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), the International Force in East Timor (INTERFET), and the U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). The shaded text highlights summaries of the mandates for these three operations. Table 6 presents a timeline of key events leading up to the approval of the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL), the U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), and the expansion of UNAMSIL. The shaded text highlights summaries of the mandates for these three operations. Table 7 presents a timeline of key events leading up to the approval of the U.N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and the expansion of this operation (Phase II). The shaded text highlights summaries of the mandates for these two operations. Our analysis of executive branch records showed that, for the eight decisions we reviewed, executive branch officials worked to reduce risks and maximize the chances of operational success by taking steps to eliminate, or reduce the impact of, Presidential Decision Directive 25 shortfalls on the proposed operations. Before the Deputies Committee or U.N. Security Council approved the operations, executive branch officials worked to shape the proposed operations’ objectives, mandates, and forces to eliminate shortfalls or reduce their impact. Where such shortfalls could not be addressed before operations were approved, executive branch officials undertook various activities to reduce their operational impact. Table 8 shows some of the actions taken by executive branch officials to address Directive 25 shortfalls for the eight decisions we reviewed. In addition to the persons named above, Michael Rohrback, Zina Merritt, Richard Seldin, Rona Mendelsohn, and Lynn Cothern made key contributions to this report. | Presidential Decision Directive 25 states that U.S. involvement in international peacekeeping operations must be selective and effective. Toward this end, the directive established guidance that U.S. officials must consider before deciding whether to support proposed operations, including whether the operations advanced U.S. interests, had realistic criteria for ending the operations, and had appropriate forces and financing to accomplish their missions. The directive established these factors as an aid for executive decision-making and not as criteria for supporting particular operations. Executive branch officials thoroughly considered all Presidential Decision Directive 25 factors before deciding to support the authorization or expansion of peacekeeping operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the time the decisions were made, executive branch assessments identified at least one Directive 25 shortfall in all of the proposed operations and several shortfalls in six of them. Executive branch officials nonetheless decided to support the operations because they believed that these shortfalls were outweighed by the presence of other Directive 25 factors and various other factors, including U.S. interests in the region. Executive branch officials provided Congress with considerable information about the conflicts that the proposed operations were intended to address. However, GAO found no evidence that Congress was informed about most Directive 25 shortfalls identified in executive branch assessments of the proposed operations in East Timor and Sierra Leone or about U.S. plans to address the risks posed by these shortfalls. Congress was informed, about most shortfalls identified in executive branch assessments of the proposed U.N. operations in the Congo. |
Mine warfare captured the Navy’s attention during Operation Desert Storm when two Navy warships, the helicopter carrier U.S.S. Tripoli and the guided missile cruiser U.S.S. Princeton, were heavily damaged by Iraqi mines in the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The combined damage to these two ships, which totaled about $21.6 million, was caused by two mines—one estimated to cost $10,000 and the other about $1,500. Naval mines are extremely economical weapons and are readily available on the world’s arms market. The Navy has identified naval mine countermeasures—the ability to detect and disable enemy sea mines—as a critical element for establishing maritime superiority to ensure access to ports, keep sea lanes open, and support amphibious assaults. During the Cold War, the major factor in developing mine countermeasures capabilities was the ability to clear Soviet-laid mines from U.S. harbors to enable U.S. ships to break out of U.S. ports. With the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the threat of enemy mining in U.S. coastal waters has greatly diminished. Changing world conditions have caused U.S. defense planning to shift from a concept of global conventional war to a concept of regional conflicts and crises. The 1992 Navy Mine Warfare Plan detailed four critical mine warfare lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm and the actions taken by the Navy in response to those lessons. The first major lesson was that the Navy lacked a unified command structure. The mine countermeasures commander’s staff consisted of 23 individuals assembled from 21 different commands, resulting in a command staff that was ill-prepared for its task. Fortunately, the 4 months in theater before actual clearance operations provided for adequate command staff and mine countermeasures force training. The Navy has since consolidated operational command of all mine warfare forces in the Commander, Mine Warfare Command, who reports administratively and operationally to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. His responsibilities include ensuring the readiness of the mine warfare assets, enhancing the integrated training of all mine warfare forces, conducting training exercises with other fleet units, and commanding mine warfare forces when deployed to military operations. The Mine Warfare Command is located at the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas. Mine warfare ships are homeported nearby at Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas. Plans to move all mine hunting helicopters from Alameda, California, and Norfolk, Virginia, to Corpus Christi have not been finalized. A second lesson learned from Operation Desert Storm was the need to improve the readiness of mine warfare forces. Since that time, the Navy has conducted or participated in about a dozen exercises with U.S. and foreign naval battle groups. Mine warfare training courses have been expanded for both enlisted and officer personnel, and career paths for enlisted minemen have been revised to enhance opportunities for long-term tours of duty in mine warfare. Third, the Navy acknowledged the need to identify and acquire the necessary resources to carry out its mine countermeasures mission. In 1994, the Navy took delivery of the last of 14 mine countermeasures (MCM) ships and acquired the first 2 of 12 planned mine hunter, coastal (MHC) ships. In addition, the Navy is converting a helicopter landing ship to a mine countermeasures command, control, and support (MCS) ship. Last, the Navy recognized that it has very limited systems to counter mines in various water depths. Consequently, the Navy has established several research and development projects to address these limited capabilities. Sea mines are explosive devices hidden in the sea that can be detonated either by direct contact or indirectly at a distance by the acoustic, seismic, or magnetic signatures of passing ships. The mines can be floating, moored, bottom-laying, or buried. Sophisticated mines are equipped with electronic sensors designed to ignore certain types of ships and target others or count a specific number of ships before arming and detonating. The various methods for countering mine threats include detection and avoidance, mine hunting, influence minesweeping, and mechanical minesweeping. Mine hunting is the process of detecting, locating, and identifying mines through the use of sonar. Influence minesweeping activates electronic sensors within the mines using towed magnetic or acoustic sweep gear to detonate mines at a safe distance. Mechanical minesweeping involves the physical removal of mines using sweep wire to drag mines or cutting gear to release and float tethered mines for later detonation. The Navy’s primary mine countermeasures forces consist of ships, helicopters, and explosive ordnance disposal units. The Avenger class MCM ship, the larger and more capable of the two classes of mine countermeasures ships, is a 224-foot ocean-going mine warfare ship designed to clear mines in both coastal and offshore areas. (See fig. 1.1.) The hull is constructed of wood and glass-reinforced plastic to maintain a nonmagnetic character, which is essential to mine clearing operations. The MCM is capable of both mine hunting and minesweeping—both mechanical and influence—and is designed for conducting mine countermeasures operations worldwide. Major on-board systems include the mine hunting sonar, unmanned submersible mine neutralization vehicle, precise integrated navigation system, and standard magnetic/acoustic influence minesweeping system. The MCM ships are designed to travel at a speed of 13.5 knots. However, depending on the distance, the Navy might use heavy-lift ships to transport MCM ships to a battle site in a timely manner, which would benefit the MCM ships by reducing engine wear and tear en route to the battle site. The MCM ship program, which is managed by the Mine Warfare Ship Program Office, Naval Sea Systems Command, cost $1.8 billion over a period of 10 years. The first of 14 MCM ships was commissioned in September 1987, and the last was commissioned in November 1994. The MCM ships have a crew of 8 officers and 75 enlisted personnel. The Osprey class MHC ship, the smaller of the two classes of mine countermeasures ships, is 188 feet long and designed specifically to clear harbors and coastal waters. (See fig. 1.2.) The MHC hull is constructed of glass-reinforced plastic to provide the necessary low-magnetic character. The Mine Warfare Ship Program Office also manages the MHC ship program. The role of the MHC has always been more limited than that of the larger MCM. The MHC class of ships was designed primarily to conduct mine hunting and mechanical minesweeping within U.S. harbors and coastal waters. These ships were originally designed to be nondeployable coastal mine hunters that would have a maximum mission capability length of 5 days. However, the MHCs can be deployed and operated for longer periods of time, as long as they are provided with fuel and supplies from a close support ship. In addition, the Navy has made some ship alterations to expand the storage capacity of the MHC. The MHC ship program, which is in the production phase, will cost about $1.5 billion. The first of 12 MHC ships was commissioned in November 1993 and the second in August 1994. The Navy took delivery of the third MHC in April 1995. Construction of the 12th MHC ship began in September 1994, and delivery is scheduled in fiscal year 1999. The MHC ships have a crew of 6 officers and 46 enlisted personnel. To provide command and control functions, serve as a platform for helicopters, and support supply and logistics operations, the Navy Mine Warfare Command began converting the helicopter landing ship U.S.S. Inchon to an MCS ship in March 1995. When this conversion is completed in about March 1996, at a cost of more than $118 million, the U.S.S. Inchon will be capable of carrying an MCM Group Commander and staff and supporting long-endurance airborne, surface, and underwater MCM operations. (See fig. 1.3.) The U.S.S. Inchon, which is 25 years old, has an expected lifespan of about 10 more years. The Navy has tentative plans to design and build a new MCS ship early in the next century. The Navy’s airborne mine countermeasures assets consist of 24 MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters and their related sweep gear. (See fig. 1.4.) The Sea Dragon, the largest heavy-lift helicopter in the West, is capable of towing a variety of minesweeping and mine hunting countermeasures gear. The airborne forces enhance surface forces by providing rapid response and deployment capability as well as the ability to sweep wider areas of the sea in a shorter time. These forces are consolidated in Squadron HM-14 based in Norfolk, Virginia, and Squadron HM-15 based in Alameda, California. Each of these squadrons is made up of 12 MH-53E helicopters. The Mine Warfare Command plans to consolidate its airborne mine warfare helicopter squadrons at Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas. Squadrons report operationally to the Commander, Mine Warfare Command. Fifteen explosive ordnance disposal units of eight personnel (one officer and seven enlisted) each report operationally to the Commander, Mine Warfare Command. These units are made up of underwater divers and demolitions experts who are trained and equipped to locate, identify, explode, disable, recover, and dispose of mines. Once mines have been located by surface or airborne forces, the units move in and detonate the mines safely or disable and retrieve them for future study. In addition, these units are capable of supporting surface and airborne mine countermeasures operations. The Navy is pursuing a number of different projects to develop new mine countermeasures capabilities or improve existing capabilities. These programs are largely developed at the Naval Coastal Systems Station in Panama City, Florida, and administered out of the Program Executive Office for Mine Warfare in Arlington, Virginia. At the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, House National Security Committee, we examined the steps the Navy is taking to ensure a viable, effective naval force that will be ready to conduct mine countermeasures in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts overseas. Specifically, we evaluated the (1) status of the Navy’s research and development programs, (2) readiness of the Navy’s on-hand mine countermeasures assets, and (3) match between the Navy’s mine countermeasures assets and its mine countermeasures requirements. To determine the status of the Navy’s mine warfare research and development projects, we examined the Navy’s operational requirements documents and met with program managers to gather data on those systems the Navy is developing to meet its requirements. Further, we examined past and projected budget data to identify the funding history of the projects and estimate the delivery dates of the projects to the fleet. To determine the readiness of ships, we reviewed Status of Resources and Training System reports, high-priority requisitions, Mine Readiness Certification Inspections, and other data related to mission capability. We discussed problem parts and unreliable systems with the Mine Warfare Command, the Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, and the Chief of Supply, and we identified efforts to resolve these problems. We conducted a detailed analysis of the Mine Warfare Commander’s priority lists of problem systems and equipment affecting the MCM and MHC ship classes. To determine whether the Navy has identified the type and quantity of assets needed to carry out its mine countermeasures mission, we discussed the need for mine countermeasures ships and support vessels with the Commander, Mine Warfare Command. We also reviewed and analyzed reports, testimony, and requirements studies published between 1989 and 1995 by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Center for Naval Analyses, Naval Audit Service, and Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General. We visited three MCM ships, the U.S.S. Defender, the U.S.S. Gladiator, and the U.S.S. Scout, in Ingleside, Texas. We also performed our work at the Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, Ingleside, Texas; the Mine Warfare Command, Corpus Christi, Texas; the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, the Naval Sea Systems Command, the Naval Air Systems Command, the Program Executive Office for Mine Warfare, the Office of Naval Research, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and the Office of the Director of Naval Reserves, Washington, D.C.; the Office of the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet Headquarters, Norfolk, Virginia; the Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia; and the Naval Coastal Systems Station, Panama City, Florida. We performed our review between July 1994 and July 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Critical limitations in the Navy’s ability to conduct mine countermeasures at various water depths that were identified during Operation Desert Storm still exist today, and the Navy is pursuing several projects to address these limitations. However, it has not developed a long-range plan that identifies a baseline of its systems’ current capabilities and weaknesses or establishes priorities among its competing projects to sustain the development and procurement of the most needed systems. One of the significant limitations demonstrated during Operation Desert Storm was the Navy’s inability to conduct mine countermeasures in shallow waters. This capability is one of the Navy’s greatest challenges and key priorities. The Navy’s current plans to bring additional systems on line beyond 2001 in support of amphibious assaults are uncertain. The capability to conduct naval mine countermeasures is a critical element in ensuring that the Navy can project military power from the sea onto the world’s beaches in military operations. Operation Desert Storm demonstrated, and subsequent independent studies conducted by the Naval Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences (1993) and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (1994) have documented, that no single system can provide the Navy with the capability to conduct mine countermeasures at all water depths due to the complexity of mine warfare operations and the various mines that the Navy may encounter. Therefore, the Navy must develop a set of complementary systems and tactics to effectively carry out its mine warfare operations. The mine warfare community is currently developing about 18 different projects to enhance its capability to conduct mine countermeasures at all water depths. These projects include enhancing the mine countermeasures ships’ and helicopters’ mine hunting sonars to provide greater area coverage and improve their capability to detect and classify enemy mines, upgrading the ships’ and helicopters’ minesweeping systems to provide greater output to destroy mines and improve serviceability, upgrading the ships’ mine neutralization system to provide the ships with an immediate destruction capability of identified mines, developing a mine neutralization system for the MH-53E helicopters to be used with the airborne mine hunting sonar system, and developing the capability to neutralize mines and obstacles in the surf zone. The Navy’s current approach to developing the mine warfare research and development projects has been inefficient. According to Navy officials, many of the projects have had to compete for limited financial resources, and the Navy has had to make tradeoffs among them. The Navy has started and stopped some projects repeatedly over different fiscal years to respond to changing priorities, and these repeated starts and stops have resulted in schedule delays. For example, officials explained that the airborne mine hunting sonar system (AN/AQS-20) program has experienced starts and stops that have resulted in a delay in the system’s initial operating capability. The Navy began to develop this system in the late 1970s, yet has still not brought this system on line. Officials further explained that the Navy has had to place different management teams on this project over the years and that the program has suffered from the lack of continuity in expertise. Moreover, current procurement plans for this sonar system will only allow the Navy to fund procurement of two to three systems per year, despite the fact that mine countermeasures helicopters deploy in squadrons of four. According to mine countermeasures officials, the mine warfare community will consequently have to maintain support simultaneously for two different mine hunting systems until all of the helicopters are outfitted with the upgraded sonar. The airborne mine neutralization system program has also experienced starts and stops since the program began in the mid-1970s. This program was dormant during Operation Desert Storm. It was restarted in fiscal year 1992 but canceled in fiscal year 1993. Funds were restored in fiscal year 1996. Sustaining limited financial resources for priority programs will likely become even more challenging in the future. The independent studies conducted after Operation Desert Storm by the Naval Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory concluded that the use of modeling and simulations could assist the Navy in identifying its mine countermeasures priorities. A long-range plan addressing the gaps and limitations in the Navy’s mine warfare capabilities, especially its shallow water capabilities, could help the Navy maximize its limited financial resources and ensure sustained funding of its priority systems. After Operation Desert Storm, the Navy determined that its inability to clear mines and other obstacles in shallow waters is one of its greatest challenges. The Navy needs to develop this capability because enemy forces can easily lay mines and obstacles in shallow waters, since this area is closest to their shorelines and because surf action causes many mines to partially or totally bury, making them harder to detect. Without a shallow water mine countermeasures capability, the only alternative for amphibious forces would be to avoid an enemy minefield and make an approach in another area. The risk associated with this maneuver, however, is that enemy forces might intend for U.S. troops to make an amphibious landing right into harm’s way. The Navy cannot operate its mine countermeasures ships in very shallow water due to the risk of running aground or damaging their hulls. The Navy would also have difficulty towing its mine sweeping gear because of the likelihood that the gear would snag on the bottom of the ocean. The Navy is currently developing six mine countermeasures systems to clear mines and obstacles in shallow water. Since Operation Desert Storm, however, the Navy has not added any of these systems to its fleet. Moreover, the Navy has not made final decisions about additional systems to conduct mechanical sweeping, hunt for buried mines, or perform reconnaissance of mines in very shallow water. In addition, the Navy is only developing the capability to counter light and medium obstacles and has not decided what it will do to counter heavy obstacles. The mine warfare program is experiencing budget constraints, and the Navy has not fully funded its shallow water mine countermeasures projects, even though it identified this area as a priority. The Navy plans to spend about $317 million between fiscal years 1991 and 2001 in the development of its shallow water projects. However, budget documents, as of February 1995, show that unmet requirements for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 will total about $99.5 million. This figure may be understated because the Navy still has to make final decisions on some projects. Appendix I shows the Navy’s shallow water mine countermeasures projects and the shortfalls associated with each project. In addition to funding shortfalls, some of these projects are experiencing technical and developmental delays. The Navy’s Distributed Explosive Technology (DET) and Shallow Water Assault Breaching System (SABRE) programs are examples of two of these projects. Initially, the Navy planned to destroy enemy mines in the surf zone by deploying these systems from the beach into the water. The Navy has since changed its strategy and is now planning to deploy these systems from the water onto the beach off of Landing Craft Air-Cushion vehicles. This change in strategy has resulted in an initial operating capability delay of about 2 years. Due to this decision, the Navy had to redesign the rocket propulsion mechanisms to deliver these systems to the targeted area and conduct additional testing to examine the impact of launching DET and SABRE from an unstable platform. In another example, the Navy does not anticipate making final decisions about its Explosive Neutralization Advanced Technology Demonstration program until fiscal year 1998. This program is intended to enhance the capability of the DET and SABRE programs and increase the safety of Navy personnel either by using an unmanned glider to deploy the systems or enhancing the capability of Landing Craft Air-Cushion vehicles to deploy DET and SABRE from a greater distance. DOD agreed that critical limitations in the Navy’s ability to conduct mine countermeasures that were identified during Operation Desert Storm still exist today. DOD also agreed with our emphasis on the complexity of mine countermeasures and the fact that no one system can handle the mine countermeasures requirement for all types of mines at all water depths. Reliability problems and parts shortages continue to affect the readiness and performance capabilities of the Navy’s MCM ships. The Navy has been working to overcome shortcomings associated with the engines, sonars, generators, winches, and other critical systems and has made progress in resolving some of the more serious problems. However, a number of the ships’ systems and equipment are still not as reliable as predicted, and parts shortages persist. Mine warfare officials indicated that it would be several more years before all the necessary improvements could be made to the MCM ships because of the additional costs to fix the problems and changes in the ships’ schedules. The MHC ships, some of which are currently being delivered to the Navy’s fleet, are also experiencing similar reliability and supportability problems. The Mine Warfare Commander is committed to having eight MCM ships capable of deploying immediately to carry out mine countermeasures missions in two major regional conflicts occurring nearly simultaneously. The Navy uses detailed criteria to objectively determine whether each ship is fully capable of performing the wartime mission for which it is designed. As of July 1995, no MCM ship was rated fully capable of performing its mine countermeasures mission. Instead, Navy status reports show that MCM ships generally possess the resources and have accomplished the training necessary to undertake major portions of wartime mine countermeasures missions. The Mine Warfare Commander stated that each MCM ship did not have to be fully capable of performing all missions. He said that commanding officers provide a subjective assessment of their ships’ ability to perform their wartime missions and that the effectiveness rating goal was 80 percent. The Commander further commented that some ships’ mission effectiveness ratings could be increased quickly by cannibalizing missing parts from other ships. He also said that some ships that were missing certain systems or equipment could be used for portions of missions that did not require those systems or equipment that were inoperable. The Commander acknowledged that achieving acceptable mission effectiveness rates for the MCM ships has been difficult because the ships’ systems and equipment have broken down more often than expected and the Navy emphasized production schedules and program costs when building the ships and failed to order sufficient quantities of spare parts to support the ships after they became operational. He agreed that the MCM ships have had serious problems and that they were continuing to have problems, but he emphasized that progress was being made and that problems were being fixed. However, reliability problems continue to cause some MCM systems to experience more downtime than the Navy average, result in high-priority requisitions for mission-essential parts, and affect crew training. Several of the systems on the MCM ships have experienced periods of inoperability that exceed the Navy average of 15 days. These reliability shortfalls have affected the ships’ engines, combat systems, and other critical systems and equipment for several years. The foreign-made engine, in particular, has had a history of problems involving the cylinder heads, bearings, crankshafts, and actuators. Whenever the failure of a ship’s system or equipment affects the ship’s primary mission and repair is not possible within 48 hours, a report is prepared and entered into a tracking system; downtime exceeding 30 days is categorized as being unresolved for an excessive period of time. Downtime can affect the Navy’s ability to train its crews and meet readiness goals. Management reports, which track systems and equipment downtime, indicate that downtime for MCM ships continues to be significant. The Navy assigns a high-priority code to a ship’s order for parts to repair mission-essential systems and equipment if the ship cannot perform some or all of its missions while waiting for the replacement parts. About 16 percent of all requisitions by Navy ships are considered high priority. Each of the MCM ships has experienced periods in which it could not perform some or all of its missions while waiting for replacement parts ordered with a high-priority designation. From February 1994 to January 1995, the MCM fleet averaged 392 high-priority requisitions per month, or 28 per month for each ship. In some months, over 600 high-priority requisitions for mission-essential parts were processed. Table 3.1 shows the number of total and high-priority requisitions processed from February 1994 to January 1995. The Mine Warfare Commander agreed that spare parts shortages, particularly shortages of those high-priority parts that affect mission capability, have been a concern since delivery of the first MCM ship and that the shortages have been made worse because systems and equipment have not been as reliable as predicted. The Navy has been taking extraordinary efforts to correct its MCM supply support deficiencies. Over the past year, the overall percentage of high-priority requisitions for MCM ships had been reduced to the same percentage as the rest of the Navy (16 percent). The Mine Warfare Commander acknowledged that reliability shortfalls and inadequate supply support have had negative effects on crew training. He said, however, that crew rotation schedules were the primary cause of some ships not having fully trained crews and that training was sufficient to meet planned wartime commitments. At times, failures in critical systems and equipment have prevented ships from participating in planned training. For example, in September 1994, we monitored an exercise in the Gulf of Mexico (JTFX-95) from the U.S.S. Defender and the command center at Corpus Christi. We observed that the U.S.S. Dexterous and the U.S.S. Champion had engine problems and were unable to participate in the exercise and that the U.S.S. Warrior could only perform some missions after a lightning strike knocked out its sonar. The U.S.S. Defender was the only ship to participate fully and received a satisfactory evaluation for its performance in locating training mines placed in the Gulf of Mexico. The Mine Warfare Commander said that the performance of MCM ships in a May 1995 training exercise off the coast of Denmark (Blue Harrier 95) indicated significant improvement in the reliability of the ships. Although the postexercise evaluation was still underway, the Commander said the MCM ships’ reliability and performance were outstanding. The Navy has identified causes of reliability and supportability problems, initiated corrective actions, and resolved some of the problems. Navy officials commented that the MCM ships are operating longer periods of time without mission-degrading failures of the systems and equipment. However, documents show that the Navy is still in the process of identifying and quantifying the corrective actions needed and that technological challenges and funding shortages will make it difficult to address all of the necessary improvements. The Mine Warfare Command has been concerned about the reliability shortfalls of its ships’ engines, sonars, generators, winches, and other critical systems and equipment for several years. In early 1994, the Command established a priority list of key systems and equipment with problems and gave special attention to implementing long-term solutions. The list included 17 problems affecting the entire class of MCM ships. The Command has had some success with its efforts. For example, improved engine governor drives were expected to be installed on all MCM ships during fiscal year 1995, and improved water piping systems will be installed as each ship undergoes periodic maintenance. After delivery of the last MCM in November 1994, the Navy began giving priority attention to the reliability and supportability problems affecting MCM ships by establishing an admirals’ oversight council. The council is giving the highest priority to identifying and executing solutions to reliability shortfalls and ensuring that corrective actions are being identified and coordinated among responsible officials. Mine Warfare Command officials cited engine problems, inoperative combat systems, and inadequate supplies of parts among the key areas that need immediate attention. The main propulsion plant on MCM ships, which consists of four turbo-charged, 600-horsepower diesel engines, has been prone to catastrophic failures and poor reliability. The problems were so bad that during 1994 the Navy considered buying replacement engines. However, the Navy determined that this approach was not cost-effective and decided to fix the engine problems. Navy documents indicate that several factors have contributed to the engine problems, including an undersized water jacket cooler that causes the engine to overheat; fuel, oil, and exhaust leaks; and a poorly designed drive train. In addition, Navy officials said the fuel injection pump, thermocouple system, and cylinders were failing at high rates and needed immediate attention. The Navy resolved the problem in part by changing the operating profile of the engines to a cruising speed of 8 knots and replacing engine governor drives with improved drives. As of July 1995, the Navy had redesigned all drive train components and developed improved return lines, gaskets, clamps, and injection pump valves. The Navy plans to install improved versions on all ships by December 1995. The Navy is also developing a larger water jacket cooler. Although no formal replacement schedule has been developed, the Mine Warfare Commander estimates that this problem will be corrected by 1997. These actions, although helpful, have not solved all of the engine’s problems. The Navy is still determining how much funding will be needed to make the required modifications. The Navy will then have to seek this funding through future budget requests. For the long term, the admirals’ oversight council directed the Deputy Program Manager for Mine Warfare Ship Programs to explore the feasibility of purchasing replacement engines when the current engines are beyond economical repair and address the problem of obtaining funding for the replacement engines. Mine Warfare Command officials identified problems with certain key mine countermeasures combat systems that need priority attention to determine their causes and funding for proposed solutions. Among these problems, the officials noted that the Navy has not allocated funds to upgrade the navigation system on its MCM ships. It is very important that the ships know precisely where they are so they can communicate to other ships in the area the exact location of any mines that are found. The Navy has an upgraded version of its AN/SSN-2(V)4 precise integrated navigation system. According to the Mine Warfare Commander, funding will be made available, and the Navy plans to have the system on all MCM ships by December 1997. Navy officials commented that the admirals’ oversight council was giving priority attention to improving supply support for specific systems and equipment, and Navy documents show that progress is being made. For example, the officials said that parts for the foreign-made engine would soon be bought exclusively from U.S. manufacturers. Nevertheless, parts shortages are expected to persist for some time in part because the ships have multiple configurations of systems and equipment. For example, the AN/SQQ-32 sonar suite has two variants that operate essentially the same but are two very different systems for maintenance and parts support. Navy officials said they were trying to determine if funding could be made available to standardize combat system configurations and address other key problems. A Mine Warfare Command supply officer identified the most troublesome spare parts shortages that were continuing to affect operations. The officer provided a list of 15 out-of-stock parts that were causing operational problems and downtime for the engines, minesweeping gear, air conditioner, sonar system, sewage system, and main control console. Table 3.2 lists these parts. It is too soon to fully assess the capability rates of the entire class of newer MHC ships because the Navy had received only three MHCs as of May 1995. Nevertheless, in early 1994, the Mine Warfare Command identified five problem areas affecting the entire class of MHC ships. The admirals’ oversight council has also included the MHC in the scope of its work. The MHCs contain many of the same systems found on the MCMs and therefore will require the same corrective action in certain cases. For example, early versions of the MHC will have to be backfitted with improved versions of the variable depth sonar and mine neutralization system. Later versions will have the improved versions installed during production. In other cases, problems may be even more acute on the MHC. For example, Navy documents indicate that communications problems on MHC ships are more serious than those on MCM ships. MHC ships, originally designed to hunt mines off the U.S. coast, are equipped only with high-frequency radios. Since the Navy has decided that MHC ships should now be deployable overseas, satellite communications will be essential. The Navy has funding available in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to correct the deficiencies with off-the-shelf communications equipment. However, technicians are concerned that the MHC ships may not have room for antennas or additional radio equipment and are exploring the possibility of replacing the radios with small circuit cards to perform this function. DOD agreed with our finding that reliability and supportability problems have affected the mission capability of its mine warfare ships. According to DOD, the Navy has initiated various actions that have significantly improved systems reliability. DOD also commented that the Navy is incorporating improvements into the newer ships as they are built to improve their reliability and supportability and has adopted a revised maintenance philosophy that is enhancing operational availability. The Navy is continuing its MHC procurement program at a total cost of about $1.5 billion, even though the original mission of the MHCs has largely diminished with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Further, the Navy is continuing this procurement program at the same time that it has other unmet critical needs, including the need to develop its shallow water mine countermeasures programs. As of September 1995, 3 of 12 planned MHC ships had been delivered to the Navy. The remaining nine ships are currently under construction and are expected to be completed by fiscal year 1999. Moreover, the MHC ship, which the Navy is currently planning to operate as a naval reserve asset, has fewer capabilities than the larger MCM ships that already exist in the Navy’s fleet. In addition, the Navy has plans to acquire a new MCS ship early in the next century. In the interim, the Navy is spending more than $118 million to modify an existing amphibious warfare ship to provide mine warfare assets with command, control, and support. The conversion is expected to be completed about March 1996. Although it is essential to provide the necessary command, control, and support during military operations, it is not necessary to have a ship dedicated solely for this effort because other ships or shore-based facilities could provide the function. The Navy’s current estimate to operate and maintain each MHC is $3.6 million per year. Further, Navy officials estimate that it will cost the Navy $4.5 million annually to operate and maintain the MCS ship. The savings that would be achieved by removing some of these ships from the Navy’s inventory could assist the Navy in achieving its other unmet critical mine countermeasures requirements. The MHC ship was initially intended to protect U.S. coastlines from Soviet mines and was not developed with an overseas mission in mind. By design, this ship class was not intended to transit across the ocean under its own power or operate on station for long periods of time, thereby reducing its ability to be a viable asset in overseas operations. In addition to its limited capabilities, the Navy is planning to make the MHC ship a reserve asset, which will further limit its role as an overseas asset. The MHC ship, which is smaller and has more limited capabilities than the Navy’s larger MCM ships, was designed to protect U.S. coastlines. The MHC ships were not intended to transit the ocean under their own power and would have to be transported by heavy-lift ships to be used in overseas contingencies. Currently, these ships can only operate at sea for a maximum of 5 days and depend on shore-based facilities for resupply. In addition, the MHC ships are limited in their missions. These ships were originally designed to conduct mine hunting operations only, although the Navy has plans to add a mechanical sweep, which will provide the MHC ships with the capability to physically remove moored mines. Mine countermeasures assets have generally been assigned to the Naval Reserve Force. The Navy plans to continue this practice by placing 11 of the 12 MHC ships in the Naval Reserve Force, which will further limit their role in future overseas operations. Generally, about 15 to 20 percent of the crew, or 8 of 52 personnel assigned to the ship, will be reservists. For the ships to serve as platforms to provide training to reservists, the ships need to be located near the reserve population serving on those ships. Therefore, it would be impractical to position these ships in overseas locations. Mine countermeasures crises during the mid-1980s and early 1990s demonstrated the need to provide mine warfare assets with command, control, and support. The Navy’s 1992 and 1994-95 mine warfare plans state that airborne and surface mine countermeasures assets require a dedicated ship for maintenance and logistics support during overseas deployments. The Navy believes that a platform is also necessary for the mine countermeasures group’s commander and staff to enhance communication with the battle group and theater commanders. However, command, control, and support can be provided from other Navy ships or from shore-based locations. Officials at the Mine Warfare Command informed us that the Navy plans to acquire one new MCS ship early in the next century. This plan, however, is tentative because no formal acquisition program is in place and no budget has been submitted for this effort. In addition, the Navy would have to shift the use of assets and rely on shore-based facilities or other naval platforms for command, control, and support during two nearly concurrent major regional conflicts because one MCS ship would not be able to support both simultaneously. The Navy is in the process of modifying the U.S.S. Inchon, an existing amphibious warfare ship, as an interim measure to provide command, control, and support to air and surface mine countermeasures forces. The Navy does not plan to have the U.S.S. Inchon and the new MCS ship in the fleet at the same time. The U.S.S. Inchon, which is already 25 years old, will only have an increased life span of about 10 years once it is converted. The Navy expects that the conversion will be completed about March 1996 at a cost of more than $118 million. As of August 1995, the Navy had already committed $99 million of the conversion dollars. The Navy estimates that operating and maintaining each MHC ship will cost $3.6 million annually. This figure includes the cost for personnel, unit operations, fuel, direct maintenance, and other indirect costs. The Navy could achieve significant savings by removing some of the ships from its inventory and address its other critical needs by applying these savings to those programs. However, the Navy is not currently exploring other options for the MHC ships. In May 1995, the DOD Inspector General reported that the Navy could deactivate 5 of the 12 planned MHC ships and put to better use $69.2 million that would be required to operate and maintain the ships during fiscal years 1996 through 2001. In addition, the Inspector General identified an additional $11 million, or $2.2 million per ship, that the Navy would unnecessarily spend to upgrade equipment on the five MHC ships between fiscal years 1996 and 2001. These upgrades include improving communications systems and installing reliability improvements on the propulsion systems. The Navy could also declare the ships to be excess capacity and explore the possibility of transferring the excess MHC ships to allied countries through the foreign military sales program. Although we did not assess the world market for mine countermeasures ships, we did note during the course of this evaluation that a number of countries around the world possess mine countermeasures fleets. Navy officials further estimate that it will cost $4.5 million annually to operate and maintain the U.S.S. Inchon. As with the case of the MHC ships, savings could also be achieved if the Navy were to decide to remove this platform from its fleet. However, because the Navy would still have to provide command, control, and support services from other Navy ships or shore locations and incur costs in doing so, it is more difficult to estimate the savings to be achieved. DOD partially agreed with our finding that the MHC’s short on-station time and reserve status would limit its role in overseas locations. DOD responded that a contract modification was in place that would increase the at-sea operational time. However, DOD also responded that the bulk of the MHC class ships are going to ultimately be assigned to the reserve forces. DOD did not agree with our finding that a dedicated MCS ship is not essential, stating that the Navy has long held the tenet that a ship that provides effective command and control needs to be deployed with the operating forces. We acknowledged in this report that command, control, and support are essential during military operations. However, we also reported that these functions could be provided from other Navy ships or shore-based locations. Therefore, we do not believe the need for an MCS ship is as great as other more pressing needs, such as the need to develop the capability to conduct shallow water mine countermeasures. DOD agreed with our finding that cost savings could be achieved by reducing the inventory of mine warfare ships, but did not agree that reducing the inventory of ships is a viable option. As discussed above, we and others believe that reducing the inventory of ships is a viable option. DOD noted that the actual annual savings associated with not operating additional MHC ships, projected at $3.6 million each, would not be completely realized due to decommissioning and deactivation costs. As previously noted, the DOD Inspector General included deactivation costs in estimated cost savings and projected a 5-year, $69.2 million cost savings after deducting deactivation costs. The experience of Operation Desert Storm revealed significant weaknesses in the Navy’s ability to conduct effective sea mine countermeasures, and the damage sustained by two Navy warships during that operation clearly demonstrated the impact that enemy sea mines and obstacles can play in military operations. The Navy has since undertaken a number of projects to improve its mine countermeasures capabilities. However, critical limitations and delays in the delivery of new capabilities remain. The Navy is pursuing a number of different projects to enhance current capabilities and develop new ones; however, it has not undertaken a total systems approach to identify a baseline of capabilities, develop alternatives, and establish priorities among those alternatives. Many of these projects have historically experienced starts and stops and are continuing to experience delays in delivery. Although the Navy has identified the ability to conduct mine countermeasures in shallow water depths as a key priority, it still has only very limited capabilities in this area. Many of the shallow water mine countermeasures projects are underfunded. The Navy has finished procuring 14 MCM ships. However, the ships are experiencing significant reliability problems and parts shortages, which affect their readiness and performance capabilities. The Navy has been working to overcome these shortcomings and has made progress in resolving some of the more serious problems. However, mine warfare officials have stated that it would be several more years before all the necessary improvements could be made due in part to limited available funding. At the same time, the Navy is continuing to procure 12 MHC ships, despite the fact that the original mission of the MHC has greatly diminished. The Navy estimates that it will cost $3.6 million per year to operate and maintain each of these ships. The Navy is also converting an amphibious ship to serve as an MCS ship. It will cost the Navy approximately $4.5 million per year to operate and maintain this ship. One of the lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm highlighted the importance of providing mine countermeasures assets with the necessary support. However, the functions that this ship will provide could be provided from other ships or on-shore locations. The Navy cannot afford to support all of its mine countermeasures projects within its mine warfare budget without continuing to experience future delays in delivering new capabilities. However, opportunities exist to realign the Navy’s mine warfare budget to direct funding toward its most critical needs. If the Navy were to deactivate five MHC ships, the Navy would save about $18 million annually. These savings, if applied to the Navy’s shallow water program, would greatly reduce the $99.5 million in budget shortfalls that the Navy has identified in that program. If the Navy were to deactivate the MCS ship as well, the Navy could achieve additional savings, although these savings are more difficult to estimate. To improve the Navy’s readiness to conduct mine countermeasures, we recommend that the Secretary of the Navy develop a long-range plan to identify the gaps and limitations in the Navy’s mine countermeasures capabilities; establish priorities among the competing projects and programs, including those in research and development; and sustain the development and procurement of the most critical systems. The Secretary of the Navy should direct particular attention to those systems required to improve the Navy’s shallow water mine countermeasures capabilities. We also recommend that the Secretary of the Navy improve the readiness of ocean-going mine countermeasures ships. If the Navy finds that the funds necessary to sustain critical research and development and improve the readiness of ocean-going mine countermeasures ships are not available, the Navy should consider using funds that otherwise would be used to operate and maintain some of the MHC ships. DOD agreed with our recommendations that the Secretary of the Navy develop a long-range plan to sustain the development and procurement of the most critically needed mine warfare systems and improve the readiness of the ocean-going MCM ships. However, DOD did not agree that the last five MHC ships should not be operated and added that the possibility of using cost savings from deactivating these ships to support other aspects of the Navy’s mine warfare program is not an option. We question the need to operate additional MHC ships given the funding shortage in the mine warfare budget, which is causing projects addressing unmet mine countermeasures needs to go unfunded. Since critical areas in Navy mine countermeasures capabilities remain unmet, we believe these areas should have higher priority than operating additional MHC ships. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Navy's efforts to improve its ability to conduct effective sea mine countermeasures (MCM) in two simultaneous major regional conflicts, focusing on the: (1) status of the Navy's research and development projects; (2) readiness of the Navy's present MCM equipment; and (3) match between the Navy's planned and on-hand MCM equipment and its MCM requirements. GAO found that: (1) the Navy must develop different systems to cover deep- and shallow-water mine clearing operations, and its shallow-water MCM capability is limited; (2) the Navy has about 18 different projects to address its MCM weaknesses, but has not set clear priorities among its mine warfare programs; (3) a long-range plan could help the Navy maximize its limited financial resources and ensure ongoing funding of its priority systems; (4) the Navy has experienced delays in new systems' deployment and has identified shortfalls of at least $99.5 million in its shallow-water projects' development; (5) the Navy's 14 oceangoing MCM ships have long-standing equipment reliability problems and parts shortages, which hinders mission performance; (6) the Navy is resolving the ships' problems, but that will take several more years; (7) the Navy is spending about $1.5 billion for 12 coastal, non-oceangoing mine hunting ships that are no longer needed, and will spend an average of $3.6 million annually to operate and maintain each of them; (8) the Navy plans to acquire a new MCM command, control, and support ship early in the next century and, in the interim, convert an older helicopter carrier at a cost of $118 million, but other existing ships and onshore locations could fulfill mission requirements at a lower cost; and (9) the Navy could save millions of dollars by deactivating some of the coastal ships and the command support ship. |
Tensions in the Korean Peninsula continue to grow after military clashes along the border on Thursday, but the situation hasn't yet tipped into a full-blown crisis. Photo: Reuters
SEOUL—The two Koreas traded threats Friday after a brief exchange of fire a day earlier, in a confrontation that marks the first major test of North Korea’s inexperienced leader to handle a military clash with Seoul.
In a step up from smaller border skirmishes last year, North Korea launched rockets Thursday into remote areas over the border in response to anti-Pyongyang propaganda that South Korea has been blasting across the frontier through speaker systems. Seoul responded by firing dozens of artillery rounds at North Korean... ||||| Paju, South Korea (CNN) North Korea outlined an ultimatum Friday to its southern neighbor: Stop the "provocations" and "psychological warfare" or pay the price.
"If South Korea does not respond to our ultimatum," North Korean U.N. ambassador An Myong Hun told reporters, "our military counteraction will be inevitable and that counteraction will be very strong."
North Korea's regime, known for being both thin-skinned and fond of saber rattling , has made plenty of threats before. In fact, articulating derogatory and intimidating words about South Korea and the United States has been more the norm than not for years.
What makes this case different, though, is that two South Korean soldiers have been seriously wounded (by landmines August 4 in the Demilitarized Zone) and that there's been firing back-and-forth since then. An said Friday that "all the (North Korean) frontline large combined units (have) entered into a wartime state ... fully armed to launch any surprise operations and finish their preparations for action."
Specifically, this threat is tied to cross-border propaganda loudspeakers that South Korea resumed using last week for the first time in a decade. Pyongyang is demanding they be turned off by Saturday evening.
"The situation of the country is now inching closer to the brink of war," Ji Jae Ryong, North Korean ambassador to China, told journalists in Beijing on Friday.
U.S., South Korea exercises resume
South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo accused North Korea of pushing the tensions "to the utmost level."
"North Korea's offensive action is a despicable crime that breaks a ceasefire agreement and the non-aggression treaty between North and South," Han said Friday in an address broadcast on South Korean television.
"If North Korea continues on provoking, our military -- as we have already warned -- will respond sternly, and end the evil provocations of North Korea," he said, adding the country is working closely with the United States.
As the verbal sniping continued, the South's President, Park Geun-hye, visited troops at a base south of Seoul, receiving a briefing from military officials on the latest situation, her office said.
One ongoing point of contention is South Korea's joint military exercises with the United States -- a regular training event that An contends aims to "occupy Pyongyang."
Those exercises were suspended Thursday amid the war of words, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense David Shear told reporters. But they're now back on.
"We suspended part of the exercise temporarily in order to allow our side to coordinate with the ROK (Republic of Korea) side on the subject of the exchange fire across the DMZ," Shear said "And the exercise is being conducted now according to plan."
North Korea calls broadcasts 'an open act of war'
Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have been escalating since the two South Korean soldiers were wounded early this month. South Korea and the U.S.-led U.N. Command in Korea concluded North Korea planted the mines on a patrol route in the southern part of the zone.
North Korea has denied responsibility and refused South Korean demands for an apology.
"It is a bad habit (for) South Korea to groundlessly link whatever events occur in South Korea with the DPRK," An said, with the DPRK equating to his country. "They seek sinister purposes whenever they orchestrate ridiculous plots."
Seoul has since resumed its cross-border propaganda broadcasts, which North Korea called "an open act of war" and spurred it to threaten to blow up the speakers.
Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with North Korea's first female fighter jet pilots in this undated photo released by the country's state media on Monday, June 22. He called the women "heroes of Korea" and "flowers of the sky." Hide Caption 1 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim stands on the snow-covered top of Mount Paektu in North Korea in a photo taken by North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun on April 18 and released the next day by South Korean news agency Yonhap. Kim scaled the country's highest mountain, North Korean state-run media reported, arriving at the summit to tell soldiers that the hike provides mental energy more powerful than nuclear weapons. Hide Caption 2 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim Jong Un, center, poses with soldiers on the snow-covered top of Mount Paektu in an April 18 photo released by South Korean news agency Yonhap. Hide Caption 3 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun in Pyongyang, North Korea, on April 15 to celebrate the 103rd birth anniversary of his grandfather, North Korean founder Kim Il Sung. Hide Caption 4 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim inspects a drill for seizing an island at an undisclosed location in North Korea in an undated picture released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on February 21. Hide Caption 5 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim speaks during a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea in Pyongyang, North Korea, in this photo released February 19 by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. Hide Caption 6 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A picture released by the North Korean Central News Agency shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appearing without his cane at an event with military commanders in Pyongyang on Tuesday, November 4. Kim, who recently disappeared from public view for about six weeks, had a cyst removed from his right ankle, a lawmaker told CNN. Hide Caption 7 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is seen walking with a cane in this image released Thursday, October 30, by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. Hide Caption 8 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim sits in the pilot's seat of a fighter jet during the inspection. Hide Caption 9 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military This undated photo, released Tuesday, October 14, by the KCNA, shows Kim inspecting a housing complex in Pyongyang, North Korea. International speculation about Kim went into overdrive after he failed to attend events on Friday, October 10, the 65th anniversary of the Workers' Party. He hadn't been seen in public since he reportedly attended a concert with his wife on September 3. Hide Caption 10 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A picture released by the KCNA shows Kim and his wife watching a performance by the Moranbong Band on Wednesday, September 3, in Pyongyang. Hide Caption 11 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim tours a front-line military unit in this image released Wednesday, July 16, by the KCNA. Hide Caption 12 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim poses for a photo as he oversees a tactical rocket-firing drill in June. Hide Caption 13 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim watches a tactical rocket-firing drill in June. Hide Caption 14 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier patrols the bank of the Yalu River, which separates the North Korean town of Sinuiju from the Chinese border town of Dandong, on Saturday, April 26. Hide Caption 15 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In this photo released Thursday, April 24, by the Korean Central News Agency, Kim smiles with female soldiers after inspecting a rocket-launching drill at an undisclosed location. Hide Caption 16 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A picture released Tuesday, March 18, by the KCNA shows Kim attending a shooting practice at a military academy in Pyongyang. Hide Caption 17 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier uses binoculars on Thursday, February 6, to look at South Korea from the border village of Panmunjom, which has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War. Hide Caption 18 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier kicks a pole along the banks of the Yalu River on Tuesday, February 4. Hide Caption 19 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A photo released by the KCNA on Thursday, January 23, shows the North Korean leader inspecting an army unit during a winter drill. Hide Caption 20 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim inspects the command of an army unit in this undated photo released Sunday, January 12, by the KCNA. Hide Caption 21 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits an army unit in this undated photo. Hide Caption 22 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim inspects a military factory in this undated picture released by the KCNA in May 2013. Hide Caption 23 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits the Ministry of People's Security in 2013 as part of the country's May Day celebrations. Hide Caption 24 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier, near Sinuiju, gestures to stop photographers from taking photos in April 2013. Hide Caption 25 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers patrol near the Yalu River in April 2013. Hide Caption 26 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is briefed by his generals in this undated photo. On the wall is a map titled "Plan for the strategic forces to target mainland U.S." Hide Caption 27 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim works during a briefing in this undated photo. Hide Caption 28 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In this KCNA photo, Kim inspects naval drills at an undisclosed location on North Korea's east coast in March 2013. Hide Caption 29 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim, with North Korean soldiers, makes his way to an observation post in March 2013. Hide Caption 30 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim uses a pair of binoculars to look south from the Jangjae Islet Defense Detachment, near South Korea's Taeyonphyong Island, in March 2013. Hide Caption 31 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is greeted by a soldier's family as he inspects the Jangjae Islet Defense Detachment in March 2013. Hide Caption 32 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is surrounded by soldiers during a visit to the Mu Islet Hero Defense Detachment, also near Taeyonphyong Island, in March 2013. Hide Caption 33 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim arrives at Jangjae Islet by boat to meet with soldiers of the Jangjae Islet Defense Detachment in March 2013. Hide Caption 34 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Soldiers in the North Korean army train at an undisclosed location in March 2013. Hide Caption 35 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In a photo released by the official North Korean news agency in December 2012, Kim celebrates a rocket's launch with staff from the satellite control center in Pyongyang. Hide Caption 36 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim, center, poses in this undated picture released by North Korea's official news agency in November 2012. Hide Caption 37 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits the Rungna People's Pleasure Ground, under construction in Pyongyang, in a photo released in July 2012 by the KCNA. Hide Caption 38 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A crowd watches as statues of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il are unveiled during a ceremony in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 39 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier stands guard in front of an UNHA III rocket at the Tangachai-ri Space Center in April 2012. Hide Caption 40 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In April 2012, Pyongyang launched a long-range rocket that broke apart and fell into the sea. Here, the UNHA III rocket is pictured on its launch pad in Tang Chung Ri, North Korea. Hide Caption 41 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military – A closer look at the UNHA III rocket on its launch pad in Tang Chung Ri, North Korea. Hide Caption 42 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A military vehicle participates in a parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 43 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers relax at the end of an official ceremony attended by leader Kim Jong Un at a stadium in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 44 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim Jong Un applauds as he watches a military parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 45 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier stands on a balcony in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 46 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers march during a military parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 47 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Soldiers board a bus outside a theater in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 48 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean performers sit below a screen showing images of leader Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 49 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers salute during a military parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 50 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers listen to a speech during an official ceremony attended by leader Kim Jong Un at a stadium in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 51 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Members of a North Korean military band gather following an official ceremony at the Kim Il Sung stadium in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 52 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean military personnel watch a performance in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 53 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean controller is seen along the railway line between the Pyongyang and North Pyongan provinces in April 2012. Hide Caption 54 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean military honor guard stands at attention at Pyongyang's airport in May 2001. Hide Caption 55 of 55
On Thursday, South Korean officials said the North fired artillery shells over the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two countries. A U.S. official told CNN that North Korea was believed to be targeting a loudspeaker position.
The South fired back several dozen shells of its own, according to the Defense Ministry.
No casualties were reported by either side.
Amid the tensions, South Korean officials said some residents of the area targeted by North Korea on Thursday had to be evacuated, although many have since returned.
History of disputes
It's not the first time that the two sides have briefly traded blows in recent years. They notably exchanged artillery fire over their disputed maritime border in 2010 and machine-gun fire over land in October
But Thursday's clash was unusual because of the type of weapons used around the Demilitarized Zone, said Alison Evans, a senior analyst at IHS Country Risk.
"Cross-border attacks have mainly involved small-arms fire or, as in October 2014, anti-aircraft heavy machine guns," she said. "In contrast, there have been frequent exchanges of artillery and rocket fire across the Northern Limit Line (NLL), the de facto maritime border."
Amid the heightened tensions, North Korea's connection to the global Internet went down twice Friday, according to Dyn Research, a U.S-based private Internet-monitoring service. North Korea's Internet access last went down August 10 for 4 ½ hours, according to Dyn Research. The cause of the disruption was not immediately clear.
Is situation likely to escalate?
The question now is whether the situation will escalate further.
North Korea has used similarly alarming language in previous periods of high tension
In 2013, the country announced it had entered "a state of war" with South Korea. That situation didn't result in military action, although North Korea did temporarily shut down the two countries' joint industrial zone, which lies on its side of the border.
During that period, North Korea kept up a barrage of bombastic threats against the United States, South Korea and Japan. But at the same time, it continued accepting tourists and hosting international athletes in Pyongyang for a marathon.
South Korea said Friday that it was limiting the number of its citizens entering the joint industrial zone, but the complex was still operating. There are currently 83 South Koreans in Pyongyang attending a youth soccer event, including players and coaches, according to the South Korean Unification Ministry.
Jamie Metzl, an Asia expert for the Atlantic Council in New York, said he thought it was unlikely that the current crisis would escalate further.
"North Korea has more to gain from conflict theater than from a conflict that would quickly expose its fundamental weakness," he said, suggesting leaders in Pyongyang might be trying to "make trouble because they feel ignored by the international community and feel they have something to gain negotiating their way out of a mini-crisis."
But other analysts said the situation could still continue to deteriorate.
The shelling Thursday "raises questions frankly about Kim Jong Un's style of making tension, provocations, escalation -- and whether he knows how to control escalation," said Michael Green, an Asia specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
U.S., China, urge calm
JUST WATCHED Rare look inside Korea's demilitarized zone Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Rare look inside Korea's demilitarized zone 02:40
A spokeswoman for China's Foreign Ministry said Friday that the country is "paying great attention to the situation" and is "willing to work with all parties toward the peace and stability of the peninsula."
"We urge relevant parties to remain calm and restrained, use meetings and dialogue to properly handle the current situation, and stop any action that could escalate the tensions," spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is "deeply concerned" about the situation, spokesman Eri Kaneko said.
The United States, which has roughly 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea, said it, too, is closely monitoring the situation.
"As we've said before, these kinds of provocative actions only heighten tensions," State Department spokesman John Kirby said Thursday, referring to the North Korean shelling. "And we call on Pyongyang to refrain from actions and rhetoric that threaten regional peace and security."
He said that Washington and Seoul are coordinating closely and that the United States "remains steadfast in its commitment to the defense, the security of the peninsula, to our alliance with South Korea." ||||| This article is over 3 years old
North Korean leader tells soldiers to be ‘fully battle-ready to launch surprise operations’ as already elevated cross-border tensions reach dangerous heights
North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un has put his troops on a war footing and threatened “indiscriminate strikes” on the South, prompting “deep concern” in Washington over the latest rise in tensions on the Korean peninsula.
Kim said on Thursday evening his troops were in a “quasi-state of war” and warned of further military action unless South Korea stopped broadcasting cross-border propaganda and ended its “psychological warfare” against the North within 48 hours.
The deadline for the ultimatum is understood to expire at 5pm on Saturday.
The warning comes after the two countries exchanged artillery fire across their heavily armed border on Thursday.
K-pop against Kim Jong-un: Koreas resume radio broadcasts across DMZ Read more
The two Koreas have been divided by the heavily armed demilitarised zone since the end of the 1950-53 Korean war. That conflict ended with an armistice, but not a peace treaty, meaning the countries are still technically at war.
North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said on Friday that Kim, the third-generation dictator of North Korea’s founding dynasty, told an emergency meeting of the ruling party’s central military commission on Thursday night that troops would “enter a wartime state” and be prepared to carry out “indiscriminate strikes” against the South.
South Korea’s Yonhap news agency quoted the North Korean state broadcaster as saying: “Commanders of the Korean People’s Army were hastily dispatched to the frontline troops to command military operations to destroy psychological warfare tools if the enemy does not stop propaganda broadcasts within 48 hours and prepare [for] the enemy’s possible counteractions.”
North Korea has issued similar threats, usually to coincide with South Korea’s joint annual military drills with the US. Seoul and Washington say the exercises are strictly defensive, but North Korea regards them as a rehearsal for an invasion.
Thursday’s exchange of artillery fire was prompted by Pyongyang’s threat to destroy loudspeakers positioned along the southern side of the border that started broadcasting high-decibel anti-North Korean propaganda earlier this month for the first time since 2004.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest A South Korean loudspeaker. Photograph: South Korea defence ministry/EPA
Seoul said the broadcasts recommenced in retaliation for a landmine explosion that seriously injured two South Korean soldiers while they were out on patrol.
South Korean troops have been placed on maximum alert, while the president, Park Geun-hye, chaired an emergency meeting of her National Security Council and ordered a “stern response” to any further provocations.
North Korea first fired a single round believed to be from an anti-aircraft gun, which landed in a South Korean border town on Thursday afternoon, Seoul said.
About 20 minutes later, several more artillery shells fell on the southern side of the DMZ.
South Korea responded with dozens of 155mm artillery rounds, according to South Korean defence officials.
The exchange stopped there, but the North’s army warned in a message that it would take further military action if South Korea did not take down the loudspeakers within 48 hours.
North Korea, which initially denied firing at the South, later said the South Korean shells landed near four military posts but caused no injuries. There were no reports of injuries in the South, but about 2,000 people were evacuated from towns near the western border area.
In response, South Korea’s military said North Korea must refrain from engaging in “rash acts” or face strong punishment, according to Yonhap.
Defence officials said the loudspeaker broadcasts would continue, despite Pyongyang’s threats.
South Korea raised its military readiness to its highest level. Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Jeon Ha-kyu told a televised news conference that South Korea was ready to respond to any further North Korean provocations.
In a letter sent on Friday to North Korea’s general staff department of the Korean People’s Army, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said: “We are urging the North to completely give up reckless acts,” Kyodo quoted the defence ministry in Seoul as saying.
“We are ready to strongly retaliate as a self-defence measure and all responsibilities that may arise from it will be fully on the North.”
US and UN officials said they were deeply concerned and were closely monitoring the situation.
The US state department urged Pyongyang to avoid provoking any further escalation and said it remained “steadfast” in its commitment to defending its ally South Korea, which hosts 28,500 US troops.
Japan’s top government spokesman, Yoshihide Suga, said Tokyo was “very concerned” about tensions on the Korean peninsula, but the defence minister, Gen Nakatani, said there were no signs of developments that could have an immediate impact on Japan’s security.
While cross-border skirmishes are not unheard of, most Korea watchers play down their potential to trigger a full-scale war. Moments of heightened tension are often characterised by threats and counter-threats, but rarely descend into serious violence.
There are exceptions, however.
The North recently declared that the cross-border broadcasts amounted to a “declaration of war” that would be met with “an all-out military action of justice” if they were not stopped.
Pyongyang claims that Seoul fabricated evidence of the landmines that injured two soldiers and demanded video proof. One soldier lost both legs and the other one leg.
In October 2014, North Korean troops opened fire after South Korean activists launched balloons carrying propaganda leaflets across the border. South Korea returned fire, but no casualties were reported. Later the same month, border guards from both countries exchanged gunfire.
In 2010, North Korea bombed the South Korean border island, killing four people. Earlier the same year the North was blamed for launching a torpedo attack on a South Korean naval vessel that killed 46 sailors. ||||| PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Friday declared his frontline troops in a "quasi-state of war" and ordered them to prepare for battle a day after the most serious confrontation between the rivals in years.
South Korean children play as residents gather at a shelter in Yeoncheon, south of the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas, South Korea, Friday, Aug. 21, 2015. South Korea fired dozens of shells... (Associated Press)
South Korean residents gather at a shelter in Yeoncheon, south of the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas, South Korea, Friday, Aug. 21, 2015. South Korea fired dozens of shells Thursday at... (Associated Press)
South Korean army soldiers walk on the way to returning to their base after a patrol, in Paju, south of the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas, South Korea, Friday, Aug. 21, 2015. South Korea... (Associated Press)
South Korean residents gather at a shelter in Yeoncheon, south of the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas, South Korea, Friday, Aug. 21, 2015. South Korea fired dozens of shells Thursday at... (Associated Press)
South Korea's military on Thursday fired dozens of artillery rounds across the border in response to what Seoul said were North Korean artillery strikes meant to back up a threat to attack loudspeakers broadcasting anti-Pyongyang propaganda.
The North's declaration Friday is similar to its other warlike rhetoric in recent years, including repeated threats to reduce Seoul to a "sea of fire," and the huge numbers of soldiers and military equipment already stationed along the border mean the area is always essentially in a "quasi-state of war." Still, the North's apparent willingness to test Seoul with military strikes and its recent warning of further action raises worries because South Korea has vowed to hit back with overwhelming strength should North Korea attack again.
Pyongyang says it did not fire anything at the South, a claim Seoul dismissed as nonsense.
Kim Jong Un ordered his troops to "enter a wartime state" and be fully ready for any military operations starting Friday evening, according to a report in Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency. The North has also given Seoul a deadline of Saturday evening to remove border loudspeakers that, after a lull of 11 years, have started broadcasting anti-Pyongyang propaganda. Failure, Pyongyang says, will result in further military action. Seoul has vowed to continue the broadcasts.
The North's media report said that "military commanders were urgently dispatched for operations to attack South Korean psychological warfare facilities if the South doesn't stop operating them."
South Korea's Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified government source, reported Friday that South Korean and U.S. surveillance assets detected the movement of vehicles carrying short-range Scud and medium-range Rodong missiles in a possible preparation for launches. South Korea's Defense Ministry said it could not confirm the report.
North Korea said the South Korean shells fired Thursday landed near four military posts but caused no injuries. No one was reported injured in the South, either, though hundreds were evacuated from frontline towns.
The loudspeaker broadcasts began after South Korea accused the North of planting land mines that maimed two South Korean soldiers earlier this month. North Korea denies this, too.
Authoritarian North Korea, which has also restarted its own propaganda broadcasts, is extremely sensitive to any criticism of the government run by leader Kim Jong Un, whose family has ruled since the North was founded in 1948. The loudspeaker broadcasts are taken seriously in Pyongyang because the government does not want its soldiers and residents to hear outsiders criticize what they call world-leading human rights abuse and economic mismanagement that condemns many to abject poverty, South Korean analysts say.
North Korea on Thursday afternoon first fired a single round believed to be from an anti-aircraft gun, which landed near a South Korean border town, Seoul said. About 20 minutes later, three North Korean artillery shells fell on the southern side of the Demilitarized Zone dividing the two Koreas. South Korea responded with dozens of 155-milimeter artillery rounds, according to South Korean defense officials.
South Korea's military warned Friday that North Korea must refrain from engaging in "rash acts" or face strong punishment, according to South Korea's Defense Ministry.
South Korea raised its military readiness to its highest level. Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Jeon Ha-kyu told a televised news conference that South Korea is ready to repel any additional provocation.
Escalation is a risk in any military exchange between the Koreas because after two attacks blamed on Pyongyang killed 50 South Koreans in 2010, South Korea's military warned that any future North Korean attack could trigger strikes by South Korea that are three times as large.
Many in Seoul are accustomed to ignoring or discounting North Korea's repeated threats, but the latest have caused worry because of Pyongyang's warning of strikes if the South doesn't tear down its loudspeakers by Saturday evening. Observers say the North may need some save-facing measure to back down.
This is what happened in December 2010, when North Korea backed off an earlier warning of catastrophic retaliation after South Korea defiantly went ahead with live-fire drills near the country's disputed western sea boundary. A month earlier, when South Korea staged similar drills, the North reacted with an artillery bombardment that killed four people on a South Korean border island. North Korea said it didn't respond to the second drill because South Korea conducted it in a less provocative way, though the South said both drills were the same.
The rivals are currently at odds also over annual U.S.-South Korean military drills that North Korea calls an invasion rehearsal. Seoul and Washington say the drills are defensive in nature.
On Friday, about 60 residents in the South Korean town near where the shell fell, Yeoncheon, were still in underground bunkers, Yeoncheon officials said. Yonhap reported that a total of about 2,000 residents along the border were evacuated Thursday.
The North's capital of Pyongyang was mostly business as usual Friday morning, although propaganda vans with loudspeakers broadcast the state media line that the country was in a "quasi-state of war" to people in the streets.
South Korea has said the two soldiers wounded from the mine explosions were on a routine patrol in the southern part of the DMZ that separates the two Koreas. One soldier lost both legs and the other one leg. Pyongyang says that Seoul fabricated its evidence on the land mines and demanded video proof.
The Koreas' mine-strewn DMZ is a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the Korean Peninsula still technically in a state of war. About 28,500 U.S. soldiers are deployed in South Korea to deter potential aggression from North Korea.
___
Kim reported from Seoul. AP writer Foster Klug in Seoul contributed to this story. | More tough talk from North Korea: The country says its troops are now in a "quasi-state of war" and they've been ordered to be battle-ready by this evening, reports the AP, which notes that a "quasi-state of war" has existed along the Korean border for decades. The warning from Pyongyang follows an exchange of fire yesterday in which the South fired dozens of shells over the border in response to a rocket attack from the North, which apparently targeted loudspeakers being used to broadcast anti-Pyongyang propaganda. South Korea's military is at its highest alert level and Seoul has promised a "stern response" to any more attacks from the North, the Guardian reports. This is the biggest flare-up between the Koreas in years, and while events, including dire threats from the North, have so far followed a familiar pattern, Seoul is now operating under new rules of engagement that allow a more forceful response to attacks from Pyongyang, the Wall Street Journal reports. "Both sides are playing with fire in this crisis," a North Korea expert at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies tells the Journal. An analyst at IHS Country Risk tells CNN that yesterday's events were unusual because they involved artillery instead of the small arms usually involved in cross-DMZ confrontations on land. (Earlier this month, reports surfaced that Kim Jong Un executed the country's vice premier because of a disagreement on forestry policy.) |
Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements.The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed "foreign hands" for exploiting Egypt's political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses.The military's actions angered Washington at a time the White House is pressuring Egypt to respect civil liberties. But the Egyptian military has been increasingly agitated by democracy advocates and protests that have gripped the nation. Clashes last week between demonstrators and soldiers ended in the deaths of at least 15 people."This action is inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a news briefing after the raids. "We call on the Egyptian government to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue immediately."Egyptian soldiers and black-clad police officers swept into offices, interrogated workers and seized computers across the country. Those targeted included U.S. groups the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, which are funded by Congress to monitor elections and promote democracy overseas."The public prosecutor has searched 17 civil society organizations, local and foreign, as part of the foreign funding investigation," the official news agency MENA cited the prosecutor's office as saying. "The search is based on evidence showing violations of Egyptian laws, including not having permits."Freedom House, which said it had filed papers to officially register three days earlier, condemned the actions as a sign that Egypt's government has become more repressive since last winter's revolution overthrew President Hosni Mubarak The raids were part of "an intensive campaign by the Egyptian government to dismantle civil society through a politically motivated legal campaign aimed at preventing 'illegal foreign funding' of civil society operations in Egypt," said Freedom House President David J. Kramer, who was a senior State Department official in the administration of then- President George W. Bush "It is the clearest indication yet that the [ruling] Supreme Council of the Armed Forces … has no intention of permitting the establishment of genuine democracy and is attempting to scapegoat civil society for its own abysmal failure to manage Egypt's transition effectively," he said.Tarek Awadi, a human rights activist, said he witnessed the raid at the Future House for Legal Studies in Cairo . He said a police official in the search held up an Arabic-Hebrew dictionary, saying it was evidence the organization was engaged in sabotage and hidden agendas."I think authorities have carefully chosen a number of organizations, some of whom are Egyptian or American or European, to defame all NGOs in the eyes of Egyptians," Awadi said.Relations between the ruling generals and the United States, which provides $1.3 billion in aid a year to the Egyptian military, have been strained in recent months even as Egypt conducts staggered rounds of parliamentary elections. The military's recent crackdown on protests drew a rebuke from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Egypt's campaign to discredit nongovernmental organizations as treasonous, a strategy once used by Mubarak, began this summer. Military leaders accused activist groups of relying on foreign expertise and funding to undermine the Egyptian state. This tactic resonated in the provinces as the military sought to blame outside intervention for the country's mounting economic and social problems."Human rights organizations are the guardians of the nascent freedom," Mohamed ElBaradei , a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and possible presidential candidate, wrote on Twitter. "Efforts to suffocate them will be a major setback and will surely backfire."The National Democratic Institute said it was particularly disturbed that authorities had targeted local groups involved in observing and otherwise supporting the parliamentary elections."Cracking down on organizations whose sole purpose is to support the democratic process during Egypt's historic transition sends a disturbing signal," Ken Wollack, the group's president, said in a statement.The raids came the same day an Egyptian court cleared five policemen of charges of killing five demonstrators during the rebellion that led to Mubarak's ouster Feb. 11. The court ruled that none of the defendants were at the scene when the slayings occurred.That decision is also likely to further anger activists. More than 800 protesters were killed during last winter's uprising and authorities have been slow in bringing police and security officers to justice. Mubarak's trial on charges that he was complicit in the deaths of protesters resumed this week after a three-month adjournment. ||||| CAIRO Egyptian prosecutors and police raided offices of 17 pro-democracy and human rights groups on Thursday - drawing criticism from the United States which hinted it could review its $1.3 billion in annual military aid.
The official MENA news agency said the groups had been searched in an investigation into foreign funding.
"The public prosecutor has searched 17 civil society organizations, local and foreign, as part of the foreign funding case," MENA cited the prosecutor's office as saying. "The search is based on evidence showing violation of Egyptian laws including not having permits."
Among groups targeted were the local offices of the U.S.-based International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI), a security source and employees at the organizations said.
The U.S. State Department said the raids were "inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years" and urged Egyptian authorities to immediately halt "harassment" of non-governmental organization staff.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland indicated to a news briefing that military aid could be difficult to push through Congress if the situation did not improve.
"We do have a number of new reporting and transparency requirements on funding to Egypt that we have to make to Congress," Nuland said. "The Egyptian government is well aware of that and it certainly needs to be aware of that in the context of how quickly this issue gets resolved."
Nuland said U.S. officials had been in touch with Egyptian Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri and with Egypt's ambassador to Washington to underscore Washington's concern.
Germany's Foreign Ministry said it would summon Egypt's ambassador to Berlin on Friday after the raid targeted the German-based Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which is close to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats.
CRITICISM OF ARMY
Civil society groups, a driving force behind the protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak in February, have become increasingly vocal in criticizing what they call the army's heavy-handed tactics in dealing with street unrest.
"This is a campaign the military council has launched to defame and stigmatize activists, rights groups and the various forces that have participated in the making of the January 25 revolution," said 27 civil society groups in a joint statement.
The groups added that such a campaign was "unprecedented even in the era of Mubarak and aimed to cover the failures of the military council in its management of the transitional period."
The ruling generals have pledged to stand aside by mid-2012 but many democracy activists say the military is keen to preserve its privileges and broad business interests.
One analyst said the crackdown on civil society groups was an attempt to stymie the protest movement.
"Civil society groups and the media are the two pillars of a successful revolution, because they are radical in their demands. The military council launches intermittent attacks to contain them," said analyst and researcher Yasser Abdel Aziz.
The U.S. State Department comments followed stinging criticism by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the "systematic degradation" of women during protests in Cairo this month in which 17 people were killed.
Images of troops beating demonstrators as they lay on the ground brought thousands of Egyptians onto the streets in protest. The harsh treatment of women protesters attracted particular attention.
The National Democratic Institute (NDI)said in an e-mailed statement that the raid took place on its offices in Cairo, Alexandria and Assiut, from where police confiscated equipment and documents.
"Cracking down on organizations whose sole purpose is to support the democratic process during Egypt's historic transition sends a disturbing signal," NDI President Kenneth Wollack was quoted as saying.
One person working at NDI, who gave her name as Rawda, said: "They are grabbing all the papers and laptops."
A Reuters television reporter who approached the offices of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in central Cairo found the doors sealed shut with wax and saw several police vehicles driving away from the area.
The NDI and IRI, which are loosely associated with the U.S. Democratic and Republican political parties and receive U.S. government funding, say they take a neutral political stance, fostering democracy in Egypt by training members of nascent parties in democratic processes.
CAMPAIGN
Other groups that were raided included U.S.-based Freedom House and local groups set up to defend judicial independence, individual freedoms and democracy, according to the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.
"This looks like a campaign against human rights defenders," said prominent Egyptian rights activist Negad al-Borai. He said similar campaigns happened during Mubarak's three-decade rule.
"For this to happen after what we call the 'revolution', I am astonished."
Egypt's military has vowed to investigate how pro-democracy and rights organizations are funded and has said repeatedly it will not tolerate foreign interference in the country's affairs.
Egyptian presidential hopeful and former U.N. nuclear watchdog head Mohamed ElBaradei said: "Human rights organizations are the icon of freedom ... Everyone will be watching closely any illegal attempts to distort them. The revolution will prevail."
(Additional reporting by Yasmine Saleh and Patrick Werr; Christian Ruettger in Berlin; and Andrew Quinn in Washington; Writing by Tom Pfeiffer; Editing by Myra MacDonald) ||||| On Thursday, a State Department spokeswoman announced that it was “deeply concerned” by the raids.
“Suffice it to say we don’t think that this action is justified,” the spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said. “We want to see the harassment end,” she added, calling the raids “inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we’ve had over many years.”
Another senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that in private channels, the United States had sent an even stronger message: “This crosses a line.”
“It’s triggered by ongoing concerns about control,” the official added, as the ruling military council confronted the mounting pressure to hand over power.
Others called the raids a major challenge to Washington’s policy toward Egypt, which receives $1.3 billion a year in American military aid.
“It is a major escalation in the Egyptian government’s crackdown on civil society organizations, and it is unprecedented in its attack on international organizations like Freedom House, which is funded in large part by the United States government,” said Charles Dunne, director of Middle East and North Africa Programs at the organization, which advocates democratic reforms. “The military council is saying we are happy to take your $1.3 billion a year, but we are not happy when you do things like defending human rights and supporting democracy.”
The state news media said that the raids were part of an investigation into what it described as illegal foreign financing.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Contingents of soldiers and security officers armed with automatic weapons and wearing bulletproof vests burst into the offices of the nonprofit organizations at roughly the same time Thursday, around 1 p.m.
The officers provided no warrants or explanations, according to officials at several of the groups. They detained the groups’ employees inside for more than five hours in some places. The security forces collected stacks of binders and files, confiscated computers, and sealed the doors as they left.
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 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.
At the National Democratic Institute’s office in Cairo, armed men in uniforms and plain clothes could be seen through a locked gate slicing open boxes of files stacked in a garage.
“Nobody understands what’s going on,” said Belal Mostafa Gooda, an Egyptian employee of the National Democratic Institute, in a furtive phone call from inside its locked gate during the raid. “We can’t move inside or go outside,” he said, adding, “They’re searching all the papers and files and all laptops, and we don’t know what will happen.”
The National Democratic Institute receives United States government financing, promotes democracy abroad and says it is loosely affiliated with the Democratic Party . The International Republican Institute also receives government money, and is affiliated with some prominent Republicans.
The raids hit at least one German democracy-building group. The security forces also struck the Egyptian Budgetary and Human Rights Observatory, which studies the military and its spending. The officers also shut down an organization that argues for judicial independence.
Egyptian human rights groups are almost completely dependent on foreign financing because the hostility of the Mubarak government scared away Egyptian donors, and many received considerable support from the European Union as well as the United States.
But Egypt’s military rulers began railing against the dangers of foreign financing to Egyptian sovereignty around the time last spring that the United States said it would allocate $65 million to help foster electoral democracy here. Although the United States is Egypt’s most important benefactor, its policies in the region are also very unpopular here, making it an easy target.
Egyptian state news media have made it clear since the military-led government began investigating allegations of improper financing months ago that its principal target was money from the United States; in the most notable instance, a state-owned magazine greeted the new American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, a few months ago with a cartoon cover depicting her holding wads of burning cash in the middle of Tahrir Square. “Ambassador from Hell,” read the caption.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
As new clashes have broken out between the military police and protesters challenging military rule — more than 80 have died since October — the generals have often warned that there are “hidden hands” trying to stir up trouble or “bring down the state.” They have increasingly suggested that those hidden hands could be foreign-financed.
In a television interview last month, Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shaheen suggested several times that the investigation into foreign financing of nongovernment organizations would shed light on the unnamed instigators who he said were behind the protests and clashes in the streets.
“There are hidden hands playing in the country,” he said. “We tell the Egyptian people, and the Egyptian people are smart, that there are people who are trying to demolish the country.”
Most human rights and democracy groups in Egypt already operate in a legal twilight because of Mubarak-era laws allowing only nongovernment organizations licensed by the government. Before and after his ouster, the Egyptian government has seldom granted such licenses to genuinely independent organizations. ||||| The Obama administration demanded an immediate explanation from Egyptian officials and said the computers and other items taken during the raids ought to be returned promptly. Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman for the State Department, warned that economic aid could be withheld if Cairo’s leaders do not respond appropriately.
“We were very clear that this issue needs immediate attention, and we look forward to hearing back from the Egypt government,” Nuland told reporters. She called the raids “inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years.”
Referring to recently approved congressional legislation tying U.S. aid to democratic progress in Egypt, Nuland said the country’s ruling military council “needs to be aware of this.”
‘Illegal foreign funding’
The coordinated raids Thursday appeared to reflect an effort by the embattled military chiefs to prove that foreign organizations have been funding and orchestrating the recent waves of unrest in which scores have been killed and hundreds wounded.
Egypt’s military leaders have shown little tolerance for criticism since they pushed President Hosni Mubarak aside amid nationwide demonstrations against his rule in February. They have arrested bloggers and tried thousands of activists and others in military court. They have also sought to absolve themselves of blame for the country’s recent problems by hinting vaguely at “foreign hands” and have demonized civil society organizations that accept U.S. and other foreign assistance.
Ironically, Egypt’s military is by far the country’s largest recipient of U.S. aid, receiving about $1.3 billion a year. The United States budgeted a fraction of that sum — $65 million — for pro-
democracy aid to Egypt this year.
Activists described the raids Thursday as the biggest crackdown on civil society in recent Egyptian history, noting that Mubarak had quietly tolerated many nongovernmental organizations during the latter part of his three-decade reign.
Among the Cairo offices raided Thursday were those of the Washington-based National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute and Freedom House. Security forces confiscated computers, cellphones and documents. NDI’s offices in Alexandria and Assiut also were raided. Security forces stormed Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Foundation and at least two Egyptian nongovernmental organizations: the Arab Center for Independence of Justice and Legal Professions and the Budgetary and Human Rights Observatory.
NDI and IRI are democracy-building organizations backed by the U.S. government that operate globally. Both have been monitoring Egypt’s ongoing, multi-phase parliamentary elections. Freedom House advocates for democracy, political freedoms and human rights. All three organizations issued harshly worded condemnations of the raids. | Egypt's ruling military council doesn't appear to be cowed by pressure from the US and the rest of the world into speeding up reforms. Security forces raided 17 nongovernmental offices today, including three funded by the US that do things like monitor elections and promote democracy. The US is demanding answers and warning that it will review the $1.3 billion in annual aid it gives to the military, reports Reuters. Some what-it-means views from the wires: Washington Post: "The move represented the most definitive sign to date that Egypt’s military intends to run the country’s post-revolutionary transition on its own terms and without interference from Washington, its biggest benefactor." Los Angeles Times: "The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed 'foreign hands' for exploiting Egypt's political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses." New York Times: "The raids were a stark escalation in what has appeared to be a campaign by the country’s military rulers to rally support by playing to nationalist and anti-American sentiment here." |
Churches jeopardize their tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 501(c)(3) if they participate in campaign activity. Legislation has been introduced in the past several Congresses that would allow churches to engage in at least some campaign activity without risking their § 501(c)(3) status. Churches would still be subject to applicable campaign finance laws. This report provides an overview of tax and campaign finance laws and discusses these bills. For further analysis of the legal restrictions on electioneering activities by churches, see CRS Report RL34447, Churches and Campaign Activity: Analysis Under Tax and Campaign Finance Laws , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. Churches qualify for tax-exempt status as IRC § 501(c)(3) organizations. These organizations may not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." This is an absolute prohibition. Thus, a church that engages in any amount of campaign activity may have its § 501(c)(3) status revoked. It may also, either in addition to or in lieu of revocation, be taxed on its political expenditures under IRC § 4955. The tax equals 10% of the expenditures, which is increased to 100% if the church does not take timely action to recover the expenditures and establish policies preventing future ones. The tax may also be imposed on church managers at lower rates. IRC § 501(c)(3) only prohibits campaign intervention. Other types of political activities are permitted. The line between the two can be difficult to discern. Clearly, churches may not make statements that endorse or oppose a candidate, publish or distribute campaign literature, or contribute to a campaign. On the other hand, they may conduct activities not related to elections, such as issue advocacy and supporting or opposing individuals for nonelective offices. In general, an activity is permissible unless it is structured or conducted in a way that shows bias towards or against a candidate. Thus, churches may do such things as create and distribute voter education materials, host candidate forums, and invite candidates to appear at church functions so long as these activities do not show a preference for or against a candidate. Biases can be subtle, and whether an activity is campaign intervention depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The tax laws do not prohibit religious leaders from participating in campaign activity as individuals. Religious leaders may endorse or oppose candidates in speeches, advertisements, etc., in their capacity as private citizens. A leader may be identified as being from a specific church, but there should be no intimation that he or she is speaking as a representative of the church. The church may not support the activity in any way. Thus, a leader may not make campaign-related statements in the church's publications, at its events, or in a manner that uses its assets. This is true even if the leader pays the costs of the publication or event. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which regulates the raising and spending of campaign funds, is separate and distinct from the tax code. FECA prohibits corporations from using treasury funds to make contributions and expenditures in connection with federal elections, but does not prohibit unincorporated organizations from making such contributions and expenditures. FECA also requires regular filing of disclosure reports by candidates and political committees of contributions and expenditures, and by persons making independent expenditures that aggregate more than $250 in a calendar year. Under FECA, the term "political committee" is defined to include any committee, club, association, or other group of persons that receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year. As a result of a 2002 amendment to FECA, corporations—including tax-exempt corporations—are further prohibited from funding "electioneering communications," which are defined as broadcast communications made within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary that "refer" to a federal office candidate. Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations provide an exception to this prohibition for "qualified nonprofit corporations," which do not include churches. In McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of FECA's prohibition on corporate treasury funds being spent for electioneering communications. More recently, however, the Court in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC (WRTL II) found that this prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to ads that Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. sought to run. While not expressly overruling its decision in McConnell v. FEC, which had upheld the provision against a First Amendment facial challenge, the Court limited the law's application. Specifically, it ruled that advertisements that may reasonably be interpreted as something other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy, and therefore, cannot be regulated. Bills introduced in the 110 th , 109 th , 108 th , and 107 th Congresses would have allowed churches to engage in some amount of political campaign activity without risking their tax-exempt status. Each bill addressed the issue in a different way. Thus, they provide examples of various approaches Congress could take, if it so chose, to amend the tax code's prohibition on campaign activity by churches. No such legislation has yet been introduced in the 111 th Congress. None of the bills would have changed the reporting requirements under current law. Churches, unlike most tax-exempt organizations, are not required to file an annual information return (Form 990) with the IRS. Tax-exempt organizations permitted to engage in political activities are generally required to report information about those activities on the form's Schedule C. Thus, while the bills would have permitted churches to engage in campaign activities, they would not have required churches to report to the IRS on those activities. H.R. 2275 would have repealed the political campaign prohibition in IRC § 501(c)(3). Thus, it would have allowed churches and other § 501(c)(3) organizations to engage in all types of campaign activity without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. The bill did not expressly impose any limitation on the amount of permissible campaign activity. However, the existing requirement in I.R.C.§ 501(c)(3) that organizations be "organized and operated exclusively" for an exempt purpose would appear to require that any such activity have been insubstantial. Churches and other organizations would have still been subject to tax on their political expenditures, thus possibly providing a disincentive to engage in activities with associated taxable expenditures. It appears the bill would have allowed churches and other § 501(c)(3) organizations to establish § 527(f)(3) separate segregated funds to conduct election-related activities. Churches would have still been subject to applicable campaign finance laws. Under H.R. 235 , the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, churches would not have been treated as participating in campaign activity "because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings." This rule would have applied for purposes of § 501(c)(3) status, eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions under § 170(c)(2), various estate and gift tax provisions (§§ 2055, 2106 and 2522), and the § 4955 excise tax on political expenditures. The bill clarified that no church member or leader would be prohibited from expressing personal views on political matters or elections during regular religious services so long as those views were not disseminated beyond the service's attendees. Dissemination would have included a mailing with more than an incremental cost to the church and any electioneering communication. The bill expressly stated that it did not permit disbursements for electioneering communications or political expenditures prohibited by FECA. It appears that H.R. 235 would have permitted activities such as the express endorsement of a candidate by church leaders and others during religious services, requests for contributions to candidate committees and other political committees during religious gatherings, and written endorsements in church bulletins and inserts. Any expenditures for these activities would not have been subject to the § 4955 tax. The bill would not have allowed churches to set up § 527(f)(3) separate segregated funds or change existing campaign finance laws. H.R. 235 , an earlier version of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, was identical to the version introduced in the 109 th Congress except it did not reference IRC §§ 2055, 2106, 2522 and 4955 nor did it include the clarification concerning church leaders. While this version did not provide an exception from the § 4955 tax, it would seem from a practical standpoint that this difference between the two versions could be insignificant because many of the activities permitted under the bills would have little or no associated expenditures. The provision in H.R. 4520 , former section 692 (Safe Harbor for Churches), was only briefly in the bill before the House Ways and Means Committee struck it by unanimous consent. It would have done several things. First, churches would not have been treated as participating in campaign activity solely because of their religious leaders' private statements. Second, churches that unintentionally intervened in a political campaign would not have lost their tax-exempt status or eligibility to receive deductible contributions unless the church or its religious leaders had done so on more than three occasions during the year. Third, unintentional violations of the § 501(c)(3) prohibition would have been subject to a new excise tax. If the church had at least three unintentional violations during the year, the tax would have equaled the highest corporate tax rate multiplied by the church's gross income, contributions, and gifts. If the church had two violations, then the tax would have equaled that amount divided by two. If the church had one violation, then the tax would have equaled the full amount divided by 52. The tax would have been reduced by any amount imposed under § 4955. This bill was more restrictive than the others because it would have only permitted unintentional violations of the campaign prohibition and even those violations would have been fined. Thus, this bill was specifically targeted at removing the risk that churches that inadvertently engaged in campaign activity could lose their tax-exempt status, as opposed to permitting churches to engage in such activity. The impact of the provision addressing religious leaders' private statements could be unclear because it could be interpreted as simply codifying existing law. H.R. 2357 and S. 2886 , the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, would have allowed § 501(c)(3) churches to engage in campaign activity so long as it was "no substantial part" of a church's activities. S. 2886 —but not H.R. 2357 —clarified that the bill would not allow disbursements for electioneering communications not permitted under FECA. H.R. 2357 received a floor vote on October 2, 2002, and failed to pass by a vote of 178 to 239. The "no substantial part" test, which is currently used to measure § 501(c)(3) organizations' lobbying activities, is a flexible standard. Thus, the bills would have required each church to be judged on a case-by-case basis as to whether its campaign activities were a substantial part of its activities. Churches would have been allowed to engage in any type of campaign activity; however, the § 4955 tax could have discouraged churches from conducting activities with associated taxable expenditures. It could be unclear the extent to which the bills would have permitted churches to establish § 527(f)(3) separate segregated funds without overstepping the "no substantial part" rule. Churches would have still been subject to applicable campaign finance laws. Under, H.R. 2931 , the Bright-Line Act of 2001, a church would only have violated the campaign prohibition if it normally made expenditures for campaign activity in excess of 5% of its gross revenues. Lobbying expenditures could not have normally exceeded 20% of its gross revenues, and the church could not have normally spent more than 20% of its gross revenues on campaign and lobbying activities combined. The bill did not define the term "normally." The bill would have permitted churches to routinely engage in any type of campaign activity without risking their tax-exempt status so long as their expenditures for such activities did not "normally" exceed the limits. Thus, in practice, no or low-cost campaign activities could have been conducted almost without limit. Churches would have been allowed to occasionally engage in campaign activity in excess of the limits so long as this did not normally happen. It could be unclear the extent to which a church would have been able to establish a § 527(f)(3) separate segregated fund under the bill and still comply with the 5% limit. Any campaign activity would have been subject to the applicable campaign finance laws. | In recent years, there has been increased attention paid to the political activities of churches. Churches and other houses of worship qualify for tax-exempt status as Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) organizations. Under the tax laws, these organizations may not participate in political campaign activity. Separate from the prohibition in the tax code, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) may also restrict the ability of churches to engage in electioneering activities. Legislation had been introduced in the past several Congresses that would have allowed churches to participate in at least some campaign activity without jeopardizing their § 501(c)(3) status. These bills were the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, H.R. 235 (109th Congress) and H.R. 235 (108th Congress); a provision briefly included in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, H.R. 4520 (108th Congress); the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, H.R. 2357 and S. 2886 (107th Congress); and the Bright-Line Act of 2001, H.R. 2931 (107th Congress). In the 110th Congress, H.R. 2275 would have repealed the prohibition against campaign intervention in IRC § 501(c)(3). Unlike the other bills, H.R. 2275 would have applied to all § 501(c)(3) organizations and not just churches. No similar legislation has yet been introduced in the 111th Congress. This report provides an overview of the tax and campaign finance laws relevant to these bills and a discussion of how each bill would have amended current law. For further discussion of the laws restricting campaign activity by churches, see CRS Report RL34447, Churches and Campaign Activity: Analysis Under Tax and Campaign Finance Laws, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |
Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Detroit resident James Robertson thanks the community for donations totaling more than $200,000 to help with his transportation after a Detroit Free Press article showed his 21-mile daily walk to and from work. Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press
After the Free Press told of Detroiter James Robertson's arduous 21 miles of walking to and from his factory job, readers donated $200,000+ and Robertson hugged the WSU junior behind the fund-raiser.
Buy Photo James Robertson laughs while answering questions during a podcast recording at the home of Dick Purtan in West Bloomfield on Tuesday February 3, 2015. (Photo: Ryan Garza, Detroit Free Press)Buy Photo Story Highlights James Robertson 56, says loyalty to his employer kept him walking there 21 miles daily.
At a bar in Rochester, Robertson hugged Wayne State junior Evan Leedy, who crowd-funded $100K+.
So, what kind of new car is this hard-working, hard-walking hourly worker going to pick?
Two days ago Detroiter James Robertson couldn't afford a car — and today he can afford a small fleet.
Just last week, Robertson was spending lonely hours walking 21 miles to and from his suburban factory job, treks forced by the Motor City's sky-high car insurance and the region's spotty bus service.
It's been a whirlwind three days. Calls and e-mails have flooded the Free Press sending him well wishes and offering him cars, jobs, rides to work and encouragement, Some who read his story just want to meet him — shake his hand or give him a hug.
"I gotta say, this is Detroit, this is how people are in Detroit. They say Los Angeles is the city of angels. That's wrong. Detroit is the real city of angels," Robertson said.
Robertson spent Monday and Tuesday being shuttled to interviews. National networks interviewed him Monday night. Radio stations and People magazine have talked to him as well. And through it all, the 56-year old factory worker has remained humble.
"I have to be careful how I act about this — the same God who brings you all these blessings can take them away, but hopefully I'm ready for what happens," Robertson said.
Sunday's story, still available to read at freep.com, told of how a full-time job and daily commutes of 21 miles on foot each day left him just two hours for sleep, eased at times when a friendly banker would stop in bad weather to give him rides. Immediately a college student got the ball rolling to raise money to buy Robertson a car, with an initial goal of raising $5,000. As of late Tuesday more than $254,000 has been donated.
At Mr. B's Food & Spirits bar in Rochester, Robertson hugged WSU computer whiz Evan Leedy, 19, of Macomb Township, in thanks for creating the fund-raising web page.
"I'm always going to be in your debt. I will never forget this," Robertson said, as the younger man in the sweater-hoodie shook his hand Monday night.
Many of those who saw the Free Press story were so impressed with Robertson's work ethic — he has a perfect attendance record — "they want to say you earned this money," Leedy told the older man.
The unprecedented power of the Internet turned what a generation ago might have been local civic leaders passing the hat into a digital phenomenon of thousand, across the globe, giving amounts from $1 to hundreds. Yet, as TV crews, magazine writers and even local radio legend Dick Purtan circled Robertson for interviews — and more cash poured into a GoFundMe Internet site set up by a Wayne State University student — this soft-spoken operator of an injection-molding press vowed that all the money and attention wouldn't change him.
By Tuesday afternoon, at Purtan's lakeside mansion in West Bloomfield, Robertson told the retired radio funnyman he had no intention of quitting his $10.55/hour job, no plan to leave bosses and coworkers he cares deeply about, no intention of ever moving from the neighborhood in central Detroit where he'd lived all his life. Purtan was moved, like countless others who've read about Robertson or seen the Free Press video of him making a commute through miles of snow in Oakland County last week.
"James, the work ethic is fabulous. You're an inspiration. Would you run for president? 'Cuz I'd vote for you," Purtan said into a radio mike at the mini-studio in his dining room that's heard over the web.
"I'd have to think about it," Robertson said, grinning. Then his mien turned serious: "If I can teach one person, or do something to help Detroit, that would make me the happiest man in the world."
The Free Press told the story on Sunday's front page of Robertson's arduous regimen of bus rides and foot-slogging to keep his suburban factory job after his aging Honda quit, his employer moved north nine miles from Madison Heights to Rochester Hills, and bus service was repeatedly cut back in metro Detroit, forcing him to walk longer and longer distances each day. Rochester Hills is one of scores of suburban communities whose residents declined to approve property-tax millage for SMART buses, so no fixed-route large buses run there, SMART officials said.
This week's interviews and meeting were arranged by banker Blake Pollock, 47, of Rochester, who brought Robertson's story to the Free Press after seeing the lonely commuter walking in every sort of weather for hours through areas of Troy and Rochester Hills.
"I've never met anyone like James, never dreamed anyone would be walking like this to keep his job," Pollock said. Because their commuting routes overlap in Oakland County, the UBS Bank vice president has picked up Robertson dozens of times this winter, ferrying the older man to the job at a plastic molding plant that is 23 miles from Robertson's home.
Now, Pollock is assembling a board of advisers to help Robertson manage the rapidly mounting donations earmarked for Robertson, including offers of new and used cars, in response to the story that detailed Robertson's long days of getting to work on buses and on foot.
"I told him there are going to be some people who will help you with this, and he's not anxious about, 'Hey, I want my money.' He sees the need to manage this. I also think we owe it to all of the people who contributed — the transparency, some sort of accounting," Pollock said. On Tuesday, Purtan volunteered while recording his podcast to be one of the advisers.
"James, if you'll have me, I'd be happy to be on this board. I think you know where to find me," Purtan said. Robertson is single but has a girlfriend, sisters and other relatives in Detroit, some of whom have been out of touch with him until the Free Press sparked a flurry of publicity, he said.
Money will be set aside for years of auto insurance, gasoline, maintenance and likely will help him with medical and dental expenses, too, Pollock said. Dealers have offered, through the Free Press, free Chevrolets, Hondas and other makes.
Robertson's last car was an aging Honda that he told the Free Press quit on him in 2005, after which he couldn't afford a car on his hourly wage, now $10.55. And Robertson sounded ready to visit Ford country.
"I'm a Ford fan. Now if only they would do the Lions as good as they do the cars," he quipped, laughing.
"I remember the Taurus. They look comfortable, nothing fancy. They're simple on the outside, strong on the inside — like me," he declared.
"I'm 6-foot, and I think the Mustang's a little tight," he added, explaining that "I got in quite a few cars" during his annual visit to Detroit's auto show at Cobo Center.
"I mostly stay with Americans cars — Lincoln, Fords, GM, Dodge."
Besides being the poster child for metro-Detroit's two underfunded bus systems, Robertson has quickly come to stand for much more, said Jackie Purtan, 49, daughter of Purtan, his former sidekick on years of morning radio broadcasts, and now producer of his weekly podcasts on his www.dickpurtan.com website. His story "celebrates America's old-fashioned work ethic," she said.
Then, with the business-suited banker and bushy-browed radio legend looking on, Robertson cocked his head and put his newfound riches and celebrity status in to perspective.
"I've seen what happens when people get money. My dad, God rest his soul, he still influences me. He's not going to let me get haughty."
Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/1DAwqU6 ||||| James Robertson doesn't look like an endurance athlete.Pudgy of form, shod in heavy work boots, Robertson trudges almost haltingly as he starts another workday.But as he steps out into the cold, Robertson, 56, is steeled for an Olympic-sized commute. Getting to and from his factory job 23 miles away in Rochester Hills, he'll take a bus partway there and partway home. And he'll also walk an astounding 21 miles.Five days a week. Monday through Friday.It's the life Robertson has led for the last decade, ever since his 1988 Honda Accord quit on him.Every trip is an ordeal of mental and physical toughness for this soft-spoken man with a perfect attendance record at work. And every day is a tribute to how much he cares about his job, his boss and his coworkers. Robertson's daunting walks and bus rides, in all kinds of weather, also reflect the challenges some metro Detroiters face in getting to work in a region of limited bus service, and where car ownership is priced beyond the reach of many.But you won't hear Robertson complain — nor his boss.James Robertson, 56, of Detroit, walks toward Woodward Ave. in Detroit to catch his morning bus to Somerset Collection in Troy before walking to his job at Schain Mold & Engineering in Rochester Hills on Thursday January 29, 2015. James walks 21 miles daily round trip to his job.Robertson's roundtrip commute requires a bus ride each direction as well as nearly 21-miles of walking consuming 22 hours of his day before beginning again throughout the work week.The sheer time and effort of getting to work has ruled Robertson's life for more than a decade, ever since his car broke down. He didn't replace it because, he says, "I haven't had a chance to save for it." His job pays $10.55 an hour, well above Michigan's minimum wage of $8.15 an hour but not enough for him to buy, maintain and insure a car in Detroit.As hard as Robertson's morning commute is, the trip home is even harder.At the end of his 2-10 p.m. shift as an injection molder at Schain Mold's squeaky-clean factory just south of M-59, and when his coworkers are climbing into their cars, Robertson sets off, on foot — in the dark — for the 23-mile trip to his home off Woodward near Holbrook. None of his coworkers lives anywhere near him, so catching a ride almost never happens.Instead, he reverses the 7-mile walk he took earlier that day, a stretch between the factory and a bus stop behind Troy's Somerset Collection shopping mall."I keep a rhythm in my head," he says of his seemingly mechanical-like pace to the mall.At Somerset, he catches the last SMART bus of the day, just before 1 a.m. He rides it into Detroit as far it goes, getting off at the State Fairgrounds on Woodward, just south of 8 Mile. By that time, the last inbound Woodward bus has left. So Robertson foots it the rest of the way — about 5 miles — in the cold or rain or the mild summer nights, to the home he shares with his girlfriend.At the plant, coworkers feel odd seeing one of their team numbers always walking, says Charlie Hollis, 63, of Pontiac. "I keep telling him to get him a nice little car," says Hollis, also a machine operator.Echoes the plant manager Wilson, "We are very much trying to get James a vehicle." But Robertson has a routine now, and he seems to like it, his coworkers say."If I can get away, I'll pick him up. But James won't get in just anybody's car. He likes his independence," Wilson says.Robertson has simple words for why he is what he is, and does what he does. He speaks with pride of his parents, including his father's military service."I just get it from my family. It's a lot of walking, I know."This goal would help James get a nice vehicle along with a few months of insurance payments. Thank you everyone for helping James get back into a car! ||||| CLOSE James Robertson, 56, of Detroit has a champ's commute. He rides buses part-way but walks about 21 miles in round trips to a factory. Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press
He doesn't look athletic but James Robertson, 56, of Detroit has a champ's commute. He rides buses part-way but walks about 21 miles in round trips to a factory, unless his banker pal offers a lift.
Buy Photo James Robertson, 56, of Detroit, makes his way along Crooks Road after working his shift at Schain Mold & Engineering in Rochester Hills on Friday, Jan. 9, 2015. (Photo: Ryan Garza Detroit Free Press)Buy Photo Story Highlights Think your commute is tough? Detroiter James Robertson, 56, walks about 21 miles a day, round trip.
Robertson also takes a bus ride part-way to his hourly job in Rochester Hills, and part-way home.
He says he loves his job and bosses, buses are limited and he can't afford a car on $10.55 an hour.
Lately he catches breaks when a friendly banker heading for Troy sees him and offers frequent lifts.
Leaving home in Detroit at 8 a.m., James Robertson doesn't look like an endurance athlete.
Pudgy of form, shod in heavy work boots, Robertson trudges almost haltingly as he starts another workday.
But as he steps out into the cold, Robertson, 56, is steeled for an Olympic-sized commute. Getting to and from his factory job 23 miles away in Rochester Hills, he'll take a bus partway there and partway home. And he'll also walk an astounding 21 miles.
Five days a week. Monday through Friday.
It's the life Robertson has led for the last decade, ever since his 1988 Honda Accord quit on him.
Every trip is an ordeal of mental and physical toughness for this soft-spoken man with a perfect attendance record at work. And every day is a tribute to how much he cares about his job, his boss and his coworkers. Robertson's daunting walks and bus rides, in all kinds of weather, also reflect the challenges some metro Detroiters face in getting to work in a region of limited bus service, and where car ownership is priced beyond the reach of many.
But you won't hear Robertson complain — nor his boss.
"I set our attendance standard by this man," says Todd Wilson, plant manager at Schain Mold & Engineering. "I say, if this man can get here, walking all those miles through snow and rain, well I'll tell you, I have people in Pontiac 10 minutes away and they say they can't get here — bull!"
As he speaks of his loyal employee, Wilson leans over his desk for emphasis, in a sparse office with a view of the factory floor. Before starting his shift, Robertson stops by the office every day to talk sports, usually baseball. And during dinnertime each day, Wilson treats him to fine Southern cooking, compliments of the plant manager's wife.
"Oh, yes, she takes care of James. And he's a personal favorite of the owners because of his attendance record. He's never missed. I've seen him come in here wringing wet," says Wilson, 53, of Metamora Township.
With a full-time job and marathon commutes, Robertson is clearly sleep deprived, but powers himself by downing 2-liter bottles of Mountain Dew and cans of Coke.
"I sleep a lot on the weekend, yes I do," he says, sounding a little amazed at his schedule. He also catches zzz's on his bus rides. Whatever it takes to get to his job, Robertson does it.
"I can't imagine not working," he says.
'Lord, keep me safe'
The sheer time and effort of getting to work has ruled Robertson's life for more than a decade, ever since his car broke down. He didn't replace it because, he says, "I haven't had a chance to save for it." His job pays $10.55 an hour, well above Michigan's minimum wage of $8.15 an hour but not enough for him to buy, maintain and insure a car in Detroit.
As hard as Robertson's morning commute is, the trip home is even harder.
At the end of his 2-10 p.m. shift as an injection molder at Schain Mold's squeaky-clean factory just south of M-59, and when his coworkers are climbing into their cars, Robertson sets off, on foot — in the dark — for the 23-mile trip to his home off Woodward near Holbrook. None of his coworkers lives anywhere near him, so catching a ride almost never happens.
Instead, he reverses the 7-mile walk he took earlier that day, a stretch between the factory and a bus stop behind Troy's Somerset Collection shopping mall.
"I keep a rhythm in my head," he says of his seemingly mechanical-like pace to the mall.
At Somerset, he catches the last SMART bus of the day, just before 1 a.m. He rides it into Detroit as far it goes, getting off at the State Fairgrounds on Woodward, just south of 8 Mile. By that time, the last inbound Woodward bus has left. So Robertson foots it the rest of the way — about 5 miles — in the cold or rain or the mild summer nights, to the home he shares with his girlfriend.
Buy Photo The daily route of "the incredible commuter" James Robertson, 56, of Detroit. (Photo: Detroit Free Press)
"I have to go through Highland Park, and you never know what you're going to run into," Robertson says. "It's pretty dangerous. Really, it is (dangerous) from 8 Mile on down. They're not the type of people you want to run into.
"But I've never had any trouble," he says. Actually, he did get mugged several years ago — "some punks tuned him up pretty good," says Wilson, the plant manager. Robertson chooses not to talk about that.
So, what gets him past dangerous streets, and through the cold and gloom of night and winter winds?
"One word — faith," Robertson says. "I'm not saying I'm a member of some church. But just before I get home, every night, I say, 'Lord, keep me safe.' "
The next day, Robertson adds, "I should've told you there's another thing: determination."
A land of no buses
Robertson's 23-mile commute from home takes four hours. It's so time-consuming because he must traverse the no-bus land of rolling Rochester Hills. It's one of scores of tri-county communities (nearly 40 in Oakland County alone) where voters opted not to pay the SMART transit millage. So it has no fixed-route bus service.
Once he gets to Troy and Detroit, Robertson is back in bus country. But even there, the bus schedules are thin in a region that is relentlessly auto-centric.
"The last five years been really tough because the buses cut back," Robertson says. Both SMART and DDOT have curtailed service over the last half decade, "and with SMART, it really affected service into Detroit," said Megan Owens, executive director of Transportation Riders United.
Detroit's director of transportation said there is a service Robertson may be able to use that's designed to help low-income workers. Job Access and Reverse Commute, paid for in part with federal dollars, provides door-to-door transportation to low-income workers, but at a cost. Robertson said he was not aware of the program.
Still, metro Detroit's lack of accessible mass transit hasn't stopped Robertson from hoofing it along sidewalks — often snow-covered — to get to a job.
At home at work
Robertson is proud of all the miles he covers each day. But it's taking a toll, and he's not getting any younger.
"He comes in here looking real tired — his legs, his knees," says coworker Janet Vallardo, 59, of Auburn Hills.
But there's a lot more than a paycheck luring him to make his weekday treks. Robertson looks forward to being around his coworkers, saying, "We're like a family." He also looks forward to the homemade dinners the plant manager's wife whips up for him each day.
"I look at her food, I always say, 'Excellent. No, not excellent. Phenomenal,' " he says, with Wilson sitting across from him, nodding and smiling with affirmation.
Although Robertson eats in a factory lunchroom, his menus sound like something from a Southern café: Turnip greens with smoked pork neck bones, black-eyed peas and carrots in a brown sugar glaze, baby-back ribs, cornbread made from scratch, pinto beans, fried taters, cheesy biscuits. They're the kind of meal that can fuel his daunting commutes back home.
Though his job is clearly part of his social life, when it's time to work this graduate of Northern High School is methodical. He runs an injection-molding machine the size of a small garage, carefully slicing and drilling away waste after removing each finished part, and noting his production in detail on a clipboard.
Strangers crossing paths
Robertson has walked the walk so often that drivers wonder: Who is that guy? UBS banker Blake Pollock, 47, of Rochester, wondered. About a year ago, he found out.
Pollock tools up and down Crooks each day in his shiny black 2014 Chrysler 300.
"I saw him so many times, climbing through snow banks. I saw him at all different places on Crooks," Pollock recalls.
Last year, Pollock had just parked at his office space in Troy as Robertson passed. The banker in a suit couldn't keep from asking the factory guy in sweats, what the heck are you doing, walking out here every day? They talked a bit. Robertson walked off and Pollock ruminated.
From then on, Pollock began watching for the factory guy. At first, he'd pick him up occasionally, when he could swing the time. But the generosity became more frequent as winter swept in. Lately, it's several times a week, especially when metro Detroit sees single-digit temperatures and windchills.
"Knowing what I know, I can't drive past him now. I'm in my car with the heat blasting and even then my feet are cold," Pollock says.
Other times, it's 10:30 or 11 p.m., even after midnight, when Pollock, who is divorced, is sitting at home alone or rolling home from a night out, and wondering how the man he knows only as "James" is doing in the frigid darkness.
On those nights, Pollock runs Robertson all the way to his house in Detroit.
"I asked him, why don't you move closer" to work. "He said his girlfriend inherited their house so it's easy to stay there," Pollock said.
On a recent night run, Pollock got his passenger home at 11 p.m. They sat together in the car for a minute, outside Robertson's house.
"So, normally you'd be getting here at 4 o'clock (in the morning), right?" the banker asks. "Yeah," Robertson replies. Pollock flashes a wry smile. "So, you're pretty early, aren't you?" he says. Robertson catches the drift.
"Oh, I'm grateful for the time, believe me," Robertson says, then adds in a voice rising with anticipation: "I'm going to take me a bath!"
After the door shuts and Pollock pulls away, he admits that Robertson mystifies him, yet leaves him stunned with admiration for the man's uncanny work ethic and determination.
"I always say to my friends, I'm not a nice guy. But I find myself helping James," Pollock says with a sheepish laugh. He said he's picked up Robertson several dozen times this winter alone.
Has a routine
At the plant, coworkers feel odd seeing one of their team numbers always walking, says Charlie Hollis, 63, of Pontiac. "I keep telling him to get him a nice little car," says Hollis, also a machine operator.
Echoes the plant manager Wilson, "We are very much trying to get James a vehicle." But Robertson has a routine now, and he seems to like it, his coworkers say.
"If I can get away, I'll pick him up. But James won't get in just anybody's car. He likes his independence," Wilson says.
Robertson has simple words for why he is what he is, and does what he does. He speaks with pride of his parents, including his father's military service.
"I just get it from my family. It's a lot of walking, I know."
Robertson's commute by the miles
Detroit City Hall to Metro Airport: What he walks each day
Detroit to Lansing: What he walks each week
Detroit to Louisville, Ky.: What he walks each month
Detroit to Los Angeles – and back: What he walks each year
Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/1CNbtXf | The Detroit Free Press ran a front-page story this weekend about a man who walks 21 miles a day to and from work—and it's proving both the power of the press and the warmth of the human heart. The story caught the attention of a student at Wayne State University, and now, James Robertson can buy a lot more than just a car, the Free Press reports. Evan Leedy, 19, started a GoFundMe crowdfunding campaign for Robertson which has now raised more than $185,000 (and counting). The two men met at a bar last night, where they were interviewed. "I'm always going to be in your debt; I will never forget this," Robertson said. But he also noted: "I gotta say, this is Detroit, this is how people are in Detroit. They say Los Angeles is the city of angels. That's wrong. Detroit is the real city of angels." |
The Department of Defense (DOD) relies extensively on contractors to equip and support the U.S. military in peacetime and during military operations. Contractors design, develop, and build advanced weapon and business systems, construct military bases around the world, and provide services such as intelligence analysis, logistics, and base support. Congress has long been frustrated with perceived cost overruns, waste, mismanagement, and fraud in defense acquisitions, and has spent significant effort attempting to reform and improve the process. Since the 1970s, there have been numerous efforts to comprehensively reform defense acquisition. Congress generally sets acquisition policy for the DOD through the annual National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) as well as through stand-alone legislation, such as the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990, Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. This report provides a brief overview of selected acquisition-related provisions found in the NDAAs for FY2016 ( P.L. 114-92 ), FY2017 ( P.L. 114-328 ), and FY2018 ( P.L. 115-91 ). This report also has a section on some of the more controversial and extensive changes in recent years: the changes to the role of the Chiefs of the Military Services and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (collectively referred to as the Service Chiefs) in the acquisition process, the breakup of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD [AT&L]), and the shift of authority from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the military departments. In recent years, Congress has generally exercised its legislative powers to affect defense acquisitions through Title VIII of the NDAA, entitled Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters . In some years, the NDAA also contains titles specifically dedicated to aspects of acquisition, such as Title XVII of the FY2018 NDAA, entitled Small Business Procurement and Industrial Base Matters . Congress has been particularly active in legislating acquisition reform over the last three years. For FY2016-FY2018, NDAA titles specifically related to acquisition reform contained an average of 82 provisions (247 in total), compared to an average of 47 such provisions (466 in total) in the NDAAs for the preceding 10 fiscal years (see Appendix A and Appendix B ). The FY2016 NDAA sought to develop more timely and efficient ways for DOD and the Military Services to acquire goods and services. One provision expanded the use of rapid acquisition authority to support certain military operations. Another provision required DOD to develop guidance for rapidly acquiring middle tier programs (intended to be completed in two to five years), to include rapid prototyping and rapid fielding. Congress also required the development of streamlined alternative acquisition paths that maximize the use of flexibility allowed under the law to acquire critical national security capabilities. In addition to expanding existing flexibilities and trying to create new and quicker acquisition methods, Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to, in certain circumstances, waive any provision of acquisition law or regulation if (1) the acquisition of the capability is in the vital national security interest of the United States; (2) the application of the law or regulation to be waived would impede the acquisition of the capability in a manner that would undermine the national security of the United States; and (3) the underlying purpose of the law or regulation to be waived can be addressed in a different manner or at a different time. In the FY2017 NDAA, Congress reflected its concern with defense technology innovation, dedicating a number of sections to promoting integration and collaboration of the national technology and industrial base, and attempting to spur defense-related innovation among nontraditional defense and small businesses. Other transaction authority (OTA) allows DOD, using the authority found in 10 U.S.C. 2371, to enter into transactions with private organizations for basic, applied, and advanced research projects. OTA, in practice, is often defined in the negative: it is not a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, and its advantages come mostly from exempting OTA transactions from certain procurement statutes and acquisition regulations. The FY2016 NDAA expanded DOD's ability to use Other Transaction Authority for certain prototype programs, including making some authorities permanent. Subtitle G of Title VIII of the FY2018 NDAA— Provisions Relating to Other Transaction Authority and Prototyping —contains eight sections aimed at expanding and improving the use of OTA. The FY2016 NDAA required numerous reports and chartered efforts to explore ways to improve defense acquisition. The most comprehensive such effort was the establishment of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations (knows as the 809 Panel after the section of the NDAA establishing the group). The 809 Panel was tasked with finding ways to streamline and improve the defense acquisition process. The independent panel has two years to develop recommendations for changes in the regulation and associated statute to achieve those ends, and must report the recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress. The FY2016 NDAA also required each Service Chief to submit a report on linking and streamlining the requirements, budget, and acquisition processes; and the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to review the requirement, budgeting, and acquisition processes, in part to determine the "advisability of providing a time-based or phased distinction between capabilities needed to be deployed urgently, within 2 years, within 5 years, and longer than 5 years." The FY2018 NDAA established a three-year pilot program requiring certain companies filing a Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest to pay DOD processing costs for the protest when GAO issues an opinion that denies all elements of the protest. The pilot program would begin two years from enactment of the bill. A m icro - purchase is an acquisition of supplies or services using simplified acquisition procedures, the total amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold. The FY2017 NDAA raised DOD's micro-purchase threshold from $3,500 to $5,000. The FY2018 NDAA raised the micro-purchase threshold for the rest of the federal government to $10,000, thus establishing a different threshold for DOD vis-à-vis other federal agencies. A s implified acquisition is a streamlined method for making purchases of supplies or services. The simplified acquisition threshold delineates what types of purchases can use this streamlined method. The FY2018 NDAA also increased the simplified acquisition threshold from $100,000 to $250,000. The FY2017 NDAA clarified Congress's desire to see DOD increase its use of 1. fixed price contracting, (requiring a regulation establishing a preference for such contracts, and generally requiring fixed-price contracts for foreign military sales); and 2. performance-based contract payments. The FY2017 NDAA also restricted the use of l o west price technically a cceptable (LPTA) source selection criteria to certain circumstances, and specifically calls for avoiding using LPTA for IT and related services, personal protective equipment, and knowledge-based services. LPTA is a source selection process where the government determines that the lowest price is the determining factor for award as long as the bidder meets the technical requirements of the solicitation. LPTA is appropriate only when the government "expects" it can achieve best value from selecting the proposal that is technically acceptable and offers the lowest evaluated price. The FY2018 NDAA required DOD to adhere to commercial standards for risk and materiality when auditing costs incurred under flexibly priced contracts and requires the use of qualified private auditors to ensure the auditing needs of DOD are met, and raising the threshold (as well as making other modifications) to required submissions of certified cost and pricing data. The FY2017 NDAA required major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) to be designed and developed using "a modular open system architecture approach to enable incremental development and enhance competition, innovation, and interoperability." The open architecture requirements extend to major system interfaces and standards for use in major system platforms. The act also generally establishes the authority to conduct and establish funding for prototype projects when there is a high-priority warfighter need due to a capability gap, there is an opportunity to integrate new components into a major weapon system based on commercial technology, the technology is expected to be mature enough to prototype within three years, and there is an opportunity to reduce sustainment costs. In an effort to gain visibility into MDAPs and rein in cost growth, the FY2017 NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense to assign program cost and fielding targets to MDAPs before funds are obligated for development. It also requires that after each milestone decision, the milestone decision authority provide Congress with an "acquisition scorecard" that includes estimated cost, schedule, and technology risk information. Reflecting congressional concern with the sustainment and total life-cycle costs of MDAPs, the FY2017 NDAA required a number of DOD actions, including initiating a review by an independent entity to determine the extent to which sustainment is considered in acquisition decisions, and conducting sustainment reviews of programs five years after initial operational capability. The act also repealed chapter 144a of Title 10, which created a separate category of acquisition for major automated information systems (§846). The FY2018 NDAA also contained a number of provisions relating to MDAPs, including a provision excluding defense business systems and major automated information systems from the definition of an MDAP; and one prohibiting the use of an LPTA source selection process for development contracts. Other sections would add new requirements aimed at emphasizing reliability and maintainability in MDAPs, and focus on test and evaluation plans and data analysis. In the FY2016 NDAA, Subtitle E, Provisions Relating to Commercial Items , required the establishment of a centralized office to oversee commercial item determinations and authorizes a contracting officer to use a prior DOD commercial item determination to serve as the basis for such determinations for subsequent purchases of the same item. The act requires that prices previously paid by the government be considered when establishing price reasonableness. The act also contained sections aimed at reinforcing the existing statutory preference for buying commercial. Building on the FY2016 NDAA, the FY2017 NDAA included 10 provisions relating to commercial items, including requiring market research when determining price reasonableness, and encouraging and simplifying commercial acquisitions. The FY2018 NDAA further continued the trend to encourage and expand commercial items authorities. The FY2018 NDAA contained five sections relating to commercial items, including a requirement that GSA contract with multiple commercial online marketplaces and permit agencies to purchase commercial products from these marketplaces. Other sections clarify the definition of commercial items and commercial item determinations. Rights to technical data developed in relation to government contracts have been a long-standing subject of debate between contractors and the government. The FY2016 NDAA set up an advisory panel to submit recommendations on amending regulations governing technical data in MDAPs. The FY2017 NDAA made a number of amendments to technical data rights, including giving DOD more authority to negotiate for data rights, and, in the case of interfaces developed exclusively at private expense, to require negotiations to determine the appropriate compensation for the technical data. The FY2018 NDAA required DOD to develop policy on the acquisition or licensing of intellectual property and establish a cadre of experts to assist in managing and acquiring intellectual property rights. The FY2017 NDAA limited the amount of funds allowable for staff augmentation contracts within OSD and the military department headquarters for FY2017 and FY2018. The FY2018 NDAA addressed contracts for services, including provisions aimed at improving data collection and analysis for contracts for services; creating standard guidelines for evaluating requirements for such contracts; and establishing a pilot program granting DOD authority to enter into up to five multiyear contracts for services, with each contract lasting for up to 15 years instead of the current limit of 5 years. The FY2016-2018 NDAAs contained 17 provisions relating to the acquisition workforce. The FY2016 NDAA modified the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF), required training on how to conduct market research, created a dual career track for acquisition and operational specialties, and clarified tenure requirements for program managers for MDAPs. The FY2017 NDAA expanded the use of DAWDF and made other adjustments to the fund and authorizes the position of senior military acquisition advisor, which is filled by presidential appointment, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The FY2018 NDAA required the implementation of a program manager development program, modifies the Secretary of Defense's authority to adjust DAWDF, and extends and expands the Acquisition Demonstration project pilot. Historically, the military services were responsible for virtually all aspects of acquisition and OSD played a limited role. In the early 1980s a number of major defense acquisition programs experienced dramatic cost overruns that increased the defense budget by billions of dollars but resulted in the production of the same number of, or in some cases fewer, weapons than originally planned. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan established the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, chaired by former Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard. In 1986, the commission issued a final report that contained far-reaching recommendations "intended to assist the Executive and Legislative Branches as well as industry in implementing a broad range of needed reforms." The commission's work, and the recommendations found in the final report, led to the ultimate establishment of the office of the USD (AT&L). One of the recommendations of the Packard Commission was to create the position of Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition) to "set overall policy for procurement and research and development (R&D), supervise the performance of the entire acquisition system, and establish policy for administrative oversight and auditing of defense contractors." The report stated that the motivation for establishing this position was as follows: Responsibility for acquisition policy has become fragmented. There is today no single senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense working full-time to provide overall supervision of the acquisition system.... In the absence of such a senior OSD official, policy responsibility has tended to devolve to the Services, where at times it has been exercised without the necessary coordination and uniformity. Worse still, authority for executing acquisition programs—and accountability for their results—has become vastly diluted. Later that year, Congress established the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition (renamed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology in the FY1994 NDAA and finally the Under Secretary of Defense [AT&L] in the FY2000 NDAA). The Goldwater-Nichols Act further consolidated centralized civilian control over acquisitions within OSD, as did other acts enacted in subsequent years. Even with these changes, the service Chiefs retained influence over acquisitions. As GAO stated in 2014 (prior to the FY2016 NDAA): Existing policies and processes for planning and executing acquisition programs provide multiple opportunities for the service chiefs to be involved in managing acquisition programs and to help ensure programs meet cost, schedule, and performance targets. Whether the service chiefs are actively involved and choose to influence programs is not clear. In 2015, a number of analysts and officials, including former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre (currently CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies), and then-Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno, called for reversing course and giving the services and the Chiefs more authority over acquisitions. John Hamre argued the following: No one assumes that the service chiefs are not responsible for weapon systems; they play a central role in establishing military requirements and resourcing decisions. Moreover, every time a program gets in trouble, it is the service chief who is called up for a grilling before Congress. Yet the service chief is not in the acquisition chain of command. We get in trouble in the Defense Department when authority and accountability are fractured. Giving the service chiefs responsibility for requirements and budgets but not acquisition makes no sense. Many other analysts took the opposite view, and the Obama Administration strongly objected to such changes, arguing that if enacted, they would reduce the Secretary of Defense's ability to guard against unwarranted cost optimism and prevent excessive risk-taking. The Senate initiated a number of provisions that enhanced the role of the Chiefs and the military services. Commenting on the provisions in the Senate version of the NDAA, the Statement of Administration Policy stated that if enacted, the Senate provisions would significantly reduce the Secretary of Defense's ability—through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics USD (AT&L)—to guard against unwarranted optimism in program planning and budget formulation, and prevent excessive risk taking during execution—all of which is essential to avoiding overruns and costly delays. Much of the substance of the provisions in the Senate bill was incorporated into the FY2016 NDAA. The FY2017 NDAA refined the swing back to the services and also initiated a large-scale reorganization of the office of the USD (AT&L), a reorganization that continued in the FY2018 NDAA. According to the joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2016 NDAA, Section 802 was intended to "enhance the role of Chiefs of Staff in the defense acquisition process." The section opens with the policy statement that the purpose of defense acquisition is to "meet the needs of its customers in the most cost-effective manner practicable." The customer is defined as the military service with primary responsibility for fielding the system or systems acquired, represented by "the Secretary of the military department concerned and the Chief of the armed force concerned" with regard to major defense acquisition programs. Section 802 goes on to amend 10 U.S.C. 2547(a) by assigning the Chiefs the responsibility to assist the Secretary of the military department in making decisions regarding balancing resources and priorities, and associated trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on major defense acquisition; and the management of career paths in acquisition for military personnel. Section 802 also required the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to "seek, and strongly consider, the views of the Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces" and for major defense acquisition programs, the Chiefs to advise the decision authority for Milestones A and B on cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance trade-offs. Section 825 requires that, generally, the service acquisition executive be the milestone decision authority for major defense acquisition programs. A number of other sections in the NDAA aim at strengthening the role of the services in acquisitions, including requiring the Milestone A and Milestone B decision authority to get concurrence on the cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance trade-offs of a program from the relevant service Secretary and Chief (§§823-824); requiring Configuration Steering Boards for major programs to ensure that the relevant Chief, in consultation with the service Secretary, "approves of any proposed changes that could have an adverse effect on program cost or schedule'' (§830); and giving the Chiefs a role in establishing policies on the development, assignment, and employment of the acquisition workforce (§842). This section does not include the future USD (A&S) in the chain of command in establishing such policies. The FY2017 NDAA does not directly shift more acquisition authority to the military services. However, some of the sections in the bill could have the effect of adjusting acquisition authority in favor of the services. Section 901, while not directly affecting the balance of authority between OSD and the services, significantly affects OSD's role in defense acquisition. Most notably, the section breaks up AT&L into the USD (Research and Engineering) and USD (Acquisition and Sustainment, A&S). According to the conference report [t]hree broad priorities framed the conference discussions: (1) elevate the mission of advancing technology and innovation within the Department; (2) foster distinct technology and acquisition cultures to better deliver superior capabilities for the armed forces; and (3) provide greater oversight and management of the Department's Fourth Estate. Section 807 of the FY2017 NDAA requires that before funds are obligated for technology development, systems development, or production of an MDAP, the Secretary of Defense must establish goals for the milestone decision authority, including for cost, schedule, and technology maturation. Notably, the responsibility to establish these goals " may be delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of Defense . " Given that the decision authority is generally the service acquisition authority, and the requirement to set goals cannot be delegated below the Deputy Secretary of Defense, this section does not include the future USD (A&S) in the chain of command, potentially eroding the influence of the USD (A&S). A number of other sections in the NDAA appear to strengthen the role of the services in acquisitions, including the following: Requiring the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to submit the annual report to the Secretaries of the military departments (§845). Previously, the annual report was submitted to the Secretary of Defense, USD (AT&L), and Congress. Granting the service acquisition authority the ability to waive tenure requirements in certain circumstances (§862). Previously, only the Secretary of Defense could do so. Authorizing the military departments to establish service-specific funds for acquisition programs using certain rapid fielding and prototyping authorities (§897). The FY2018 NDAA included a number of provisions conforming and clarifying the roles of USD (A&S). As it relates to MDAPs, the act also amended 10 U.S.C. 2547(b), requiring that the relevant service chief concur with the need for a material solution (as identified in the Material Development Decision Review); the cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance trade-offs before Milestone A is approved; the cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance trade-offs before Milestone B is approved; and the requirements, cost, and fielding timeline before Milestone C is approved. Appendix A. Title VIII Provisions in the FY2006-FY2018 NDAAs Appendix B. Title VIII Provisions in the FY2016-FY2018 NDAAs, by Subtitle Topic | Congress has long been interested in defense acquisition and generally exercises its legislative powers to affect defense acquisitions through Title VIII of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), entitled Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters. Congress has been particularly active in legislating acquisition reform over the last three years. For FY2016-FY2018, NDAA titles specifically related to acquisition contained an average of 82 provisions (247 in total), compared to an average of 47 such provisions (466 in total) in the NDAAs for the preceding 10 fiscal years. This report provides a brief overview of selected acquisition-related provisions found in the NDAAs for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92), FY2017 (P.L. 114-328), and FY2018 (P.L. 115-91), including the following topics that were a focus of the legislation: Major Defense Acquisition Programs, the acquisition workforce, commercial items, Other Transaction Authority, and contract types. This report also discusses one of the more controversial and extensive legislative changes made in recent years affecting acquisition: the breakup of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as well as the shift of authority from that office to the military departments. |
CLOSE USA TODAY Sports' Christine Brennan looks ahead to the 2018 U.S. Figure Skating Championships that will help to decide who will represent Team USA at the 2018 Winter Olympics. USA TODAY Sports
Jimmy Ma performs during the men's short program at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships. (Photo: Ben Margot, AP)
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Maybe one day Twitter mentions will form part of the scoring criteria for figure skating. Why not? The whole process could scarcely be more confusing than it currently stands.
If that day comes, then Jimmy Ma is in business.
Ma, 22, from Queens, N.Y., finished Thursday night’s short program at the United States Figure Skating Championships down in 11th place in the men’s competition, with Saturday’s free skate to follow and three Olympic places on offer. But, if cheers, energy and online impact are anything to go by, he ended the evening as the clubhouse leader.
The reason? Ma took the bold and drastic step of daring to inject some modernity into his program, skating to a hip hop-electronic dance mix of Turn Down For What by DJ Snake and Lil Jon, and DJ Snake’s Propaganda. If you’re unfamiliar with those numbers, you are (a) over 25, and (b) should do a YouTube search as it will provide a better description than anything I can offer through words.
Jimmy Ma brings it at U.S. Figure Skating Championships. pic.twitter.com/ywMuM0vM88 — Nick Zaccardi (@nzaccardi) January 5, 2018
Section 121 is rocking out to Jimmy Ma’s music pic.twitter.com/6gyIn0u0zq — Marni Gallagher (@crossthefingers) January 5, 2018
Let’s just say it’s not Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata.
“Figure skating is an extreme sport,” Ma told USA TODAY Sports as he headed down a corridor in the arena, minutes after competing. “I want the most amount of people to see that it is both an awesome art form and also an awesome sport. The whole point was to get people hyped. Get older people hyped and for younger people to think it is cool.”
So thank you, Jimmy Ma, for just that fact. The SAP Center in San Jose has been in varying states of emptiness this week, with the upper bowl concealed behind thick black curtains to help hide the fact that there are thousands on unoccupied seats.
NBC is here, but it won’t be counting on nationals for a ratings bonanza. The common consensus is that figure skating’s popularity is waning because there is currently no American female superstar to beat the world’s best and lift the sport close to the status it enjoyed when Michelle Kwan or Nancy Kerrigan or Kristi Yamaguchi were doing their thing.
There is some merit to that, but there is also no denying that figure skating has willingly slipped into a time warp. It is a proud sport with a proud tradition and the whole thing doesn’t need to turn into a rave, but a little more life would be very welcome.
More: Competition behind Nathan Chen clearing up at U.S. Figure Skating Championships
More: Bradie Tennell highlights unpredictable women's short program
More: Nathan Chen is America's best shot at figure skating gold in Pyeongchang
Ma lit the place up and lit up social media. He knows he’s not going to the Olympics and is 30 points off the pace set by Olympic gold medal favorite Nathan Chen after the opening skate, but he’s serious about his craft, having recently moved from the Big Apple to Dallas for training, while still undertaking online computer science classes from Fordham University. His performance was live on NBC and he hopes that the music and verve during his time on the ice might have persuaded a few remote control waverers to stick around for the likes of Chen, or other Olympic hopefuls Adam Rippon and Jason Brown.
“If there was anybody flicking through who might not normally watch I hope that seeing and hearing me might have pulled them in,” he added. “If the excitement of my routine gets them watching, then they can see the incredible things the top guys are doing.”
Chen landed a pair of enormous quad jumps and they were phenomenal. But the scoring system is highly technical and makes the process a game of math as much as anything else. Chen is a great kid and if he holds his nerve, can certainly warrant a spot on the Olympic podium. Yet it wasn’t him who was trending on Twitter, it was Ma.
“Mostly it is just a percentage thing,” Chen said, describing one of the elements of his routine.
In May, Ma sat down with his choreographer Nikolai Morozov over a beer and barbeque and ran through a bunch of different tracks. After trying several out on the ice, they settled on Turn Down For What. The theme was complete with a badass persona, as Ma first thumped his chest then urged applause from the audience in the moments after the conclusion.
It was a little “mean mugging”, he said, a la Russell Westbrook in the NBA All-Star Game last season. Man, it was great.
Maybe it was easier to do because he was not in contention. Likely the fear of being scorned by the traditionalists and nitpicked by the judges would be enough to scare off a contender from trying something so bold. What a shame that is.
Figure skating is a tremendous sport. It is supremely athletic, wonderfully artistic and spectacularly creative. The fact that it can sometimes become tedious is nothing to do with the athletic endeavor, and everything to do with becoming bogged down with the status quo.
“It does take (some bravery), but I want to keep pushing the bar on that,” Ma said. “Now I’ve got people who aren’t figure skating fans talking and saying ‘hey, this little Asian guy is skating to hip hop.’”
Ma is a fun guy who has something about him. Ducking into the media lounge late on Thursday he cheekily snuck himself a hamburger, while chatting to a buddy on his cellphone. Later, he chilled watching Netflix with his dad in their hotel room, while avoiding Twitter for fear of getting overwhelmed by the sudden attention.
On Saturday, during the men’s long program, he’ll take a more typical path, with a classical piece by Rachmaninov.
“The long program is my style,” he said. “The short program is something different and exciting. That’s my personality.”
Come on figure skating, let’s have a little more of it.
Follow USA TODAY Sports' Martin Rogers on Twitter @RogersJourno.
PHOTOS: U.S. Figure Skating Championships ||||| You'll Be Enchanted by This Figure Skater Performing to the Sound of Her Own Voice
You might remember figure skater Starr Andrews from a performance that went viral when she was only 9 years old — a sassy, impressive routine to Willow Smith's "Whip My Hair." But now the 16-year-old skater doesn't need trendy music to make her enchanting routines memorable; at the US National Championships on Jan. 5, Starr skated to the sound of her own voice.
The teenage athlete skated to her own vocal cover of Whitney Houston's 1988 Olympic anthem "One Moment in Time," twirling around the rink at dizzying speeds and bringing the audience (and the internet) to tears. Watch the routine below:
Understandably, the fact that she nailed her performance (in more ways than one!) made it extra special when Starr received a glowing score. She burst into happy tears as she concluded the routine and didn't bother to hide her joy at a well-deserved score. Just look at that face!
16-year-old Starr Andrews nailed the best program of the night/her life at U.S. nationals just now, skating to her own vocals - fabulous performance and a beautiful voice. pic.twitter.com/gWgEm4t5QL — IFS Magazine (@ifsmagazine) January 6, 2018
Between her beautiful voice and a stunning performance, Starr captured the hearts of many skating fans at the 2018 National Championships. Give the routine another watch — we can't wait to see what she does next! At this rate, perhaps we'll see her on the rink in the 2022 Winter Olympics! ||||| I'm not going to lie: I haven't watched much figure skating since 2014. But if this performance from Jimmy Ma is any indication, I'm going to be watching a lot more at the upcoming 2018 Winter Games.
At the 2018 National Championships in San Jose on Thursday, Ma incorporated DJ Snake and Lil' Jon's "Turn Down For What" into his routine.
The 2013 hit song starts around the 2:30 mark of the video above.
Figure skaters were once prohibited from using any music with words. But it's still not exactly common for Lil' Jon to accompany an axel jump.
“Figure skating is an extreme sport,” Ma told USA Today. “I want the most amount of people to see that it is both an awesome art form and also an awesome sport. The whole point was to get people hyped. Get older people hyped and for younger people to think it is cool.”
Ma, 22, appears to be something of a hip-hop fan. Deadspin notes that he incorporated Eminem into a routine last year.
Ma is in 11th place after Thursday's short program, so unfortunately he's unlikely to reach Pyeongchang. ||||| 1 16 Nathan Chen, Salt Lake Figure Skating 104.45
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 104.45 57.91 46.54 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Flip+Triple Toeloop Quad Flip + Triple Toeloop 16.60 2.14 18.74 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.00 4.00 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.57 3.77 Quad Lutz Quad Toeloop 11.33 1.86 13.19 Triple Axel Triple Axel 9.35 -2.00 7.35 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 2.10 6.00 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.36 4.86 Totals 50.88 57.91 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 9.36 1.00 Transitions 9.04 1.00 Performance 9.36 1.00 Composition 9.39 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 9.39 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 46.54 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
2 19 Adam Rippon, SC of New York 96.52
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 96.52 49.62 46.90 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 9.60 1.40 11.00 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 2.00 10.50 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 4 3.20 1.36 4.56 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.60 1.60 8.20 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.36 4.36 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 2.10 6.00 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.50 5.00 Totals 38.30 49.62 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 9.29 1.00 Transitions 9.04 1.00 Performance 9.64 1.00 Composition 9.39 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 9.54 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 46.90 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
3 20 Jason Brown, Skokie Valley SC 93.23
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 93.23 45.94 47.29 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 -1.86 6.64 Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 9.60 1.50 11.10 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 4 3.20 1.50 4.70 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.00 4.00 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.60 1.90 8.50 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 2.10 6.00 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.50 5.00 Totals 38.30 45.94 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 9.29 1.00 Transitions 9.54 1.00 Performance 9.46 1.00 Composition 9.43 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 9.57 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 47.29 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
4 11 Grant Hochstein, SC of New York 92.18
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 92.18 50.64 41.54 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Toeloop+Triple Toeloop Quad Toeloop + Triple Toeloop 14.60 1.29 15.89 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 1.29 9.79 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.71 3.51 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.64 4.14 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.60 1.00 7.60 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.60 5.50 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.21 4.21 Totals 42.90 50.64 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 8.04 1.00 Transitions 7.96 1.00 Performance 8.64 1.00 Composition 8.36 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 8.54 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 41.54 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
5 14 Vincent Zhou, SC of San Francisco 89.02
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 89.02 47.98 42.04 1.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Lutz+Triple Toeloop Quad Lutz + Triple Toeloop 17.90 2.86 20.76 Quad Flip Quad Flip (under-rotated) 8.60 -1.20 7.40 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.43 3.63 Triple Axel Triple Axel (under-rotated) 6.49 -3.00 3.49 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.30 5.20 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.50 3.50 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.50 4.00 Totals 46.59 47.98 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 8.68 1.00 Transitions 8.07 1.00 Performance 8.43 1.00 Composition 8.43 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 8.43 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 42.04 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 1.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 1.00
6 13 Ross Miner, SC of Boston 88.91
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 88.91 46.99 41.92 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.00 1.90 7.90 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 2.00 10.50 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.50 3.70 Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 10.56 0.00 10.56 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.50 5.40 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.14 4.14 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.29 4.79 Totals 38.66 46.99 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 8.21 1.00 Transitions 8.11 1.00 Performance 8.57 1.00 Composition 8.46 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 8.57 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 41.92 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
7 9 Timothy Dolensky, Atlanta FSC 85.06
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 85.06 44.17 40.89 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Salchow Triple Lutz 6.00 1.70 7.70 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 -2.00 6.50 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 4 3.20 1.29 4.49 Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 10.56 0.30 10.86 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.50 5.40 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.29 4.29 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.43 4.93 Totals 38.66 44.17 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 7.96 1.00 Transitions 7.96 1.00 Performance 8.18 1.00 Composition 8.36 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 8.43 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 40.89 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
8 8 Aleksei Krasnozhon, Dallas FSC 82.58
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 82.58 44.12 38.46 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Loop Triple Lutz 6.00 0.60 6.60 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 1.86 10.36 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.14 3.34 Step Sequence Step Sequence 3 3.30 1.00 4.30 Triple Flip+Triple Loop Triple Flip + Triple Loop 11.44 0.30 11.74 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.64 3.64 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.64 4.14 Totals 38.94 44.12 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 7.75 1.00 Transitions 7.39 1.00 Performance 7.89 1.00 Composition 7.61 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 7.82 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 38.46 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
9 18 Andrew Torgashev, Panthers FSC 81.32
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 81.32 42.54 38.78 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Toeloop Triple Axel 8.50 1.00 9.50 Triple Axel Triple Flip 5.30 1.30 6.60 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.57 3.77 Triple Lutz+Triple Toeloop Triple Lutz + Triple Toeloop 10.30 -1.30 9.00 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.20 5.10 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.00 4.50 Fly. Change Foot Camel Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 1.07 4.07 Totals 37.70 42.54 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 7.75 1.00 Transitions 7.46 1.00 Performance 7.75 1.00 Composition 7.89 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 7.93 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 38.78 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
10 10 Alexander Johnson, Braemar-City of Lakes FSC 79.60
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 79.60 40.60 39.00 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 1.57 10.07 Triple Lutz+Triple Toeloop Triple Lutz + Double Toeloop 7.30 0.20 7.50 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.50 3.30 Triple Flip Triple Flip 5.83 0.60 6.43 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.80 5.70 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 3 2.60 0.50 3.10 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.00 4.50 Totals 34.43 40.60 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 7.68 1.00 Transitions 7.46 1.00 Performance 7.79 1.00 Composition 7.93 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 8.14 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 39.00 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
11 15 Jimmy Ma, SC of New York 75.28
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 75.28 39.07 36.21 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.00 0.40 6.40 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 1.43 9.93 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.00 2.80 Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 10.56 -1.40 9.16 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 3 3.00 -0.09 2.91 Step Sequence Step Sequence 3 3.30 1.07 4.37 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.50 3.50 Totals 37.16 39.07 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 7.21 1.00 Transitions 6.57 1.00 Performance 7.54 1.00 Composition 7.25 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 7.64 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 36.21 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
12 4 Max Aaron, Broadmoor SC 74.95
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 74.95 37.99 36.96 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Toeloop+Triple Toeloop Quad Toeloop + COMBO 10.30 -4.00 6.30 Quad Salchow Quad Salchow 10.50 -3.31 7.19 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.07 2.87 Triple Axel Triple Axel 9.35 0.00 9.35 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.21 3.21 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.10 5.00 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.57 4.07 Totals 43.35 37.99 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 7.96 1.00 Transitions 6.79 1.00 Performance 7.21 1.00 Composition 7.43 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 7.57 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 36.96 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
13 6 Sean Rabbitt, Glacier Falls FSC 73.22
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 73.22 37.29 35.93 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 9.60 0.80 10.40 Triple Axel Double Axel 3.30 0.86 4.16 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.86 4.36 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.60 0.60 7.20 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.50 3.30 Step Sequence Step Sequence 3 3.30 1.14 4.44 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.43 3.43 Totals 32.10 37.29 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 6.93 1.00 Transitions 6.86 1.00 Performance 7.39 1.00 Composition 7.21 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 7.54 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 35.93 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
14 7 Emmanuel Savary, University of Delaware FSC 64.65
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 64.65 29.19 35.46 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Toeloop+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop 9.60 1.40 11.00 Quad Salchow Double Salchow (Invalid) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.29 3.09 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 2 2.30 0.57 2.87 Triple Axel Double Axel 3.63 0.50 4.13 Step Sequence Step Sequence 2 2.60 1.14 3.74 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.86 4.36 Totals 24.43 29.19 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 6.89 1.00 Transitions 6.68 1.00 Performance 7.25 1.00 Composition 7.21 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 7.43 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 35.46 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
15 21 Tomoki Hiwatashi, DuPage FSC 63.48
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 63.48 32.19 32.29 1.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Toeloop Quad Toeloop (under-rotated) 8.00 -4.00 4.00 Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 -1.71 6.79 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.36 3.16 Triple Lutz+Triple Toeloop Triple Lutz + Double Toeloop 8.03 -0.40 7.63 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 3 2.60 0.21 2.81 Step Sequence Step Sequence 3 3.30 0.64 3.94 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.36 3.86 Totals 36.73 32.19 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 6.71 1.00 Transitions 6.32 1.00 Performance 6.29 1.00 Composition 6.61 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 6.36 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 32.29 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 1.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 1.00
16 1 Sebastien Payannet, Los Angeles FSC 61.29
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 61.29 31.07 31.22 1.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Axel Triple Axel 8.50 -3.00 5.50 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.29 3.29 Step Sequence Step Sequence 3 3.30 0.71 4.01 Triple Lutz+Triple Toeloop Double Lutz + Triple Toeloop 7.04 0.30 7.34 Triple Flip Triple Flip 5.83 -1.80 4.03 Change Foot Combination Spin Fly. Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.57 3.37 Fly. Camel Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.03 3.53 Totals 33.97 31.07 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 5.96 1.00 Transitions 6.18 1.00 Performance 6.25 1.00 Composition 6.29 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 6.54 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 31.22 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 1.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 1.00
17 17 Scott Dyer, All Year FSC 60.17
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 60.17 26.39 33.78 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop (under-rotated) 8.30 -0.60 7.70 Triple Axel Single Axel (Invalid) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.64 3.64 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz (downgraded) 2.31 -0.90 1.41 Step Sequence Step Sequence 4 3.90 1.40 5.30 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.64 3.84 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 1.00 4.50 Totals 24.21 26.39 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 6.64 1.00 Transitions 6.57 1.00 Performance 6.57 1.00 Composition 7.04 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 6.96 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 33.78 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
18 3 Daniel Kulenkamp, FSC of Southern California 60.15
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 60.15 30.16 29.99 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Axel Double Axel 3.30 0.07 3.37 Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Flip + Triple Toeloop (under-rotated) 8.30 -0.70 7.60 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 4 3.20 0.43 3.63 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz 6.60 -1.00 5.60 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.50 3.50 Step Sequence Step Sequence 2 2.60 0.50 3.10 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 3 3.00 0.36 3.36 Totals 30.00 30.16 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 5.89 1.00 Transitions 5.64 1.00 Performance 6.07 1.00 Composition 6.07 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 6.32 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 29.99 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
19 12 Ben Jalovick, Centennial 7k SC 56.12
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 56.12 25.98 30.14 0.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Triple Flip+Triple Toeloop Triple Axel 8.50 -1.71 6.79 Triple Axel Triple Flip (edge) 3.70 -2.10 1.60 Fly. Camel Spin Fly. Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.07 2.87 Triple Lutz Triple Lutz + Double Toeloop 8.03 -0.70 7.33 Step Sequence Step Sequence 2 2.60 0.21 2.81 Change Foot Sit Spin Change Foot Sit Spin 3 2.60 -0.09 2.51 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Comb. Spin 2 V 2.00 0.07 2.07 Totals 30.23 25.98 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 6.07 1.00 Transitions 5.96 1.00 Performance 5.79 1.00 Composition 6.21 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 6.11 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 30.14 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 0.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 0.00
20 2 Jordan Moeller, Northern Ice SC 55.35
Score Executed Elements Factored Program Components Deductions 55.35 27.79 29.56 2.00 Planned Elements Executed Elements Base Value GOE Score Quad Salchow Quad Salchow (under-rotated) 8.10 -4.00 4.10 Triple Axel Single Axel (Invalid) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fly. Sit Spin Fly. Sit Spin 4 3.00 0.71 3.71 Triple Lutz+Triple Toeloop Triple Lutz + Triple Toeloop 11.33 -2.10 9.23 Step Sequence Step Sequence 2 2.60 0.57 3.17 Change Foot Camel Spin Change Foot Camel Spin 3 2.80 0.57 3.37 Change Foot Combination Spin Change Foot Combination Spin 4 3.50 0.71 4.21 Totals 31.33 27.79 Program Components Unfactored Score Factor Skating Skills 6.32 1.00 Transitions 5.71 1.00 Performance 5.50 1.00 Composition 6.14 1.00 Interpretation of the Music 5.89 1.00 Total Factored Program Components 29.56 Deductions Value Costume/Prop violation 0.00 Time violation 0.00 Illegal element/movement 0.00 Falls 2.00 Interruption in excess 0.00 Interruption of the program 0.00 Costume failure 0.00 Late start 0.00 Total Deductions 2.00
21 5 Kevin Shum, SC of Boston 52.04 | All eyes will be on Jimmy Ma on Saturday—a figure skater with essentially no hope of getting to the Olympics, but a fan favorite after his short program at the United States Figure Skating Championships Thursday. As Stanley Kay wrote for Sports Illustrated, "I haven't watched much figure skating since 2014. But if this performance from Jimmy Ma is any indication, I'm going to be watching a lot more." The reason was Ma's edgier routine, which notably featured DJ Snake and Lil' Jon's "Turn Down For What." If that song doesn't ring a bell, USA Today advises that "you are (a) over 25, and (b) should do a YouTube search as it will provide a better description than anything I can offer through words." "Figure skating is an extreme sport," the 22-year-old told USA Today after competing. "If there was anybody flicking through who might not normally watch I hope that seeing and hearing me might have pulled them in." Should they tune in Saturday, they'll see him skating to something much less surprising though: Rachmaninov. As of Thursday's short program, Ma is in 11th place, with only three men's slots open for Pyeongchang. PopSugar notes another skater's song choice stood out: Starr Andrews skated to Whitney Houston's "One Moment in Time," but it was a version Andrews sang herself. |
The President is responsible for appointing individuals to positions throughout the federal government. In some instances, the President makes these appointments using authorities granted by law to the President alone. Other appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate via the nomination and confirmation of appointees. Presidential appointments with Senate confirmation are often referred to with the abbreviation PAS. This report identifies, for the 113 th Congress, all nominations submitted to the Senate for executive-level full-time positions in the 15 executive departments for which the Senate provides advice and consent. It excludes appointments to regulatory boards and commissions as well as to independent and other agencies, which are covered in other CRS reports. Information for this report was compiled using the Senate nominations database of the Legislative Information System (LIS) ( http://www.lis.gov/nomis/ ) , the Congressional Record (daily edition), the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents , telephone discussions with agency officials, agency websites, the United States Code , and the 2012 Plum Book ( United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions ). Related Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports regarding the presidential appointments process, nomination activity for other executive branch positions, recess appointments, and other appointments-related matters may be found at http://www.crs.gov . Table 1 summarizes appointment activity, during the 113 th Congress, related to full-time PAS positions in the 15 executive departments. President Barack H. Obama submitted 273 nominations to the Senate for full-time positions in executive departments. Of these 273 nominations, 162 were confirmed; 8 were withdrawn; and 103 were returned to the President under the provisions of Senate rules. The length of time a given nomination may be pending in the Senate has varied widely. Some nominations were confirmed within a few days, others were confirmed within several months, and some were never confirmed. This report provides, for each executive department nomination confirmed in the 113 th Congress, the number of days between nomination and confirmation ("days to confirm"). For confirmed nominations, a mean of 119.2 days elapsed between nomination and confirmation. The median number of days elapsed was 92.0. Under Senate Rules, nominations not acted on by the Senate at the end of a session of Congress (or before a recess of 30 days) are returned to the President. The Senate, by unanimous consent, often waives this rule—although not always. This report measures the "days to confirm" from the date of receipt of the resubmitted nomination, not the original. Each of the 15 executive department profiles provided in this report is divided into two parts: (1) a table listing the organization's full-time PAS positions as of the end of the 113 th Congress and (2) a table listing appointment action for vacant positions during the 113 th Congress. Data for these tables were collected from several authoritative sources, as listed earlier. In each department profile, the first of these two tables identifies, as of the end of the 113 th Congress, each full-time PAS position in that department and its pay level. For most presidentially appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation, pay levels fall under the Executive Schedule. As of the end of the 113 th Congress, these pay levels ranged from level I ($201,700) for Cabinet-level offices to level V ($147,200) for lower-ranked positions. The second table, the appointment action table, provides, in chronological order, information concerning each nomination. It shows the name of the nominee, position involved, date of nomination or appointment, date of confirmation, and number of days between receipt of a nomination and confirmation. It also notes actions other than confirmation (e.g., nominations returned to or withdrawn by the President). The appointment action tables with more than one nominee to a position also list statistics on the length of time between nomination and confirmation. Each appointment action table provides the average days to confirm in two ways: mean and median. Although the mean is a more familiar measure, it may be influenced by outliers in the data. The median, by contrast, does not tend to be influenced by outliers. In other words, a nomination that took an extraordinarily long time might cause a significant change in the mean, but the median would be unaffected. Examining both numbers offers more information with which to assess the central tendency of the data. For a small number of positions within a department, the two tables may contain slightly different titles for the same position. This is because the title used in the nomination the White House submits to the Senate, the title of the position as established by statute, and the title of the position used by the department itself are not always identical. The first table listing incumbents at the end of the 113 th Congress uses data provided by the department itself. The second table listing nomination action within each department relies primarily upon the Senate nominations database of the LIS. This information is based upon the nomination sent to the Senate by the White House. Any inconsistency in position titles between the two tables is noted in the notes following each appointment table. Appendix A provides two tables. Table A-1 relists all appointment action identified in this report and is organized alphabetically by the appointee's last name. Table entries identify the agency to which each individual was appointed, position title, nomination date, date confirmed or other final action, and duration count for confirmed nominations. The table also includes the mean and median values for the "days to confirm" column. Table A-2 provides summary data for each of the 15 executive departments identified in this report. The table summarizes the number of positions, nominations submitted, individual nominees, confirmations, nominations returned, and nominations withdrawn for each department. It also provides the mean and median values for the numbers of days taken to confirm nominations within each department. A list of department abbreviations can be found in Appendix B . Appendix A. Presidential Nominations, 113 th Congress Appendix B. Abbreviations of Departments | The President makes appointments to positions within the federal government, either using the authorities granted by law to the President alone, or with the advice and consent of the Senate. There are some 351 full-time leadership positions in the 15 executive departments for which the Senate provides advice and consent. This report identifies all nominations submitted to the Senate during the 113 th Congress for full-time positions in these 15 executive departments. Information for each department is presented in tables. The tables include full-time positions confirmed by the Senate, pay levels for these positions, and appointment action within each executive department. Additional summary information across all 15 executive departments appears in the Appendix. During the 113 th Congress, the President submitted 273 nominations to the Senate for full-time positions in executive departments. Of these 273 nominations, 162 were confirmed, 8 were withdrawn, and 103 were returned to him in accordance with Senate rules. For those nominations that were confirmed, a mean (average) of 119.2 days elapsed between nomination and confirmation. The median number of days elapsed was 92.0. Information for this report was compiled using the Senate nominations database of the Legislative Information System (LIS) ( http://www.lis.gov/nomis/ ) , the Congressional Record (daily edition), the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents , telephone discussions with agency officials, agency websites, the United States Code , and the 2012 Plum Book ( United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions ). This report will not be updated. |
For centuries, the Everglades has provided habitat for many species of wading birds and other native wildlife, including the American alligator, which depend on the water flow patterns that existed before human intervention. With Florida Bay, the Everglades provides important nursery grounds for fin fish, shrimp, lobster, stone crab, and other commercial species. The wildlife, fish, and recreational opportunities in the Everglades and Florida Bay have made tourism and commercial fishing mainstays of the local economy. Before human intervention, freshwater moved south from Lake Okeechobee in a broad, slow-moving sheet and then emptied into Florida Bay. The quantity and timing of the water’s flow depended upon rainfall patterns and natural processes that resulted in the slow release of stored water. Water stored throughout the vast area of the Everglades supplied water to wetlands even during dry seasons. During recent decades, engineering projects, agricultural activities, and urbanization have altered past ecological patterns. As figure 1 shows, agricultural, industrial, and residential development have reduced the Everglades to about half its original size. The Central and Southern Florida Project—an extensive system of canals, levees, pump stations, and other structures—was authorized by the Congress in 1948, initially to prevent flooding, provide drainage, and supply water in South Florida. Areas immediately south of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades Agricultural Area, which is drained by the project, are now farmed—primarily by sugar growers—while the eastern part of the region is heavily urbanized. Canals carry water away from the Everglades Agricultural Area into levied water conservation areas or directly into the Atlantic Ocean, bypassing much of the former Everglades. These engineering changes have diminished the broad, slow flow of water and reduced the area where water can be stored for dry seasons. At the same time, agricultural practices are altering native plant communities. Phosphorus—a plant nutrient—is carried in runoff from sugar farms to the Everglades, where it supports the growth of cattails, which choke out the native grasses. Wildlife populations have declined significantly. For example, the number of wading birds, once in the millions, has fallen by 90 percent in recent decades. Moreover, some scientists believe that the reduced flow of freshwater into Florida Bay may be hastening the bay’s environmental decline. The administration has established coordination and collaboration as essential principles of ecosystem management. As we noted in our August 1994 report on this approach, implementing solutions to environmental and economic concerns that transcend the boundaries of ownership and jurisdiction requires increased collaboration and consensus-building among federal and nonfederal stakeholders within most ecosystems. The extent to which desired ecological and economic conditions can be maintained or restored will depend in large measure on the extent to which private landowners and government agencies can agree on the necessary or desired trade-offs among ecological and socioeconomic values and concerns, including those related to the conditions and trends of local economies and industries and the stability of communities. The federal interagency task force established to coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida and the environmental restoration efforts under the task force’s umbrella have involved nonfederal stakeholders in their activities. The various efforts began at different times, under different authorities, and have progressed to different stages, ranging from planning to implementing solutions for specific concerns. Only one of the efforts—to manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and protect its resources—has chartered an advisory committee under FACA, as required by the act establishing the sanctuary. Appendix I discusses the chronology of events, the process for involving nonfederal stakeholders, and the stakeholders’ response to that process for the effort to coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida. Appendix II discusses the effort to manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and protect its resources. Appendixes III and IV discuss efforts to modify the effects of engineering projects that have diverted water from the Everglades. Appendix V discusses the effort to reduce agricultural pollutants in the water entering the Everglades. The involvement by nonfederal stakeholders in these efforts is summarized below. At the urging of the Secretary of the Interior, the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem was formed in September 1993 to coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida. Consisting of assistant secretaries from the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, the Army, and Agriculture; an assistant attorney general from the Department of Justice; and an assistant administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency, the task force is responsible for developing consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, and priorities for addressing environmental concerns in South Florida. Among the task force’s products are an annual report and a report (prepared by a science subgroup of the task force’s working group) on the ecosystem’s restoration needs—including the need to acquire private lands in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Until April 1995, membership in the working group was limited to representatives of federal agencies. However, after legislation was enacted in March 1995 exempting certain meetings between federal officials and state, local, or tribal officials from FACA’s requirements, the working group increased its membership to include state and tribal officials. In addition, most meetings of the task force and of the working group are open to the public, and the working group gives the public an opportunity to comment at each open meeting. The working group has also scheduled some of its meetings to coincide with meetings of the Governor’s Commission on a Sustainable South Florida to facilitate the two groups’ interaction and the public’s participation. Still missing as formal participants in the working group and its subgroups, however, are local officials and representatives of diverse nongovernmental interests across South Florida, including landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, developers, and environmental organizations. Precedent exists, however, for establishing a citizens’ group to formally participate in the task force’s effort and to promote public involvement and outreach. Moreover, in its fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Department of the Interior, the administration supported the public’s involvement in an ecological restoration effort that, like the South Florida effort, affects a variety of interests. According to the budget request, the public will continue to have a major role in developing a long-range strategy to restore and protect the aquatic ecosystem of California’s San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in part through the creation of a citizens’ advisory committee representing urban, agricultural, environmental, and other interests. (See app. I for more information about this effort.) The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990 established the sanctuary and requires the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive plan to manage the sanctuary and protect its resources. NOAA made a draft of the management plan available for public comment in April 1995. To develop the plan, NOAA was required by the act to work with relevant federal, state, and local agencies and to establish a citizens’ sanctuary advisory council whose members could include representatives from local industries, commercial endeavors, conservation groups, the general public, and others. To implement these requirements, NOAA followed a newly developed strategic assessment approach that involved three groups of stakeholders: (1) a core group representing federal, state, and local agencies whose jurisdictions affect the sanctuary, (2) a citizens’ sanctuary advisory council, chartered under FACA, representing local industries and businesses, user groups, local citizens, environmentalists, and scientists as well as some agency staff from the core group, and (3) a broader network of local scientists and management experts. In general, the core group identified issues, effects, causes, data needs, strategies, and alternatives for addressing management issues. Efforts by the core group were developed with, or reviewed by, local scientists and management experts. The sanctuary advisory council also reviewed and revised the work of the core group, often after conferring with constituents in the community, and contributed directly to the development of a key component of the plan establishing special-use zones within the sanctuary. NOAA staff facilitated each step in the process. Both the core group and the citizens’ sanctuary advisory council recommended the same preferred management alternative to NOAA. This alternative, which consists of a combination of strategies, proposes to limit certain uses and activities to certain areas within the sanctuary to provide different levels of protection for natural resources. Since the draft plan was made available for public comment, sanctuary staff have held or planned to hold (1) information expositions (“expos”) throughout the Keys to answer residents’ questions about the plan, (2) working sessions with various interest groups, and (3) public meetings before the comment period closes in December 1995. (See app. II for more information about this effort.) In response to federal legislation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has undertaken four efforts since 1985 to reverse some of the engineering changes implemented earlier in the century and restore the natural volume or timing of the water’s flow in South Florida. During this period, the Corps has conducted various studies and experiments, identified or proposed modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project, issued reports on its findings, and prepared environmental products required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Over the years, the Corps has increased nonfederal stakeholders’ involvement in its decision-making. At first, the Corps limited nonfederal involvement to the minimum requirements for public participation set forth in NEPA. This act involves nonfederal stakeholders primarily in reviewing and commenting on products drafted by the agency. However, because the environmental restoration of South Florida has commanded the attention of the public, political officials, and the media, the Corps has increased the opportunities for public input. For example, the Corps has (1) relied on a state committee established by the governor of Florida to identify problems, goals, and objectives for managing the east Everglades, (2) held meetings and workshops with representatives of the agricultural community, homeowners, conservation groups, and local government agencies to provide information and obtain their feedback on proposed alternatives, (3) used an interagency study team instead of relying solely on its own staff to formulate alternative plans and recommend further studies, and/or (4) obtained input through open meetings held at various stages in the process. The Corps is also considering alternatives to increase public involvement, including chartering an advisory committee under FACA, to provide advice on all of the Corps’ South Florida restoration efforts. (See apps. III and IV for further information about the Corps’ efforts.) Unlike the other efforts discussed in this report, this one does not represent an attempt by federal agencies to implement a public policy initiative required by law or begun at the urging of the Secretary of the Interior. Rather, it represents an effort to settle years of litigation over the runoff of phosphorus from sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area. The effort began in 1988 when the federal government sued two state agencies for failing to enforce the state’s water quality standards. It led to the enactment in 1994 of Florida’s Everglades Forever Act, which is now being implemented. Federal negotiators involved in this effort were not trying to build collaboration and consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders but to reach a fair settlement for the federal government. Hence, participation in the process was limited primarily to the parties to the litigation. However, public participation did occur during (1) formal mediation to address technical issues and (2) the state’s legislative process leading up to the act’s passage. The enactment of Florida’s Everglades Forever Act abrogated the need for an evidentiary hearing at which parties to the litigation had been scheduled to present their views and evidence before an impartial hearing officer. (See app. V for further information about this effort.) NOAA’s use of an advisory committee chartered under FACA to develop a comprehensive management plan for the sanctuary indicates that the advisory committee can be an effective tool for facilitating communication between federal and nonfederal parties. However, apart from NOAA, which was required to establish a citizens’ advisory council by the act establishing the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, no federal agency has chartered an advisory committee under FACA to bring stakeholders together. Some federal officials cited the cumbersome steps that an advisory committee must take to ensure open public meetings as a primary reason for not chartering committees under FACA. These steps include publishing advance notice of meetings in the Federal Register, holding meetings in public, making detailed minutes of the meetings available to the public, and allowing interested persons to appear before it. This concern is consistent with concerns raised by other federal officials who believe that FACA’s procedural requirements make it difficult for federal agencies to establish partnerships with stakeholders and involve the public in ecosystem activities. These officials believe that, in attempting to prevent special interest groups from obtaining unfair access to federal officials, the act has had the unintended consequence of isolating federal officials from public contact. Some federal officials cited concerns expressed by the Congress and the administration over the proliferation of advisory committees and their related costs as a primary reason for not chartering committees under FACA. These concerns culminated in Executive Order 12838, issued on February 10, 1993, which requires federal agencies to reduce the number of federal advisory committees and to limit the establishment of new ones. In addition, some federal officials and some nonfederal stakeholders expressed frustration to us about the difficulty of determining when federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without being required to charter an advisory committee under FACA. According to federal officials responsible for interpreting FACA—including attorneys in the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and officials in the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of FACA and monitoring advisory committees’ activities—it is often difficult to determine when an advisory committee is required to comply with the act, and the courts have not provided clear tests for such a decision. Whether federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without an advisory committee often depends on whether information—rather than advice—is exchanged, whether a consensus is reached among the parties, and how often meetings occur and who initiates them. Furthermore, these officials noted that the courts look at a combination of factors that affect the need for a committee in a given situation; few factors by themselves clearly indicate that a group must be chartered under FACA. Among the lessons learned so far in implementing environmental restoration efforts in South Florida is that nonfederal stakeholders would generally prefer to present their concerns, positions, and supporting documentation during rather than after the development of federal proposals to address environmental concerns. This lesson is drawn from the desires expressed by nonfederal stakeholders for greater involvement in the efforts to coordinate restoration activities and to modify the effects of engineering projects that have diverted water from the Everglades. Another lesson is that constraints imposed by external factors often dictate the extent to which federal agencies can involve nonfederal stakeholders in their activities. For example, federal members of the interagency task force’s working group could still be found in violation of FACA for holding meetings with nongovernmental parties without the benefit of an advisory committee chartered under the act; nevertheless, these federal officials believe that they are precluded from expanding their membership to include nongovernmental stakeholders because Executive Order 12838 limits the establishment of new advisory committees under the act. A third lesson is that although consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders is desirable, restoration efforts are inherently contentious, and consensus on solutions that directly affect various interests may not be attainable. Consensus can begin to wane as a restoration effort moves from the planning to the implementation stage and stakeholders begin to feel the effects of public policy decisions. For example, decisions that change land-use patterns and affect property ownership—such as the state’s decision to acquire privately owned agricultural lands adjacent to the Everglades National Park to mitigate the effects of engineering projects that have diverted water from the Everglades—may not be acceptable to all stakeholders. A fourth lesson is that dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement expressed by stakeholders directly affected by a public policy decision often cannot be dissociated from their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process. For example, the dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement expressed by agricultural landowners whose properties are adjacent to the Everglades National Park and have been identified for acquisition by the state cannot be dissociated from their dissatisfaction with the state’s decision to purchase their properties. In the final analysis, the most that a federal agency may be able to achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views within the constraints imposed by external factors, and any conclusion about the extent to which an agency or effort meets this objective is highly subjective. For example, several parties—smaller sugar growers in the Everglades Agricultural Area, the Miccosuke Tribe of Indians whose reservation and leased lands border the northern boundary of the Everglades National Park, and two environmental groups—have criticized the process that resulted in Florida’s Everglades Forever Act for not affording full consideration of their views and evidence. Officials from or representatives of these parties told us that they would have preferred an open airing of their views and evidence at an evidentiary hearing before an impartial hearing officer. (As previously noted, the act’s passage abrogated the need for the hearing.) However, these groups’ dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement cannot be dissociated from their publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of that process. All of the efforts discussed in this report share the goal of restoring the environment and local economy of South Florida. Hence, one effort’s experience in involving nonfederal stakeholders may be applicable to another effort. On a broader scale, the lessons learned in implementing environmental restoration efforts in South Florida may be applicable to other interactions between federal and nonfederal stakeholders. Among these lessons is that nonfederal stakeholders would generally prefer to present their concerns, positions, and supporting documentation during rather than after the development of federal proposals to address environmental concerns. Federal agencies have involved nonfederal stakeholders in their efforts to restore the environment of South Florida, and some, including the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem and the Corps, are considering alternatives to increase public involvement. However, the executive order limiting the establishment of new advisory committees under FACA, coupled with the difficulty of determining when federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without being required to charter an advisory committee under the act, has limited formal participation by nongovernmental interests in federal restoration efforts. In particular, the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem has developed a strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders that does not include formal participation by local officials or representatives of diverse nongovernmental interests across the region. Since the extent to which desired ecological and economic conditions can be maintained or restored will depend in large measure on the extent to which private landowners and government agencies can agree on the necessary or desired trade-offs among ecological and socioeconomic values and concerns, the lack of formal participation by local officials or representatives of the region’s nongovernmental interests could severely compromise the task force’s effort. We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem to develop a strategy to extend formal participation in its working group and subgroups to local officials and representatives of South Florida’s nongovernmental interests, including landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, developers, and environmental organizations. One alternative would be to establish a citizens’ advisory group to formally participate in the task force’s effort and to promote public involvement and outreach. The task force should include its planned strategy in its next annual report. We also recommend that if the task force finds that formal participation by nongovernmental interests in federal restoration efforts continues to be limited by Executive Order 12838 and by the difficulty of determining when federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without being required to charter an advisory committee under FACA, the task force should inform the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat of the impact the two constraints are having on collaboration and consensus-building between federal and nonfederal parties and suggest alternatives to increase participation by nongovernmental interests. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of the Interior, Defense, and Commerce or their designees. Interior officials, including the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management and Budget, raised several concerns about the report’s overall findings and about the conclusions and recommendations that flowed from them. The draft report proposed two recommendations: (1) The task force should develop a strategy to improve collaboration with nonfederal stakeholders in coordinating environmental restoration activities in South Florida and should view as examples the processes used by NOAA to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and by the Corps to consider modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project and (2) the task force should inform the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat, which is responsible for drafting guidelines to implement the March 1995 exemption to FACA, of the extent to which the exemption and guidelines allow the task force to share information, coordinate activities, and work routinely with state, local, and other governmental agencies without violating the act. In commenting on the first proposed recommendation, Interior officials stated that the task force had already developed a strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders that has worked well and represents a model for such partnerships around the country. Moreover, according to these officials, NOAA’s process for developing a comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is not an appropriate model for the task force, since the task force is an operative and action-oriented body, not a “master planning body.” While we agree that the task force has developed a strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders, this strategy does not include formal participation in the working group and its subgroups by local officials and by representatives of South Florida’s diverse nongovernmental interests. Moreover, we believe that NOAA’s effort to manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is similar to the task force’s effort to coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida in that both have developed a plan of action and are moving toward implementation. In addition, precedent exists for establishing a citizens’ group to formally participate in the task force’s effort and to promote public involvement and outreach (see app. I). We modified the second recommendation to recognize that the task force’s working group had increased its membership to include state and tribal officials. The recommendation now focuses on constraints to formal participation by nongovernmental interests in federal restoration efforts. Interior officials also emphasized that (1) environmental restoration efforts should not be compared to one another, (2) the efforts are interrelated, and (3) consensus on solutions to problems or issues may not be attainable. In addition, these officials suggested that the report’s discussion of the effort to coordinate restoration activities in South Florida (see app. I) be updated to reflect actions taken since legislation was enacted in March 1995 that exempts from the requirements of FACA certain meetings between federal and state, local, or tribal officials. They also noted that in the effort to settle complex water quality litigation (see app. V), (1) litigation limited participation by the public, (2) public participation occurred during the state’s legislative process leading up to passage of the Everglades Forever Act, (3) small sugar growers, Indian tribes, and environmental groups were involved in the negotiations, and (4) these groups’ dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement cannot be dissociated from their dissatisfaction with the act. We agree with these comments and have revised the report to present Interior’s positions. In addition, Interior offered updated information and editorial comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. Interior’s comments and our responses are summarized in appendix VI. Commerce provided minor editorial changes, which we made to the report where appropriate. Defense suggested a technical change, which we made to the report, and concurred without further comment (see app. VII). To identify the processes used by federal agencies to involve nonfederal stakeholders in efforts to address environmental and economic concerns in South Florida, we met or spoke with federal officials or scientists from the Everglades National Park, the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Jacksonville District, as well as with state officials from the South Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection. We also met with representatives of several environmental groups, including the Audubon Society and the Friends of the Everglades; the Miccosuke Tribe of Indians; the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida; United States Sugar Corporation; the Dade County Farm Bureau; the East Everglades landowners; and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. In addition, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations, court decisions, reports, plans, and other documents on the five processes we identified. Finally, we reviewed FACA, its legislative history, and related court cases, and we met or spoke with officials responsible for interpreting FACA, including attorneys in the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and officials in the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat. We conducted our work between October 1994 and August 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are providing copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Interior, Defense, the Army, Commerce, and Agriculture; the Attorney General; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and other interested parties. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512-8021. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII. At the urging of the Secretary of the Interior, federal agencies established the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem in 1993 to develop consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, and priorities for addressing environmental concerns in South Florida. The Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem consists of assistant secretaries from the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, the Army, and Agriculture; an assistant attorney general from the Department of Justice; and an assistant administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency. Officials from these agencies signed an agreement in September 1993 to accomplish ecosystem restoration goals together, including (1) agreeing on federal objectives for the restoration, (2) establishing an ecosystem-based science program, (3) developing multispecies recovery plans for species that were listed or could be listed under the Endangered Species Act, and (4) expediting the implementation of projects included in coordinated plans. The agreement created the Management and Coordination Working Group to formulate and recommend management activities to the task force. According to Interior officials, the task force and working group also coordinate the various agencies’ budget processes and resolve disputes among the agencies. The working group formed several subgroups to assist it in its efforts, including a science subgroup whose members are federal officials. In November 1993, the science subgroup released a report on the ecosystem’s restoration needs. This report provides a federal scientific perspective on the goals and objectives for restoration and presents an approach, which includes the acquisition of private land, to help restore the natural flow of water through the Everglades. The report was developed for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in its consideration of modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project (see app. IV). The working group’s 1994 annual report to the task force, issued as a draft in August 1994 and published in May 1995, outlines general objectives for federal ecosystem management and recommends a large number of actions deemed necessary to restore the ecosystem. These actions include improving the water’s quality and supply, issuing permits for using wetlands, restoring habitat, and promoting sustainable development and scientific research. The science subgroup’s scientific information needs assessment, issued as a draft in September 1994, outlines modeling, monitoring, and special studies needed to provide a scientific information base for ecosystem management. The assessment is a precursor to a science plan. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement in developing the working group’s annual report and the science subgroup’s report on the ecosystem’s restoration needs and draft scientific information needs assessment are outlined in table I.1. Stakeholders’ involvement in the task force’s effort to coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida is discussed in more detail below. Table I.1: Chronology of Events and Stakeholders’ Involvement in Developing the Working Group’s Annual Report and the Science Subgroup’s Report on the Ecosystem’s Restoration Needs and Draft Scientific Information Needs Assessment Participating agencies sign the Federal South Florida Interagency Task Force Agreement to coordinate consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, and priorities. The task force creates a working group with authority to establish subgroups. The working group’s science subgroup, with the help of the South Florida Water Management District (District), releases a report on the ecosystem’s restoration needs. Federal agencies in the science subgroup Interior (multiple agencies) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Agriculture Environmental Protection Agency Public (given an opportunity to comment on the report) The task force’s working group issues its draft 1994 annual report, which sets forth objectives and recommends restoration actions. Federal agencies in the working group Public (given an opportunity to comment on the draft report) The working group holds four public meetings on the draft annual report. The science subgroup completes a draft scientific information needs assessment and subsequently makes it available for public comment and for review by peers and state, local, and tribal agencies. Two public meetings are held on the draft scientific information needs assessment. The working group publishes the 1994 annual report. Soon after it was created, the working group reached consensus that public involvement was very important to the success of its goals. The media throughout South Florida is informed in advance of each of these meetings. Each meeting is open to the public except when the agencies’ fiscal year budgets are discussed before being submitted to the Congress. After consulting with legal advisers in the Departments of the Interior and Justice, the working group has provided an opportunity for public comment at each open meeting. In addition, detailed minutes of each meeting are prepared. From June 1994 to August 1995, the task force and the Governor’s Commission on a Sustainable South Florida scheduled six of their meetings back to back at the same location to facilitate the two groups’ interaction and the public’s participation. Moreover, at one of these meetings, the task force, the working group, the commission, and the South Florida Water Management District’s (District) governing board met to interact and exchange information. The task force’s 1993 agreement recognized the need for state, local, and tribal governments to be integral partners in developing and implementing activities for restoring the ecosystem. However, until April 1995, these nonfederal entities were largely limited to reviewing and commenting on the products drafted by the working group and its science subgroup. Interior officials on the task force or working group believe that further involvement would have required chartering an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). According to some members, the working group did not charter an advisory committee under FACA primarily because of concerns shared by the Congress and the administration over the proliferation of advisory committees chartered under FACA and their related costs. These concerns culminated in Executive Order 12838, issued on February 10, 1993, which requires federal agencies to reduce the number of federal advisory committees and to limit the establishment of new ones. However, the executive director of the task force as well as other members of the working group agreed that FACA’s requirements—such as having to file a detailed charter, publish advance notice of meetings in the Federal Register, hold meetings in public, and make detailed minutes of the meetings available to the public—are cumbersome and pose a significant barrier to coordination with nonfederal parties. The District did, however, help to develop the science subgroup’s November 1993 report on the ecosystem’s restoration needs. This report was then made available for public comment after its release at public hearings held by the Corps to discuss modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project (see app. IV). The working group’s 1994 annual report, which includes recommendations for restoration, was completed entirely by federal officials, but the draft report was made available for public review and comment at four public meetings. The science subgroup’s scientific information needs assessment, issued in draft in September 1994, was developed, in part, on the basis of interviews with experts and contributions from representatives of local governments on issues affecting lands and waters within their jurisdiction. In addition, the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida convened a high-level meeting of state, regional, and federal scientists to provide a general consensus on research priorities, and the draft was sent to federal and nonfederal scientists for peer review. Two public meetings also were held to obtain comments from outside sources. Other efforts to promote federal and nonfederal collaboration under the task force’s umbrella include a steering committee established to develop a strategy to preserve wetlands. This committee consists not only of relevant federal agencies but also of Indian tribes and state and local agencies. A multispecies recovery team is also being established. This team includes federal, state, and other experts on the many South Florida species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act specifically exempts members of recovery teams from FACA’s requirements. After legislation was enacted in March 1995 exempting certain meetings between federal officials and state, local, or tribal officials from FACA’s requirements, the working group formally invited the state of Florida and the Seminole and Miccosuke tribes to designate members to attend the working group’s meetings. All three accepted and participated in the working group’s April 5, 1995, meeting. Still missing as formal participants in the working group and its subgroups, however, are local officials and representatives of diverse nongovernmental interests across South Florida, including landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, developers, and environmental organizations. Interior officials on the task force and working group informed us that, in view of Executive Order 12838’s limitation on the formation of new advisory committees, they do not plan to establish a citizens’ group to formally participate in the task force’s effort. We believe, however, that a precedent exists for forming such a group. The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (section 303 of P.L. 101-646) established an interagency task force that includes five of the six federal agencies on the South Florida task force. Its purpose is to develop a “comprehensive approach to restore and prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana.” Thus, its mission is similar to that of the South Florida task force. In 1991, the coastal Louisiana task force established a Citizen Participation Group representing 17 interests across the state’s coastal zone. The purpose of the group is to consistently review and comment on the task force’s restoration plan and lists of high-priority projects and to assist and participate in public involvement and outreach. While the Louisiana task force’s Citizen Participation Group was established before the administration issued its February 1993 executive order, the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of FACA and monitoring advisory committees’ activities, informed us that the executive order does not prevent a new advisory committee from being established if there is a clear need for one. Moreover, in its fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Department of the Interior, the administration states that the public will continue to have a major role in the development of a long-range strategy to restore and protect the aquatic ecosystem of California’s San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in part through the creation of a citizens’ advisory committee representing urban, agricultural, environmental, and other interests. Interior officials on the task force and working group believe that the task force can serve as a model for federal and nonfederal partnerships around the country. They point to the public’s overwhelming support for restoring South Florida’s ecosystem, as reflected in the results of successive elections, public opinion surveys, and public meetings as well as in the continued willingness of private citizens and corporations to pay the major costs of the effort. However, some stakeholders have raised concerns about the process used by the task force to involve them in its effort to coordinate restoration activities in South Florida. For example, the approach presented in the science subgroup’s report on the ecosystem’s restoration needs, which includes the acquisition of private land, appeared to catch some nonfederal stakeholders by surprise. The report raised fears among some that federal restoration activities would eliminate agriculture in the Everglades Agricultural Area. The two largest sugar companies, which were then negotiating an agreement with Interior to settle complex water quality litigation concerning the runoff of phosphorus from sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area, used the report to claim that the federal government had withheld information from the negotiations and thus acted in “bad faith.” According to Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the report did not represent the position of the federal government and did not take into account a mediated technical plan, adopted by Interior in July 1993 as the basis for water quality requirements, which assumes that agricultural interests will remain in the Everglades Agricultural Area (see app. V). Others have expressed frustration at not being allowed to participate actively in the meetings of the working group and the science subgroup, although they are permitted to attend the meetings as observers. For example, a researcher for the state of Florida believes that state scientists should have been involved in developing the scientific information needs assessment. Two parties described instances in which they had been told by federal officials that they were not permitted to attend meetings of the working group, even though the 1993 agreement states that the task force’s meetings are open to the public. These parties also maintain that they did not receive notice of a meeting even after requesting it or that notices of other meetings arrived after, or only a day or two before, the meetings. In one instance, the working group denied several requests by the chairman of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council (see app. II) to present information to the working group on restoring ecosystems. The Miccosuke Tribe of Indians, whose reservation and leased lands border the northern boundary of the Everglades National Park, has sued to permanently enjoin (prohibit) the use of the 1994 annual report and the scientific information needs assessment as the basis for restoring the ecosystem on the grounds that the task force, working group, and science subgroup violated FACA in developing these products. The tribe cites meetings with state officials and others—including the governor’s commission—as evidence of the federal government’s interaction with nonfederal parties without the benefit of a balanced advisory committee. They perceive a “light-switch approach” in the working group’s application of FACA: At some times, the working group appears to act solely with federal employees, while at other times, it includes certain selected nonfederal parties. While the task force disagrees with the tribe’s perceptions, some federal officials and some nonfederal stakeholders expressed frustration to us about the difficulty of determining when federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without being required to charter an advisory committee under FACA. According to federal officials responsible for interpreting FACA—including attorneys in the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and officials in the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat—it is often difficult to determine when an advisory committee is required to comply with the act, and the courts have not provided clear tests for such a decision. Whether federal parties can meet with nongovernmental parties without an advisory committee often depends on whether information—rather than advice—is exchanged, whether a consensus is reached among the parties, and how often meetings occur and who initiates them. Furthermore, these officials noted that the courts look at a combination of factors that affect the need for a committee in a given situation; few factors by themselves clearly indicate that a group must be chartered under FACA. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-605) established the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and requires the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive plan to govern the overall management of the sanctuary and protect its resources. NOAA made a draft of a combined management plan and environmental impact statement available for public comment in April 1995. The 1990 act specifically requires NOAA to work with relevant federal, state, and local agencies and to establish a citizens’ sanctuary advisory council whose members may include representatives from local industries, commercial user groups, conservation groups, the general public, and others. In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement in conjunction with a management plan. To comply with the requirements of the 1990 act and NEPA, NOAA applied a new strategic planning process—the strategic assessment approach—to develop the comprehensive management plan and environmental impact statement. This approach is a problem-driven process that makes maximum use of existing knowledge. It relies on structured work sessions to identify, characterize, and assess alternative management actions on the basis of the best available knowledge, recognizing that precise information on many topics is not available. Much of the knowledge is derived from the experience of experts—including users of the local resources. In carrying out this approach, NOAA relied on three groups: (1) a core group representing federal, state, and local agencies whose jurisdictions affect the sanctuary, (2) a citizen’s sanctuary advisory council representing local industries and businesses, user groups, local citizens, environmentalists, and scientists, as well as some agency staff from the core group, and (3) a broader network of local scientists and management experts. The core group included representatives from NOAA, the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Governor’s Office of Environmental Affairs, and the South Florida Water Management District (District). Local agencies from Monroe County (Florida Keys) were also part of the core group. A team of staff from NOAA’s Sanctuaries and Resources Division, Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, and Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services facilitated each step of the process. To begin the process, NOAA obtained input from the general public through scoping meetings and questionnaires to outline important issues to be considered. The core group then reviewed and described these issues in conjunction with the network of scientists and management experts, as well as with other interested parties. Through structured work sessions, the core group and the network of scientists and management experts developed strategies and alternatives for addressing the issues, as well as preliminary ideas on zoning within the sanctuary. The citizens’ sanctuary advisory council reviewed these strategies, studied zoning issues in depth, and recommended zoning proposals, which the core group and NOAA reviewed and modified slightly. Both the core group and the citizens’ sanctuary advisory council recommended the same preferred management alternative, consisting of a combination of strategies, to NOAA. According to NOAA officials, after NOAA had finished writing a draft combined management plan and environmental impact statement, it made this document available for public comment. During the public comment period, the sanctuary staff held information “expos” to answer questions about the plan. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement in developing the draft comprehensive management plan and environmental impact statement are outlined in table II.1. Stakeholders’ involvement in the process is discussed in more detail below. Table II.1: Chronology of Events and Stakeholders’ Involvement in Developing a Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary The President signs legislation creating the sanctuary. Six public scoping meetings are held. Questionnaires are distributed for input. Written comments and responses are received. Data are compiled, and management issues are identified. The core group reviews management issues and makes preliminary determinations of major effects and causes, data needs and potential data sources, and lead agencies for acquiring information. A meeting is held to review management issues and preliminary determinations. Issues are further refined through subsequent technical workshops and mailings. A workshop is held on the placement of mooring buoys for the draft plan. A workshop is held to plan for a detailed mapping survey of the sanctuary. A workshop is held to obtain input from environmental educators on developing an education plan. A workshop is held to obtain input on a research and monitoring plan for the sanctuary. A workshop is held to obtain input on an archaeological plan for the sanctuary. (continued) The core group clarifies issues by describing activities that affect resources and by identifying possible conflicts in the use of resources. A meeting is held to update resource managers on the status of the planning process and to introduce the concept of marine zoning. A week-long series of workshops is held to introduce the concept of marine zoning to the public. A workshop is held to obtain input on a water quality protection program. In a strategy identification and development session, the core group and others develop proposed management strategies on the basis of the best available knowledge and describe the impact of the strategies on resources. In a strategy work session, the sanctuary advisory council reviews the proposed management strategies, identifies additional issues, and adopts or revises issues. Council members confer with constituents on issues. Through work sessions, the core group develops alternatives to address issues and incorporate strategies into alternatives for the environmental impact statement. A workshop is held to obtain input on a water quality monitoring and research program. A workshop is held to obtain input on institutional management and engineering options for a water quality protection program. The core group develops preliminary ideas on zones: their types and boundaries and the types of activities that can take place in them. In a second strategy identification and development session, implementation costs are estimated and institutional responsibilities are identified. Scientists Federal and state resource managers (continued) Preliminary zoning ideas are presented to the sanctuary advisory council. The council agrees to break into subcommittees to consider the ideas in detail. Five workshops are held to consider and develop zones. The sanctuary advisory council’s subcommittees meet, develop criteria for zones, apply the criteria to proposed areas, and refine boundaries. The sanctuary advisory council presents the subcommittees’ zoning proposals to the public, hears public comments on the proposals, votes on the proposals, and recommends the proposals to the core group and NOAA. The core group and NOAA review the sanctuary advisory council’s zoning recommendations, modifying and refining some proposals slightly. The core group reviews and refines socioeconomic and environmental impact assessments to develop the preferred alternative for the environmental impact statement. The sanctuary advisory council votes on a preferred alternative and submits its recommendation, with some modifications and concerns, to NOAA. The core group reviews and adopts the sanctuary advisory council’s recommendation on a preferred alternative, with minor modifications. NOAA completes the draft management plan and begins the federal review and approval process. The draft plan is made available for comment. Information “expos” are held to explain the plan in the Florida Keys and answer questions. Dates are approximate. The strategic assessment approach provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to play a significant role in developing the management plan. In general, the core group identified issues, effects, causes, data needs, strategies, and alternatives for addressing management issues. Efforts by the core group were developed with, or reviewed by, local scientists and management experts. The sanctuary advisory council also reviewed and revised the work of the core group, often after conferring with constituents in the community. Through the strategic assessment approach, stakeholders identified management actions or strategies and their operational requirements, institutional arrangements, implementation costs, and financing alternatives. Many of these strategies point to the need for acquiring better knowledge of the resources before taking action. A NOAA official stated to us that this “back to front” approach helps clarify research needs by identifying the research projects that would be most helpful in finding solutions to specific management problems. The sanctuary advisory council contributed directly to the development of a key component of the management plan establishing special-use zones within the sanctuary. Zoning involved designating areas within the sanctuary for different types of uses and activities and for different levels of resource protection. While NOAA and the core group developed the preliminary ideas for zones, the advisory council formed several subcommittees to examine these ideas in depth. The advisory council developed the criteria to be used in establishing zones, and the subcommittees then applied the criteria to develop proposed areas and refine boundaries. The subcommittees’ proposals were ultimately presented to the public in an open meeting, and the entire advisory council publicly voted to recommend the subcommittees’ proposals to NOAA and the core group. The advisory council recommended a preferred management alternative to NOAA and the core group, which NOAA incorporated in the draft management plan. This plan and environmental impact statement were made available for public comment in April 1995. Afterwards, staff of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary held or planned to hold (1) information expositions (“expos”) throughout the Keys to answer residents’ questions about the plan, (2) working sessions with various interest groups, and (3) public meetings before the comment period closes in December 1995. According to a NOAA attorney, the core group’s participation in this inclusive, integrated approach complied with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The core group was not a chartered advisory committee; however, NOAA’s attorney maintains that because it served to exchange information, not advice, on how the state and federal governments conduct operations on sanctuary waters, it did not fall under FACA’s requirements. The citizen’s sanctuary advisory council was chartered under FACA. According to an official in NOAA’s Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, all participating stakeholders had opportunities throughout the process to raise concerns and have these concerns addressed in the management plan. Consequently, few major concerns are expected on the draft management plan. However, in commenting on a draft of this report, Interior officials on the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem and its working group (see app. I) said that in spite of the extensive process outlined above, the plan remains highly controversial and many stakeholders are questioning the validity of their involvement. They pointed out that although consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders is desirable, restoration efforts are, by their very nature, highly contentious and that consensus begins to evaporate as a restoration effort moves from the conceptual and planning stages to the implementation of solutions that directly affect various interests. Interior officials believe that the most an agency can hope to achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views. Since 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been experimenting with delivering water to the Everglades National Park to improve environmental conditions. It has also proposed modifications to part of the Central and Southern Florida Project (project) to better protect the park’s natural values and improve the delivery of water to the park. The project, first authorized by the Congress in 1948, serves multiple purposes, controlling flooding, providing drainage, and supplying water for municipal and agricultural purposes. It consists of miles of levees and canals that, together with water control structures and pump stations, drain and move water throughout South Florida. In 1983, the Congress authorized experimental deliveries of water to the Everglades National Park to identify changes to the project that would improve environmental conditions. The legislation required the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, the Corps, and the South Florida Water Management District (District) to agree on the terms of such experiments and to acquire interest in agricultural areas adjacent to the Everglades National Park that would be adversely affected by modifications to the water delivery schedule. In 1989, the Congress authorized the Corps to modify the project’s canal system on the basis of the experiments’ findings to (1) permanently improve the delivery of water to the park and (2) restore natural hydrological conditions. In addition, under 1968 legislation modifying the project, the Corps has reevaluated the project’s east Everglades canal system—known as the C-111 basin—to better protect natural values in the Everglades National Park and to find permanent solutions to water flow problems. In addition to these federal efforts, Florida laws and programs have authorized the state to acquire some of the lands adjacent to the park’s eastern boundary to assist in restoring the Everglades and Florida Bay. Federal law provides some funding for acquiring these lands. The experimental water deliveries authorized by the 1983 act have proceeded since the resolution, in 1985, of a lawsuit filed by landowners who were concerned about the increased potential for flooding on their lands caused by the experiments. This case was settled out of court in an agreement that allowed the experiments to proceed for 2 years without further litigation by the landowners. There have been no further lawsuits by, or agreements with, the landowners over the experimental deliveries. Since the experiments represent a major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, the Corps was required to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Corps completed two environmental assessments—one in 1985 and another in 1993—to address the impact of the experimental water deliveries to the northeastern and southeastern portions of the park, respectively. Between the 1985 and 1993 assessments, the Corps, the National Park Service, and the District prepared addendums to a letter of agreement that outlined annual operating criteria for each iteration of the experiments, which varied somewhat from year to year. In response to the 1989 legislation authorizing the Corps to modify the project’s canal system, the Corps completed a combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement in 1992. The memorandum identified the structural modifications to the project needed to improve the delivery of water to the northeastern portion of the park and to restore natural hydrological conditions. Finally, in May 1994, the Corps completed a combined general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement on changes to the C-111 basin. Among other things, the report recommended purchasing adjacent agricultural lands to better protect natural values in the Everglades National Park and maintain flood control. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement that led to the 1985 and 1993 environmental assessments are outlined in tables III.1 and III.2, respectively. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement that led to the 1992 combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement are outlined in table III.3. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement that led to the 1994 combined general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement are outlined in table III.4. Stakeholders’ involvement in the four processes is discussed in more detail below. Table III.1: Chronology of Events and Stakeholders’ Involvement in Developing the 1985 Environmental Assessment for Experimental Water Deliveries A draft environmental assessment is developed, reflecting informal coordination with other agencies on the likely impact of proposed actions on endangered species. The final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are published and made available. Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections of Corps staff. Scoping letters are mailed to all known interests. The draft environmental assessment is developed. Coordination and consultation occur on the impact of proposed actions on wildlife and endangered species. The draft environmental assessment is made available for public comment. (A notice and/or copy is mailed to those on scoping mailing list) A public meeting is held. The final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are completed and published. Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections of Corps staff. Alternatives are developed for public consideration. Recommendations are developed on goals, objectives, and alternatives. The first round of coordination workshops is held to review alternatives. Alternatives are revised in response to comments. A second round of coordination workshops is held to review changes. Consultations occur on the impact of proposed actions on endangered species. A final round of coordination workshops is held to consider changes to protect endangered species. A draft combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement is made available for public comment. Public meetings are held on the draft. The final combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement with a preferred alternative is completed and published. Comments are received on the final combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement. Responses to comments and the Corps’ record of decision are published. Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections of Corps staff. Distinctions among rounds of coordination workshops are not clear: Workshops were held continuously throughout the process. Scoping letters are mailed to all known interests. A preliminary draft general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement is developed. The preliminary draft is made available for public comment. The Corps briefs the District’s subcommittee on Florida Bay. Three new alternatives are incorporated into the draft in response to comments on the preliminary draft from the National Park Service, agricultural interests, and others. The draft general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement is made available for public comment. A public meeting is held. (continued) Meetings are held with state agencies and others. The final general reevaluation report and the environmental impact statement with a preferred alternative is published. Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections of Corps staff. Regulations for implementing NEPA require federal agencies, in preparing an environmental assessment, to involve other agencies and the public to the extent practicable. However, the regulations require the agencies, in preparing an environmental impact statement, to obtain comments early in the process from affected federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; and other interested parties so that they can determine the scope of the issues to be addressed in the statement. The regulations further require the agencies, after preparing a draft environmental impact statement, to request comments from appropriate agencies and the public and then respond to these comments in a final environmental impact statement. In responding, the agencies can modify alternatives or analyses, evaluate new alternatives, make factual corrections, or explain why comments do not warrant further response. Federal agencies are free to increase the public’s involvement beyond these minimum requirements. Stakeholders’ involvement in developing the 1985 environmental assessment was limited (see table III.1). The final environmental assessment indicates only that informal coordination took place with the District, local interests, the Everglades National Park, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Moreover, the letters of agreement outlining changes to annual operating criteria for each iteration of the experiments were not made available for public comment. In completing the 1993 environmental assessment, the Corps involved the public more extensively and generally followed the steps required by NEPA for environmental impact statements (see table III.2). Scoping letters were mailed to a wide variety of potentially interested federal, state, and local agencies; interest groups; private citizens; university faculty; and others for comment early on, and opportunities were provided for stakeholders to comment on the draft assessment. A public meeting was held to obtain input as well. However, letters of agreement outlining changes to annual operating criteria for each iteration of the experiments were not made available for public comment. According to Corps officials in the Jacksonville District Office, the Corps, in developing the combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement for modifying the project’s canal system to improve the delivery of water to the park (see table III.3), relied on input from a state committee established by the governor of Florida to identify problems, goals, and objectives for managing the East Everglades. This committee—the East Everglades Resource Planning and Management Committee—whose members represented a variety of interest groups and state agencies, examined a broad range of water resource issues relevant to the East Everglades. The committee recommended actions for the governor to take in the East Everglades that were adopted as state policy. In addition, according to Corps officials, the Corps held numerous coordination workshops with various stakeholders—including the agricultural community, homeowners, conservation groups, and local government agencies—during the development of the environmental impact statement. The Corps provided these groups with information about proposed alternatives before the workshops and obtained their feedback on the proposals during the workshops. In response to comments received during the first round of workshops, the Corps modified the alternatives and presented them for comment in a second round of workshops. The Corps held a final round of workshops to make modifications responding to concerns about endangered species. It then made the draft combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement available for comment and held public meetings on the draft, including one specifically for homeowners in adjacent areas. The Corps also made the final environmental impact statement available for comment before completing the record of decision. The Corps followed NEPA’s basic requirements in completing the combined general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement for changes in the C-111 basin (see table III.4). It mailed scoping letters to all known interested parties—including federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; and various interest groups—provided opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the preliminary and draft documents, and held a public meeting on the draft document. In addition, Corps officials informed us that they maintained an open-door policy during the development of the document; that is, they met with anyone who requested a meeting, including some agricultural landowners and environmental groups. Moreover, the District, in addition to several federal agencies, assisted the Corps in evaluating alternatives. The Corps is considering alternatives to increase public involvement, including establishing an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide advice on all of the Corps’ South Florida restoration efforts (also see app. IV). If the Corps finds that the establishment of such a committee is warranted and recommended, it would have to obtain the approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Department of the Army, and the Department of Defense. In addition, the General Service Administration would have to find that establishing the committee complies with Executive Order 12838, which limits the establishment of new advisory committees under FACA. Many of the comments that the Corps received on the NEPA documents, including those from state agencies, generally supported the proposed federal actions, although they often raised concerns and suggested ways to improve the alternatives under consideration. However, adjacent landowners maintained in comments on the 1993 draft environmental assessment that their lands had been damaged by flooding from the experimental water deliveries. The National Park Service and the Corps maintained that they had taken the steps needed to prevent damage to the adjacent lands from the deliveries and that flood control was better under the experiments than before. The experimental water delivery program has continued unimpeded. Agricultural interests also expressed concerns, in comments on the draft combined general design memorandum and environmental impact statement for modifying water deliveries, that the alternatives would increase flooding on their land. The Corps responded to the points raised; however, it did not modify the alternatives, and the project has proceeded. Agricultural landowners expressed concerns, in comments on the draft combined general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement for changes in the C-111 basin, about the economic impact of the preferred alternative—acquisition of their land. They presented their own alternative—a curtain wall to prevent seepage between the Everglades National Park and adjacent fields. Such a wall would have allowed the park to maintain higher water levels without affecting the fields. The Corps examined this proposal but rejected it because it would have cost significantly more than acquiring the land. According to the landowners, the Corps’ analysis is flawed, and the Corps has not adequately considered the economic impact of removing agricultural land from production. Although some landowners did not want to sell their land, portions have been condemned for purchase by the District under state law. The landowners recently agreed to make all of their land available for acquisition because they do not believe that the District’s plans are adequate to prevent flooding on land that is not acquired. As Interior officials noted in commenting on the effort to develop a management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (see app. II), restoration efforts are inherently contentious, and consensus on solutions can begin to wane as a restoration effort moves from the planning to the implementation stage and stakeholders begin to feel the effects of public policy decisions. Similarly, satisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement may wane when nonfederal stakeholders perceive, as the agricultural landowners have done, that their interests have been adversely affected by the outcome of the process. According to Interior officials, the most that a federal agency may be able to achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views. The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) and two resolutions of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation in 1992 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to study the feasibility of modifying the structure and operations of the Central and Southern Florida Project (project) for environmental quality, water supply, and other purposes. The focus of the study is to determine the feasibility of restoring components of the South Florida ecosystem that were altered by the project while providing for other water-related needs. The Corps completed the first phase of this study and issued a reconnaissance report in November 1994. This report recommended six basic plans for more detailed study in the feasibility phase. The Corps generally plans for water resources projects in two phases: a reconnaissance phase and a feasibility phase. The objective of the reconnaissance phase is to identify problems and opportunities, formulate and evaluate preliminary concepts to address the problems, and recommend further detailed studies. During the feasibility phase, alternative plans are studied in more detail. Corps officials told us that, in light of the interest shown by the public, political officials, and the media in the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the Corps recognized that its usual project study process would not be adequate. Hence, the Corps used an interagency study team instead of relying solely on its own staff and greatly increased the opportunities for public involvement. The interagency study team included staff from the South Florida Water Management District (District), the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as Corps staff. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement leading up to the issuance of the reconnaissance report are outlined in table IV.1. Stakeholders’ involvement is subsequently discussed in more detail. Table IV.1: Chronology of Events and Stakeholders’ Involvement in Developing a Reconnaissance Report on Modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project The Congress authorizes a restudy so that the Corps can determine whether the project should be modified for environmental quality, water supply, and other purposes. A strategy is developed, work begins, and an interagency study team is assembled. Interagency study team Federal agencies Army Corps Interior Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service State agency South Florida Water Management District (District) The study team briefs the District’s governing board. The study team briefs the federal Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem (see app. I). The first round of public workshops is held to define the problem and identify public concerns for the reconnaissance phase. An inventory of public concerns is developed. The study team briefs the District’s governing board. The study team briefs the interagency task force and its working group. Technical analysis occurs, planning objectives and constraints are established, and preliminary ideas are developed. A second round of workshops is held to obtain public comment on the preliminary ideas. The study team briefs the Governor’s Commission on a Sustainable South Florida. The study team briefs a joint meeting of the interagency task force, the governor’s commission, and the District’s governing board. (continued) Conceptual plans for the reconnaissance study are developed. The study team briefs the District’s governing board. The study team holds a third round of public meetings. The study team completes the reconnaissance report. Dates are approximate and are sometimes based on the recollections of Corps staff. According to the Corps, a multiagency approach was essential to facilitate the flow of information among agencies and achieve buy-in from key stakeholders in public agencies. The overall strategy for involving the public in the reconnaissance phase was to solicit information from the public for use by the study team and then provide feedback to the public on how the information was being used. The Corps’ strategy had three goals: (1) to gather input from diverse groups to help identify problems, opportunities, and solutions, (2) to develop relationships between federal and nonfederal stakeholders critical to the success of the study and the implementation of its recommendations, and (3) to manage expectations. Public input in the reconnaissance phase was obtained through 19 public workshops held at three stages in the process. Before the second and third rounds of workshops, newsletters were made available to stakeholders describing the purposes of the upcoming workshops, summarizing the public comments from the previous workshops, and explaining how the comments had been incorporated into the study. In addition, the study team briefed interested stakeholders—including agricultural, environmental, and tribal groups—on an ad hoc basis. The study team also briefed the federal Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem (see app. I) and the District’s governing board at key stages, giving them opportunities to review and comment on the team’s progress and products. These meetings were open to the public. The interagency study team was not chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). According to Corps officials, the involvement of District staff on the study team does not violate the act because the District is the Corps’ local cost-share sponsor for the study. Preliminary steps for implementing the feasibility phase are now under way. The Corps is considering alternatives to increase public involvement, including establishing an advisory committee chartered under FACA to provide advice on all of the Corps’ South Florida restoration efforts (also see app. III). If the Corps finds that the establishment of such a committee is warranted and recommended, it would have to obtain the approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Department of the Army, and the Department of Defense. In addition, the General Service Administration would have to find that establishing the committee complies with Executive Order 12838, which limits the establishment of new advisory committees under FACA. Our discussions with nonfederal stakeholders and Corps staff indicated general satisfaction with the interagency study team’s process for developing the reconnaissance report. However, according to Corps officials involved in the reconnaissance phase, some stakeholders have indicated that more public input would have been desirable. In addition, as previously noted (see app. III), restoration efforts typically raise contentious issues, and consensus may be difficult to sustain as implementation affects competing interests. The effort to settle litigation concerning the runoff of phosphorus from sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area began in 1988, when the federal government sued two state agencies for failing to enforce the state’s water quality standards, and led to the enactment of Florida’s Everglades Forever Act in 1994. In contrast to the other federal efforts discussed in this report, this one does not represent the implementation of a public policy initiative required by law or begun at the urging of the Secretary of the Interior. Rather, it represents an attempt to settle years of litigation that ultimately resulted in a public policy initiative (the 1994 act) that is now being implemented. Therefore, the goal of federal negotiators involved in this effort was not to build collaboration and consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders but to reach a fair settlement for the federal government. Given this goal, participation in the process was limited primarily to the parties to the litigation. However, public participation did occur during (1) formal mediation to address technical issues and (2) the state’s legislative process leading up to the act’s passage. In October 1988, the federal government sued the South Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now part of the Department of Environmental Protection) for failing to enforce the state’s water quality standards. According to the federal government, phosphorus from agricultural practices on sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area was entering the Everglades National Park and the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, altering their plant communities. The federal government maintained that the addition of phosphorus—a nutrient—was changing the composition of the vegetation from sawgrass, which requires few nutrients, to cattails, which tolerate more nutrients. Cattails do not provide suitable forage or habitat for wildlife native to the Everglades. In 1991, the federal government and the state of Florida entered into negotiations, and in July 1991, they reached a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit. This agreement accepted the federal government’s position that phosphorus runoff from the region’s sugar farms was polluting the Everglades. The agreement—and the state’s plan for implementing it—proposed to design and construct stormwater treatment areas—that is, wetlands designed to filter phosphorus from the agricultural runoff and release the cleansed water into other parts of the Everglades. In February 1992, a federal district court approved the agreement as a legally binding consent decree. The settlement agreement, among other things, required sugar growers in the Everglades Agricultural Area to adopt best management practices on their farms to help reduce phosphorus levels, obtain permits from the state to discharge water, monitor water quality, and possibly incur certain costs in meeting these requirements. Affected sugar growers filed lawsuits challenging the settlement agreement. They disputed, and sought to obtain, the documents that formed the scientific basis for the agreement—that is, (1) the state’s water quality standards and (2) the federal government’s position that phosphorus runoff from sugar farms was polluting the Everglades. The growers also petitioned for an evidentiary hearing on the findings in the settlement agreement and on the state’s plan to implement the agreement so that they could present evidence that they believed would cast doubt on both the federal government’s position and the effectiveness of the stormwater treatment areas in filtering phosphorus. In response to the sugar growers’ litigation, the district court and a federal court of appeals ruled that the plan to implement the settlement agreement would be subject to the state’s administrative process. This process allows for an evidentiary hearing before an impartial hearing officer to resolve disputed factual issues. Therefore, after the state issued its plan to implement the settlement agreement in March 1992, sugar growers in the Everglades Agricultural Area filed legal challenges to obtain an evidentiary hearing on the plan. In December 1992, the parties to the litigation entered into formal mediation to resolve the challenges using a nationally recognized mediator. Other stakeholders—including Indian tribes and urban residents—were involved through a series of public meetings at which they could voice their concerns. The mediation also included a series of technical discussions involving scientists representing the federal government, the state, large and small sugar growers, Indian tribes, environmentalists, and others. The result was a mediated technical plan based on the settlement agreement. Most of the parties generally supported the plan, but agreement was not unanimous on all of its provisions. In addition, support for the plan depended on the parties’ reaching agreement on other issues, such as cost-sharing and land acquisition. Negotiations then moved to a second stage involving the parties who would share the cost of implementing the technical plan. These parties included the federal government—Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)—the state—the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the District—and the sugar growers. These negotiations, hosted by Interior primarily in Washington D.C., resulted in a statement of principles that adopted the mediated technical plan as the basis for water quality requirements and outlined the financial obligations of the various parties. Agricultural interests were to pay $322 million over 20 years, and taxpayers were to pay the remaining costs through several state programs and District taxes. The statement was signed in July 1993 by the federal and state governments, the District, and the two largest sugar companies in the Everglades Agricultural Area—United States Sugar Corporation (U.S. Sugar) and Flo-Sun. Negotiations among these parties continued on other issues, including the date for compliance with the state’s water quality standards. However, in December 1993 the two largest sugar companies walked away from the negotiations, claiming that the federal government had withheld information from the negotiations and thus acted in “bad faith” (see app. I). Subsequently, one of the companies—Flo-Sun—returned to the negotiations and, in January 1994, entered into an agreement to meet its financial obligations under the statement of principles. The mediated technical plan and the financial obligations set forth in the statement of principles, coupled with the compliance date in the January 1994 agreement with Flo-Sun, formed the basis for the state’s Everglades Forever Act, which the governor signed in May 1994. According to Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the act was a product of committee hearings and floor debate, including votes on numerous amendments in both houses of the state legislature, over several months. Public involvement, debate, lobbying, and pressure from all interests was intense. The act’s passage abrogated the need for the evidentiary hearing on the plan for implementing the settlement agreement that had been scheduled for several weeks later: The act repealed the requirement that the state develop such a plan for the Everglades. The chronology of events and stakeholders’ involvement leading up to the act’s passage are outlined in table V.1. Stakeholders’ involvement is subsequently discussed in more detail. Table V.1: Chronology of Events and Stakeholders’ Involvement Leading to the Passage of the Everglades Forever Act The U.S. attorney’s office sues the state for not enforcing the state’s water quality standards for phosphorus runoff into the Everglades National Park and the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The parties reach a settlement agreement. A federal district court approves the settlement agreement in a consent decree. The state issues its plan to implement the settlement agreement. Affected sugar growers subsequently challenge the plan. Formal mediation of challenges to the settlement agreement and implementation plan begins. Parties to the litigation develop a mediated technical plan. State agencies District Department of Environmental Regulation Sugar growers Indian tribes Environmental groups Others (continued) Some parties to the litigation sign a statement of principles outlining cost-sharing for a mediated technical plan. Agreement is reached revising the date for compliance with the state’s water quality standards. The Florida state legislature debates the Everglades Forever Act. The governor signs the Everglades Forever Act. According to Interior officials involved in the negotiations, there is no legal or policy rationale for letting a person who is not a party to a lawsuit participate in the negotiations to settle the lawsuit. Therefore, mediation to develop a technical plan was limited primarily to the parties to the sugar growers’ lawsuits challenging the settlement agreement. Similarly, negotiations on cost-sharing and on the date for complying with the state’s water quality standards were limited primarily to the parties who would share the cost of implementing the technical plan. Interior officials noted, however, that the state’s enactment of the Everglades Forever Act exhibited the workings of participatory democracy. Through legislative hearings and communications with elected officials, all interested parties arrived at a broad public consensus on what would be required to prevent phosphorus runoff from sugar farms from entering the Everglades. However, Interior and the smaller sugar growers, represented by the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, disagree on the extent to which these growers were involved in the negotiations leading up to the statement of principles outlining the financial obligations of the various parties. According to officials from the cooperative, key decisions were made when representatives of the cooperative were not present. According to Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, representatives of the smaller sugar growers were included, not excluded, from virtually all negotiations. Similarly, the Miccosuke Tribe maintains that Interior violated the terms of a memorandum of agreement that the two parties signed to keep the tribe informed of activities connected with implementing the settlement agreement. The memorandum states, among other things, that Interior will notify the tribe of long-range changes in water policy or program goals related to implementing the agreement that would materially affect lands in which the tribe has interests. The tribe maintains that Interior engaged in secret negotiations over the Everglades with third parties outside the federal government, that these negotiations excluded the tribe, and that Interior failed to consult with or discuss these meetings with the tribe or advise the tribe of Interior’s positions. Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks disagrees, stating that attorneys for the tribe participated fully in developing the mediated technical plan and were kept informed of the cost-sharing negotiations. On January 24, 1995, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, took no position as to whether either party had violated the memorandum but ordered the federal government to take certain steps to keep the tribe informed of activities connected with implementing the settlement agreement. According to Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, environmental groups that were parties to the sugar growers’ lawsuits challenging the settlement agreement were represented by their attorneys—the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund—in the negotiations that resulted in the statement of principles. The signing of the Everglades Forever Act concluded years of litigation and began the implementation of a strategy for restoring both the quality of the water entering the Everglades and the quantity and timing of the water’s flow. According to Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the agreements that formed the basis for the Everglades Forever Act produced the most effective results the federal government could expect. That is, the cost-sharing provisions are better for the state and federal governments and restoration will begin more quickly than if the legal challenges filed by the sugar growers had been allowed to proceed. Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks told us that the governor and his administration supported the Everglades Forever Act as a means to resolve both the federal and the sugar growers’ lawsuits. He said that the act was generally supported by the federal government, some sugar growers, and some environmental groups and that it enjoyed almost unanimous editorial support in the Florida media as well as among the state’s delegation to the Congress. However, officials from or representatives of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, the Miccosuke Tribe, and several environmental groups—Friends of the Everglades and the Everglades Coalition (a national coalition of environmental groups)—told us that they would have preferred the litigation to proceed, as scheduled, to a hearing where all sides could have presented their views and evidence before an impartial hearing officer. For example, the cooperative maintains that it has scientific evidence that casts doubt on the Everglades Forever Act’s basis for requiring reductions in phosphorus levels. Both the cooperative and Friends of the Everglades have questioned the effectiveness of the stormwater treatment areas in filtering phosphorus and believe that the stormwater treatment areas could elevate mercury in fish and wading birds to harmful levels. These parties believe that the process that resulted in the Everglades Forever Act did not afford full consideration of their evidence, and each has filed legal challenges and/or administrative appeals relating to the act. Interior officials characterize the legal challenges and administrative appeals as attempts to derail restoration on the part of a few disgruntled parties. The Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, the Friends of the Everglades, the Everglades Coalition, and the Miccosuke Tribe have expressed their dissatisfaction with the Everglades Forever Act. Hence, their dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement cannot be dissociated from their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the Interior or his designee. On August 2, 1995, we met with the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks; the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management and Budget; the Associate Solicitor for General Law; and other Interior officials to obtain their comments on the report. Before the meeting, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks provided us with his comments on the draft. After the meeting, the Associate Solicitor for General Law and officials from the Everglades National Park also provided us with their comments. Interior officials raised several concerns about the report’s overall findings and about the conclusions and recommendations that flowed from them. In addition, Interior officials commented on the sections of the report and appendixes that address public participation in the efforts to coordinate restoration activities in South Florida (see app. I) and to settle complex water quality litigation (see app. V). Substantive comments by Interior officials are summarized below. In addition, Interior offered updated information and editorial comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. Interior’s Comment: The report should be updated and the related recommendation deleted on the basis of the actions taken since legislation was enacted in March 1995 that provides exemptions from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The draft report stated that since the task force is acting under the federal agencies’ general authorities rather than under specific programs, it was not clear what effect the March 1995 amendment would have on coordination between federal and nonfederal governmental agencies in South Florida or on similar efforts in other regions of the country. Moreover, Florida’s Sunshine Act requires that all meetings involving state employees be open to the public. The draft report contained a proposed recommendation that the task force inform the General Services Administration’s Committee Management Secretariat, which is responsible for drafting guidelines to implement the amendment, of the extent to which the amendment and guidelines allow the task force to share information, coordinate activities, and work routinely with state, local, and other governmental agencies without violating the act. Interior officials confirmed that the working group’s membership has been expanded to include the state of Florida and the Seminole and Miccosuke tribes and that they participated in the working group’s April 5, 1995, meeting. GAO’s Response: We revised the report to recognize that the working group had expanded its membership to include state and tribal officials. We also modified the recommendation to focus on constraints to formal participation by nongovernmental interests in federal restoration efforts. Interior’s Comment: The recommendation that the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem develop a strategy to improve collaboration with nonfederal stakeholders should be deleted. The draft report recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct the task force to develop a strategy to improve collaboration with nonfederal stakeholders in coordinating environmental restoration activities in South Florida. It further recommended that, in developing such a strategy, the task force consider as examples the processes used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consider modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project. Interior officials commented that the task force had already developed a strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders that has worked well and represents a model for such partnerships around the country. Moreover, these officials believe that the process used by NOAA to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is not appropriate for the task force, since the task force is an operative and action-oriented body, not a “master planning body.” GAO’s Response: While we agree that the task force has developed a strategy to collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders, this strategy does not include formal participation in the working group and its subgroups by either local officials or representatives of the diverse nongovernmental interests across South Florida. Moreover, we believe that the effort to manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is similar to the task force’s effort to coordinate environmental restoration activities in South Florida in that both have developed a plan of action and are moving toward implementation. In addition, precedent exists for establishing a citizens’ group to formally participate in the task force’s effort and to promote public involvement and outreach (see app. I). Therefore, we have modified the recommendation to state that the task force should develop a strategy to extend formal participation in its working group and subgroups to local officials and representatives of South Florida’s nongovernmental interests, including landowners, farmers, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, developers, and environmental organizations. One alternative would be to charter a citizens’ advisory group under FACA to formally participate in the task force’s effort and to promote public involvement and outreach. Interior’s Comment: The restoration efforts should not be compared to one another. In identifying the extent of nonfederal stakeholders’ involvement, the draft report treated the five federal efforts to address environmental and economic concerns in South Florida separately and noted that the extent to which each effort involved nonfederal stakeholders varied significantly. The draft report cautioned, however, that differences among the five efforts—in the contentiousness of the issues and other influential factors—suggest that no one process to involve nonfederal stakeholders would be appropriate for all efforts. Interior officials believed that the draft report’s organization of the five efforts on a spectrum of public participation damages the records of some efforts by elevating others and fails to note the many differences that exist among the various efforts. GAO’s Response: We agree with Interior that differences among the five efforts preclude comparisons. For example, efforts to coordinate activities, develop plans, or implement solutions to specific problems or issues should not be compared either explicitly or implicitly. Similarly, an effort that has already reached a difficult public policy decision—to acquire private lands, for example—should not be compared to one that has only begun to identify and evaluate options for solving a problem or issue. Finally, an effort to settle years of litigation that ultimately resulted in a public policy initiative (the Everglades Forever Act) should not be compared to other efforts to implement public policy initiatives that were required by law or begun at the urging of the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, the report has been recast to better emphasize the differences among the efforts that preclude comparisons. Interior’s Comment: The environmental restoration efforts are interrelated. Interior officials stated that, in treating the restoration efforts separately, the draft report leaves the mistaken impression that each is separate unto itself. Hence, the draft report largely misses the point that the efforts are all part of an integrated ecosystem management approach to restore the environment of South Florida. GAO’s Response: We agree that the efforts are all part of an integrated ecosystem management approach to restore the environment of South Florida and have identified linkages among them. However, the various efforts began at different times, under different authorities, and have progressed to different stages, ranging from planning to implementing solutions to specific concerns. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to address the efforts separately. Interior’s Comment: The effort to settle litigation concerning the runoff of phosphorus from sugar farms in the Everglades Agricultural Area should not be covered in the report. Interior officials stated that the effort to settle the litigation should not be included in the report because the phase of the negotiations in which federal officials were involved that eventually failed to reach an agreement cannot be compared to any other public process. GAO’s Response: While we agree with Interior that differences among the efforts preclude comparisons, we believe that the effort to settle the litigation should be included in the report because it is clearly under the task force’s umbrella and is linked to other environmental restoration efforts. We note that the administration’s fiscal year 1996 budget request for Interior identifies the settlement as a major success of the task force. Interior’s Comment: Consensus on solutions to problems or issues may not be attainable. Interior pointed out that although consensus among federal and nonfederal stakeholders is desirable, restoration efforts are, by their very nature, highly contentious. Moreover, consensus begins to evaporate as a restoration effort moves from the conceptual and planning stages to the implementation of solutions that directly affect various interests. Interior officials believe that the most an agency can hope to achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views. GAO’s Response: In the draft report we stated that, as the efforts in South Florida have shown, increased collaboration can help federal and nonfederal stakeholders build consensus on difficult public policy issues and decide on actions that are necessary to maintain or restore desired ecological conditions. However, decisions that change land-use patterns and affect property ownership, such as the state’s decision to acquire privately owned agricultural lands adjacent to the Everglades National Park, may not be acceptable to all stakeholders. We have expanded this lesson to incorporate Interior’s observations on the contentiousness of restoration efforts and on the instability of consensus in the face of direct threats to vested interests. Interior’s Comment: Litigation limited public participation. The draft report stated that Interior had excluded all but a few stakeholders in reaching agreement over a strategy for improving the quality of the water entering the Everglades by turning to closed-door negotiations when mediation involving all stakeholders could not resolve key issues. In their comments, Interior officials pointed out that (1) there is no legal or policy rationale for letting a person who is not a party to a lawsuit participate in the negotiations to settle the lawsuit, (2) mediation to develop a technical plan provided an opportunity for parties to the lawsuit to voice their concerns, and (3) negotiations to reach agreement on sharing the cost of implementing the plan should be limited primarily to the parties who are going to incur the cost. GAO’s Response: We revised the report to recognize Interior’s reasons for limiting public participation in the effort to reach agreement over a strategy for improving the quality of the water entering the Everglades. Interior’s Comment: Public participation occurred during the state’s legislative process. The draft report stated that the agreements resulting from the closed-door negotiations involving federal officials formed the basis of the state’s Everglades Forever Act, which the governor signed in May 1994. The draft report did not point out that the public participated in the state’s legislative process leading up to the act’s enactment. Interior believed that the report should identify this process. GAO’s Response: We revised the report to recognize the public’s participation in the state’s legislative process. Interior’s Comment: Small sugar growers, Indian tribes, and environmental groups were represented in the negotiations. The draft report stated that small sugar growers, Indian tribes, and environmental groups were excluded from the negotiations that resulted in a strategy for improving the quality of the water entering the Everglades. Interior officials took exception to this statement, saying that (1) representatives of small sugar growers were included, not excluded, from virtually all negotiations, (2) attorneys for the Miccosuke Tribe participated fully in developing the mediated technical plan and were kept informed of the cost-sharing negotiations, and (3) environmental groups that were parties to the sugar growers’ lawsuits challenging the settlement agreement were represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in the negotiations that resulted in the statement of principles. GAO’s Response: We revised the report to recognize (1) the disagreement between Interior and the small sugar growers concerning the extent to which these growers were involved in the negotiations, (2) the disagreement between Interior and the tribe, as well as the court order addressing this issue, and (3) the representation of some, but not all, environmental groups in the negotiations. Interior’s Comment: Only a few stakeholders are dissatisfied with the Everglades Forever Act. According to the draft report, the enactment of the Everglades Forever Act did not end years of litigation as Interior had hoped, but instead provoked a new series of legal challenges and administrative appeals. Interior, in its comments, pointed out that the signing of the act concluded years of litigation and began the implementation of a strategy for restoring both the quality of the water entering the Everglades and the quantity and timing of the water’s flow. Interior characterized the legal challenges and administrative appeals filed after the act was signed as attempts by a few disgruntled parties to derail restoration. GAO’s Response: We revised the report to recognize both Interior’s position and the difficulty inherent in distinguishing between a group’s dissatisfaction with the process for nonfederal involvement and its dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process. However, the report continues to note that these groups would have preferred an open airing of their views before an impartial hearing officer and strongly believe that the process resulting in the act did not afford full consideration of their evidence. Alan R. Kasdan The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. 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 congressional requests, GAO reviewed: (1) federal efforts to involve nonfederal stakeholders in environmental restoration efforts in South Florida; and (2) the lessons learned about federal and nonfederal collaboration and consensus-building in South Florida that might be applicable elsewhere. GAO found that: (1) federal agencies have involved nonfederal stakeholders in their environmental restoration efforts in South Florida by making their meetings and draft products publicly available, establishing groups with nonfederal members, holding workshops, soliciting information from the public and then providing feedback on how it was used, and entering into formal mediation; (2) the working group of the Interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem includes state and tribal officials, but it does not include local officials and representatives of nongovernmental interests; (3) restrictions on and uncertainties about advisory committees have limited nonfederal interests in federal restoration efforts except those for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; (4) nonfederal stakeholders prefer to present their environmental concerns during rather than after the development of federal environmental proposals; (5) external constraints often dictate the extent of nonfederal involvement in agency activities and preclude a consensus on appropriate solutions; and (6) the most federal agencies may be able to achieve is an open airing and full consideration of all views within the constraints imposed by external factors. |
JERUSALEM Pope Francis completes a tour of the Holy Land on Monday, paying homage to Jews killed in the Nazi Holocaust and looking to affirm Christian rights at a disputed place of worship in Jerusalem.
After visits to Jordan and the Palestinian Territories - including praying at the wall dividing Bethlehem from Jerusalem, Francis spends the third and final day of his trip in the latter with a slate of political and religious encounters and visits to some of the most sensitive holy sites in the world.
Francis has used his trip so far to plea for an end to the generations-old Middle East conflict, inviting the Israeli and Palestinian presidents to join him in the Vatican early next month and pray for peace.
Both Shimon Peres, who plays no decision-making role in Israeli diplomacy, and Mahmoud Abbas accepted the offer. It follows the collapse of U.S.-backed peace talks last month, and there was little hope that the highly unusual encounter could break decades of mutual mistrust and deadlock.
The pope, risking dismaying Israeli leaders, made a surprise stop in Bethlehem on Sunday at the wall Palestinians abhor as a symbol of Israeli oppression.
In an image likely to become one of the most emblematic of his trip to the holy land, Francis rested his forehead against the concrete structure that separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and prayed against the backdrop of anti-Israeli graffiti.
Francis is due to meet both Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, after spending time at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum which commemorates some 6 million Jews slaughtered during World War Two.
Speaking minutes after landing in Israel on Sunday, the pope said the Holocaust was "an enduring symbol of the depths to which human evil can sink", adding: "I beg God that there will never be another such crime."
In a decision that delighted his hosts, Francis is also set to lay a wreath at the tomb of Theodor Herzl, who is seen as the founder of modern Zionism that led to Israel's foundation.
The Catholic Church initially opposed the creation of a Jewish state, and the three other pontiffs who have come to Jerusalem over the past 50 years did not visit the site.
"We commend and appreciate your decision to lay a wreath on the grave of Binyamin Zev Herzl," Netanyahu said on Sunday, using Herzl's Hebrew name.
LAST SUPPER
Religion plays a high profile role in Monday's timetable, with the pope due to celebrate Mass in the Cenacle - a room just outside the walls of the Old City where Christians believe Jesus held the Last Supper with his disciples.
It is located on the second floor of an old stone building, above a cavern where some Jews believe King David is buried.
Speculation that Israeli officials were set to hand the Cenacle over to the Church has sparked protests by Jewish nationalists. Police arrested 26 people at a rowdy demonstration early on Sunday ahead of the pope's visit.
Israel denies it plans to relinquish control of the site.
Some 8,000 police are on hand to guarantee the pope's security following recent vandalism of church property blamed on Jewish extremists. Roads will be closed and shopkeepers in parts of the Old City have complained of being forced to shutter their stores all day to keep the stone streets empty.
Looking to strengthen inter-religious ties, Francis will see the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem early on Monday at the site Muslims call the Nobel Sanctuary and which Jews refer to as the Temple Mount - a source of constant friction over the years.
He will then visit the Western Wall, believed to be a remnant of a perimeter wall of the biblical temple complex, the holiest shrine of the Jewish world, and later hold talks with the two chief rabbis of Israel.
(Additional reporting by Dan Williams. Editing by Jeremy Gaunt.) ||||| JERUSALEM (AP) — Pope Francis and the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians prayed together Sunday inside the Jerusalem church that symbolizes their divisions, calling their historic meeting a step toward healing the centuries-old Catholic-Orthodox schism.
File - In this Friday, May 18, 2012 file photo, an Armenian Orthodox priest holds liturgy at the tomb of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Pope Francis and the spiritual leader of... (Associated Press)
File - In this Monday, May 14, 2012 file photo, Catholic priests burn incense as they perform a liturgy outside the the Tomb of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Pope Francis and... (Associated Press)
File - In this Friday, May 18, 2012 file photo, Greek Orthodox priests hold liturgy outside the tomb of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Pope Francis and the spiritual leader of... (Associated Press)
File - In this Monday, May 14, 2012 file photo, a Greek Orthodox priest fills hanging lamps with oil outside the tomb of Jesus Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Pope Francis and... (Associated Press)
File - In this Friday, May 18, 2012 file photo, Armenian Orthodox priest Father Samuel stands in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Pope Francis and the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox... (Associated Press)
Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I embraced one another in the stone courtyard outside the 12th century Church of the Holy Sepulcher and recited the "Our Father" prayer together once inside, an unprecedented moment of solemnity at the spot where Catholic and Orthodox believe Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected.
The encounter, punctuated by haunting Greek and Latin chants, was full of symbolic meaning: The two men, both in their mid-70s, helped one another down the stone steps leading into the church, grasping one another's forearms. And after Bartholomew delivered his remarks, Francis bent down and kissed his hand in remarkable show of papal respect for a patriarch when some 500 years ago a patriarch was forced to kiss the feet of the pope.
The evening prayer service was the spiritual highlight of Francis' three-day pilgrimage to the Holy Land and capped a momentous day in which the Israeli and Palestinian presidents accepted Francis' invitation to join him at the Vatican next month to pray for peace.
Francis has said his primary reason for coming to the region was to mark the 50th anniversary of the meeting in Jerusalem between Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. Their 1964 embrace ended 900 years of mutual excommunication and estrangement sparked by the Great Schism of 1054, which split Christianity.
Since that meeting, the two churches have grown closer in personal friendships and even theological dialogue, but core differences remain, including over the primacy of the pope.
Tellingly, Francis referred to Paul not as pope but as "bishop of Rome" — the other main title attributed to popes and the way Francis introduced himself to the world on the night he was elected pope in a clear gesture toward his Orthodox "brothers."
Bartholomew, for his part, called for their meeting at Christ's tomb to show how fear, religious fanaticism and hatred of people of other faiths and races can be overcome by love. "The message of the life-giving tomb is clear: love the other, the different other, the followers of other faiths and other confessions."
The site of their meeting could not have been more significant: Perhaps no other piece of real estate on Earth symbolizes the divisions of Christianity than the Holy Sepulcher, where six Christian denominations practice their faith, yet occasionally come to blows in jealously guarding their turf and times of worship.
Given the centuries of tensions underlying the visit, the seating arrangements and procession order alone were an ecclesiastical and diplomatic feat of protocol. Francis, Bartholomew and the leaders of the three main communities that share the church — Greek-Orthodox, Armenian and Roman Catholic — all sat on the same sized, gilded red velvet chairs facing the shrine encasing Jesus' tomb.
Bartholomew was the first to enter the tomb, but Francis was the first to climb the steep stairs up to the site where tradition holds Christ was crucified. The Gospel was chanted in both Latin and Greek, to appeal to the linguistic traditions of both Catholic and Orthodox. The two men recited the "Our Father" together in the relatively neutral Italian.
They embraced each other on several occasions, drawing applause from the ecumenical crowd inside the cavernous church lit by twinkling lanterns. After arriving at the church piazza from separate entrances, they left in the same car to dine together.
Though the three major denominations adamantly stick to the status quo arrangement that governs separate worship at the church, none particularly enjoys the arrangement.
"We are grown-ups. We should be able to sit down and finalize the whole thing," said the Rev. Samuel Aghoyan, the Armenian superior of the Holy Sepulcher.
"The amount of energy that's required to maintain it is counterproductive," said the Rev. Athanasius Macora, a Texas native and Franciscan monk who sits on an inter-church commission that negotiates disputes at the Holy Sepulcher.
"It's very silly. We laugh about it," said Anna Koulouris, a communications adviser with the Greek Orthodox church.
___
Associated Press writer Daniel Estrin contributed to this report.
___
Follow Nicole Winfield at www.twitter.com/nwinfield and Daniel Estrin at www.twitter.com/danielestrin ||||| JERUSALEM (AP) — Pope Francis delivered a powerful boost of support to the Palestinians during a Holy Land pilgrimage Sunday, repeatedly backing their statehood aspirations, praying solemnly at Israel's controversial separation barrier and calling the stalemate in peace efforts "unacceptable."
Pope Francis, center, walks with Israeli President Shimon Peres, left, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, during an official arrival ceremony at Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, Israel, Sunday,... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis talks to children in the Phoenix Center of the Dheisheh refugee camp, near the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Sunday, May 25, 2014. Pope Francis plunged Sunday into Mideast politics during... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis waves as he rides on a vehicle passing by Israel's separation barrier on his way to a mass in Manger Square next to the Church of the Nativity, traditionally believed to be the birthplace... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis, center, leads an open-air mass at the Manger Square, next the Nativity Church in the West Bank town of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Francis called the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis arrives to celebrate mass in Manger Square next to the Church of the Nativity, believed by many to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ, in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, Sunday, May 25, 2014.... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis greets people as he arrives to the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Sunday May 25, 2014. Pope Francis is paying a three day visit to Jordan, West Bank and Israel.(AP Photo/Dusan Vranic) (Associated Press)
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Pope Francis inspect an honor guard as Francis arrives at the Palestinian Authority headquarters in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014.... (Associated Press)
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Pope Francis hug each other as Francis arrives at the Palestinian Authority headquarters in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Francis... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis waves upon his arrival at the West Bank town of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Pope Francis landed Sunday in the West Bank town of Bethlehem in a symbolic nod to Palestinian aspirations... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis meets children in the Phoenix Center of the Dheisheh refugee camp, near the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Sunday, May 25, 2014. Pope Francis plunged Sunday into Mideast politics during his... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis leads an open-air mass at the Manger Square, next the Nativity Church in the West Bank town of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Francis called the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate "unacceptable"... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis waves to people upon his arrival at the Manger Square, next the Nativity Church in the West Bank town of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Francis called the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate... (Associated Press)
A nun waves to the helicopter carrying Pope Francis on his way to a mass in Manger Square next to the Church of the Nativity, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ in the Palestinian... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis, center on a vehicle, greets people as he arrives in Bethlehem, West Bank, Sunday, May 25, 2014. Francis is paying a three-day visit to Jordan, West Bank and Israel. Francis called the Israeli-Palestinian... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis prays at Israel's separation barrier on his way to a mass in Manger Square next to the Church of the Nativity, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ in the West Bank... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis leads an open-air mass at the Manger Square, next the Nativity Church in the West Bank town of Bethlehem on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Francis called the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate "unacceptable"... (Associated Press)
Pope Francis, right, talks with Israeli President Shimon Peres, during an official arrival ceremony at Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, Israel, Sunday, May 25, 2014. Pope Francis took a dramatic plunge... (Associated Press)
In an unscripted move, Francis arranged a meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian presidents at the Vatican next month. The meeting, while largely symbolic, shows how the pope has sought to transform his immensely popular appeal into a moral force for peace.
On the second day of a three-day swing through the region, the pope arrived in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christianity, before heading to Israel for the final leg of his visit.
While Francis mingled warmly with his Israeli hosts, his trip to Bethlehem included the day's most powerful images as he expressed sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians.
"I am with you," he told a group of Palestinian children at a stop in Bethlehem's Deheishe refugee camp. He also held a private lunch with five Palestinian families who say they have been harmed by Israeli policies.
Even the pope's arrival in Bethlehem — by helicopter straight from Jordan — carried important symbolic significance. Past papal visits to the West Bank have come through Israel, which captured the territory in the 1967 Mideast war.
Palestinian officials hailed Francis' decision to refer to the "state of Palestine." In its official program, the Vatican referred to President Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the "state of Palestine," and his Bethlehem office as the "presidential palace." He pointedly called Abbas a "man of peace."
Jubilant Palestinians cheered Francis as he arrived in Bethlehem's Manger Square, shouting "Viva al-Baba!" or "Long live the pope!" Giant Palestinian flags in red, white, green and black and the Vatican's yellow-and-white flags decorated the square, which is home to the Church of the Nativity, built over the grotto where tradition says Jesus was born.
"Coming to Bethlehem and flying to Bethlehem from Jordan shows solidarity with the Palestinian people, which is wonderful. We need that," said Samar Sakkakin, a 52-year-old Palestinian-American from Canton, Michigan.
In November 2012, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly recognized a "state of Palestine" in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem — lands Israel captured in the 1967 war — as a non-member observer. The recognition still has little meaning on the ground, with Israel remaining in full control of east Jerusalem, which it annexed in 1967, and the West Bank.
However, it has enabled the Palestinians to start seeking membership in U.N. agencies and accede to international conventions in a further upgrade of their status. Israel objects to the Palestinian campaign, saying it is an attempt to bypass negotiations.
Francis' arrival came weeks after the latest round of U.S.-backed peace talks collapsed. During nine months of negotiations, little — if any — progress was made, and there are no signs of talks resuming anytime soon.
Standing alongside Abbas at a welcome ceremony, Francis declared: "The time has come to put an end to this situation, which has become increasingly unacceptable."
He said both sides needed to make sacrifices to create two states, with internationally recognized borders, based on mutual security and rights for everyone. He urged both sides to refrain from any actions that would derail peace.
In his remarks, Abbas voiced his concerns about the recent breakdown in peace efforts and lamented the difficult conditions facing the Palestinians.
Abbas said he would welcome papal intervention. "We welcome any initiative from you to make peace a reality in the Holy Land," Abbas said.
After the meeting, the pope's open-roof vehicle stopped at a section of the West Bank separation barrier, which encircles Bethlehem on three sides. Israel says the structure is a security measure. The Palestinians say it has gobbled up their land and stifled their economy.
Francis stood up, put a hand on the wall, bowed his head and said a short prayer alongside a section on which "Free Palestine" is scribbled in graffiti.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Francis had made a "personal decision" to stop by the wall. He said the barrier was a symbol of the conflict and it was appropriate for Francis to pray for peace there.
"This wall is a sign of division, that something is not functioning right," Lombardi told a news conference in Jerusalem. Francis' prayer there "signifies for me his desire for peace, for a world without walls," Lombardi said.
In another unscripted move, Francis issued a surprise joint invitation for Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to come to the Vatican to pray for peace together. "I offer my home in the Vatican as a place for this encounter of prayer," he said.
The offices of the Israeli and Palestinian presidents quickly confirmed their acceptance, with the Palestinians saying the meeting would take place June 6.
The invitation — and the acceptances — were unexpected given Francis' insistence that his three-day visit was a "strictly religious" pilgrimage to commemorate a Catholic-Orthodox anniversary. Lombardi said the pope had discussed the idea with his advisers in the run-up to the visit as a way to give a concrete push to peace efforts.
"It was not a reflection that was made in an hour," Lombardi said. "It was a reflection that accompanied the preparations of the trip."
Peres, a 90-year-old Nobel Peace laureate, holds a largely ceremonial position, and the Vatican meeting will be largely symbolic. But he nonetheless risks upsetting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the move.
Netanyahu has expressed anger with politicians that have reached out to Abbas at a time when the Palestinian leader is reconciling with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza. Israel considers Hamas a terrorist group. Netanyahu's office declined comment.
Isaac Herzog, Israel's opposition leader, said the pope, a close friend of Israel, had sent a clear message to Netanyahu through the invitation. Speaking on Channel 2 TV, Herzog said the pope was essentially saying, "Do something. It can't go on like this."
Francis flew to Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, where he was warmly greeted by an honor guard. With trumpets blaring, the country's top officials lined up to shake his hand as he walked a red carpet.
Francis deplored Saturday's deadly shooting at Brussels' Jewish Museum as a "criminal act of anti-Semitic hatred." Two Israelis were among the dead.
He also condemned the Holocaust as the "enduring symbol of the depths to which human evil can sink." Francis is to visit Israel's national Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, on Monday.
But the pope also lamented the dire state of Mideast peace efforts, saying the holy city of Jerusalem "remains deeply troubled."
He called for a "just and lasting solution" so that Israelis and Palestinians may live in peace. He said Israel deserves peace and security "within internationally recognized borders," while the Palestinians have a "right to live with dignity and with freedom of movement" in their own homeland.
In the run-up to Francis' arrival, Israel experienced a string of vandalism attacks on churches and Vatican properties, presumably by Jewish extremists.
Earlier Sunday, Israeli police arrested 26 Israeli hard-liners protesting outside a contested holy site revered by Catholics as the site of Jesus' Last Supper and by devout Jews as the burial site of the biblical King David.
Israeli extremists have spread rumors in recent weeks that Israel plans on turning the site over to Vatican control.
Francis made no mention of these incidents, but expressed hope that "this blessed land may be one which has no place for those who, by exploiting and absolutizing the value of their own religious tradition, prove intolerant and violent towards those of others."
In the spiritual highlight of his visit, the pope late Sunday went to Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where Christians believe Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected, to pray with the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Their meeting marked the 50th anniversary of a similar meeting between their predecessors that ended a 900-year rift.
___
Associated Press writers Karin Laub in Bethlehem and Nicole Winfield and Ariel David in Jerusalem contributed to this story. | The pope's Holy Land visit has been full of surprises. In an unplanned move today, Pope Francis stopped to pray at the concrete wall dividing Bethlehem and Jerusalem—a wall which, to Palestinans, symbolizes oppression by Israel, Reuters notes. Graffiti where he prayed read, "Free Palestine." The pope's visit has been marked by support for Palestinian statehood, the AP reports; the Vatican's official program mentions "the state of Palestine," calling Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas a "man of peace." In another surprise move, Pope Francis invited both Abbas and Israeli president Shimon Peres to pray at the Vatican, Reuters reports. Both men reportedly accepted the invitation, and the gathering is planned for June 6. Meanwhile, the pope worked to heal another rift: the divide between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, the AP reports. Francis prayed with Orthodox patriarch Bartholomew I at the Jerusalem church where both groups believe Jesus was resurrected. |
Upon its breakup in 1991, the Soviet Union bequeathed a vast array of weapons of mass destruction to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan. This legacy included about 30,000 nuclear weapons, 2,500 strategic nuclear delivery systems, and at least 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons. In 1991, Congress authorized DOD to establish a CTR program to help these states (1) destroy weapons of mass destruction, (2) store and transport the weapons in connection with their destruction, and (3) reduce the risk of proliferation. Congress has provided about $1.5 billion in fiscal years 1992-96 to address CTR objectives. As shown in figure 1, DOD has allocated nearly three-quarters of these funds to delivery vehicle and infrastructure dismantlement and destruction and to improving nuclear material controls. It has allocated the remainder to demilitarizing defense activities, destroying chemical weapons, and other efforts. CTR program officials have significantly increased obligations in recent years. As of August 5, 1996, the program had obligated over $1 billion and disbursed $571 million (see app. I for a breakdown of CTR funding notifications, obligations, and disbursements). The CTR program generally procures goods and services for CTR recipient countries instead of providing funds directly to them. In 1994 we reported that the program’s projects could have widely varying effects and that DOD had not estimated total requirements for achieving program objectives. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense institute a long-term planning process to help allocate CTR funds among competing demands. Congress subsequently required DOD to submit a multiyear CTR plan and cost estimate with its annual budget. DOD submitted the first version of this plan to Congress in 1995. The second plan, now in draft, is for 1996. The CTR program office used the results of a new and improved bottom-up planning process in drafting the 1996 multiyear plan. The new process requires CTR officials to develop a separate, detailed project plan for each CTR project. The individual project plans use a standardized format that depicts each project’s long-term funding profile, objectives, acquisition strategy, schedule, measures of effectiveness, and cost estimate basis. The CTR program office used the project plans, which are updated semi-annually, as the basis of its overall plan. In contrast to the previous CTR multiyear plan, the December 1995 draft contained more detailed data concerning several CTR projects and was sometimes more candid in its description of the challenges facing CTR projects than the preceding plan. The draft plan also detailed, for the first time, the program’s measures for assessing the effectiveness of CTR efforts. In its description of these measures, the plan noted that the program lacks the data and tools needed to independently assess the effectiveness of CTR chemical weapons and nuclear safety projects in achieving CTR objectives of reducing the threat from weapons of mass destruction. It indicated that such projects would instead be assessed in terms of their achievement of project milestones. The plan also indicated that the success of delivery vehicle destruction projects will be evaluated by determining the NIS countries’ progress in meeting Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) drawdown schedules. In doing so, the plan noted that the program will only be able to link such progress to specific CTR projects by using recipient-country statements—rather than on any available quantifiable data. Despite these improvements over the prior multiyear plan, the December 1995 draft plan had some deficiencies. We found that it did not always fully depict known project uncertainties nor did it reveal the wide variations in certainty of the project cost estimates embedded in its depictions of program cost. For example, the draft plan did not distinguish between cost estimates based on contracts that had already been awarded or completed and estimates based on little or no design data. The draft plan also did not (1) indicate whether officials had omitted risk and contingencies from cost estimates or (2) fully identify and explain significant changes in the depiction of projects included in the previous plan. Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (P.L. 103-337, Oct. 5, 1994 ) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on DOD’s plans and funding for the CTR program with the President’s budget submission. This requirement for a multiyear CTR plan was intended to provide Congress with greater visibility into DOD’s long-term CTR strategy and the resources needed to implement that strategy. DOD failed to comply with this requirement in 1996. Although the CTR program office completed its draft in December 1995, DOD did not complete action on the plan in time to submit it with the President budget’s submission in April 1996. According to DOD officials, DOD failed to issue the plan primarily because the CTR program office could not quickly revise the draft plan to make it fully consistent with the President’s budget submission for fiscal year 1997. Such revisions were called for because the plan’s 1996 spending assumptions had been rendered obsolete by the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act—which was not enacted until February 1996. Officials in the DOD Comptroller’s office did not want to release the draft plan because it was not consistent with the President’s budget submission for 1997. After weeks of discussion, DOD officials agreed to add an explanatory addendum to the plan. However, as of September 4, 1996, neither the plan nor the addendum had been submitted to Congress. DOD officials told us in July 1996 that they hoped to submit the plan—without updating it—to Congress by the end of September 1996.Because DOD will not update the plan before releasing it, the plan will not reflect significant CTR-related developments that occurred during the first half of 1996, nor will it reflect current budgets. For example, the plan would not reflect the program’s reallocation of $60 million in fiscal year 1996 funds from Russian chemical weapons destruction to strategic delivery vehicle dismantlement work in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan; progress made in early 1996 in defining CTR dismantlement projects in Russia; and the U.S. response to Russian requests in March and June 1996 for help in upgrading as many as 50 nuclear weapons storage sites. DOD officials informed us that the time-consuming process of updating the plan to reflect such changes would further delay the plan’s release to Congress. They said the changes would be reflected in next year’s multiyear plan. Since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the safety and security of FSU nuclear weapons and their fissile components have been sources of concern for the United States. The CTR program is seeking to address these concerns by helping Russia construct a fissile material storage facility and control its nuclear weapons. The CTR program is supporting Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) efforts to design and construct a facility at Mayak that will store 50,000 containers of fissionable material from dismantled nuclear weapons. While Russia has not sought U.S. help in dismantling its nuclear weapons, it has asserted that it lacks storage space for fissile materials from dismantled weapons and asked for U.S. help in designing and constructing such a facility. A key MINATOM official told us in March 1996 that MINATOM needs space for about 100,000 containers of fissile materials. The design of the Mayak facility is nearly 2 years behind schedule, due to a unilateral Russian design concept change in 1994 that eliminated the relevance of about a third of the CTR program’s initial $15-million design project. However, in July 1996, with CTR support, Russian designers provided a one-third design document to CTR officials. DOD officials anticipate certifying that the Mayak design is one-third complete in September 1996. Despite some stoppages, Russian construction activity has proceeded over the past year with CTR-supplied materials. The CTR program recently hired a U.S. design and construction contractor to help coordinate CTR aid at the Mayak facility. If construction continues as currently anticipated, the facility could begin storing its first 25,000 containers in 1999 and be entirely completed in 2001. While the design and construction of the Mayak facility have progressed over this year, the United States and Russia have yet to finalize transparency arrangements for the facility. This lack of progress in obtaining Mayak transparency arrangements is due largely to the failure to date of talks on a broader range of reciprocal U.S.-Russian transparency measures to complete an agreement that would have included Mayak and other facilities. According to DOD, Mayak transparency should provide the United States with reasonable assurance that Russia is storing only materials from dismantled nuclear weapons and that these materials are not being reused for weapons. Russian officials appear to have agreed to Mayak transparency in principle. They have indicated that the facility will be transparent to the United States and stated that it will provide for “joint accountability and transparency measures permitting confirmation by the U.S.” In October 1994 Russian officials stated that they were prepared to pledge that Mayak would contain only materials from dismantled nuclear weapons and that these materials would not be reused for weapons. However, the United States and Russia have yet to conclude an agreement specifying exactly how Russia’s transparency pledges will be implemented at Mayak. According to executive branch officials, U.S. efforts to pursue such an agreement went into a hiatus when the U.S. and Russian governments launched the broader Safeguards, Transparency, and Irreversibility (STI) negotiations. STI would have addressed Russian concerns regarding reciprocity by establishing (1) reciprocal inspections to confirm each nation’s stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons, (2) data exchanges on nuclear warhead and fissile material stocks, and (3) cooperative arrangements to monitor excess warheads awaiting dismantlement. However, the STI talks ceased in late 1995. Given recent Mayak design and construction progress, DOD and MINATOM agreed in early 1996 that Mayak transparency efforts would proceed regardless of STI’s status. U.S. and Russian technical experts met in June 1996 to discuss the planned Mayak material control and accounting process. According to a key DOD official, the talks established that this process—if supplemented by inspection equipment—would generate the data needed for transparency. However, the United States and Russia have not begun discussing the extent to which the United States will have access to such data at Mayak. DOD officials have not developed a position concerning the degree of access DOD requires at Mayak or a timetable for completing transparency arrangements. Executive branch agencies disagree on whether talks on Mayak transparency should be pursued in a broader government-to-government forum or in the narrower DOD-MINATOM forum that addresses the Mayak project. Until a detailed transparency arrangement is agreed upon, the United States does not know exactly how it will be able to insure that Mayak is being used as intended. A failure to reach such an agreement in the future would force the United States to choose between curtailing support for the facility—after investing many tens of millions of dollars—and compromising on its access rights. However, a key DOD policy official told us that the details of the Mayak transparency arrangements can be worked out over time without harm to the project and suggested that even a partially built facility—if eventually completed by Russia alone—would help secure Russian fissile materials. DOD plans to spend at least $185 million on Mayak design and construction. It has allocated $119 million in fiscal year 1992-96 funds and asked Congress for another $66 million for fiscal year 1997. As of August 5, 1996, DOD had obligated about $72 million for Mayak design and construction. While Mayak’s construction could ultimately cost over $800 million, according to a 1994 estimate by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the facility’s cost to the United States should be considerably less. In congressional testimony during 1996, DOD officials stated that the United States will pay no more than half of the cost of building Mayak. CTR officials plan to cap the CTR program’s support of Mayak construction at a certain specific level of effort and ask Congress for added funding on an as-needed annual basis. The Corps will complete a more certain cost estimate—using the recently obtained one-third design data—by September 1996. The theft or misuse of uranium and plutonium components from dismantled nuclear weapons would constitute an enormous security risk to the United States and other nations. The Mayak project, if properly executed, would provide Russia with a modern and secure facility for storing components from thousands of nuclear weapons. MINATOM officials told us in March 1996 that the facility would help alleviate the build-up of materials from dismantled weapons and greatly improve the safety and security of the stored materials. Nonetheless, assessing the degree to which Mayak will improve Russia’s existing storage capabilities is difficult. We reported in October 1994 that U.S. agencies had been unable to confirm a Russian shortage of storage space. The draft CTR multiyear plan acknowledges that the program cannot measure the impact of CTR fissile material storage projects—such as Mayak—on CTR program objectives because DOD lacks (1) direct knowledge of Russian nuclear warhead dismantlement activities, (2) control cases, and (3) data and models needed for assessing risk. DOD instead plans to assess the success of the project in terms of its achievement of project milestones. Statements made by U.S. and Russian officials over the past 2 years indicate that Russian nuclear weapon security may need to be improved. A U.S. government expert told a congressional committee in August 1995 that the Russian nuclear weapons security system had not been designed to counter insiders who might be tempted to steal a nuclear weapon and that the system was facing new strains engendered by the Soviet Union’s collapse. In March 1996, the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Investigations, testified that “security at some nuclear weapon field sites may be suspect.” Key Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) officials have indicated concern about the possibility that nuclear weapons could be stolen in transit or damaged in accidents on Russia’s deteriorating rail system. They have also stated that MOD’s top nonproliferation priority is to improve security at nuclear weapon storage sites. The CTR program has made progress over the past year in its efforts to improve Russian security over nuclear weapons slated for dismantlement. During 1996 the CTR program paid a Russian railyard almost $1 million to complete the installation of CTR-supplied fire and intrusion detectors on railcars used to carry nuclear warheads. The program had previously given MINATOM armored blankets and emergency response equipment to help protect weapons in transit. A new set of projects has begun emerging from CTR discussions with MOD over the past year. For example, the CTR program plans to deliver 150 supercontainers to MOD by early 1997 to help protect warheads in transit against penetration and fire. It has also begun shipping five rail-mobile emergency support modules to help respond to rail accidents and terrorist attacks. The CTR program has also developed several new projects to help MOD protect its nuclear weapons in storage. It has agreed to help MOD develop a prototype automated nuclear weapon inventory system, which Russia reportedly lacks, and has begun providing needed computers and training. MOD will use the prototype in developing an operational system for weapons to be dismantled. Perhaps most significantly, in 1996 MOD for the first time asked for CTR assistance in upgrading security at as many as 50 nuclear weapon storage sites. In response, the CTR program has moved to provide MOD with computerized site security assessment models and data on personnel security assessment tools. MOD has proposed that the CTR program establish a technical training base in Russia to install, test, and evaluate security technology equipment and procedures. Under such an approach, a CTR-funded contractor at the training base could support MOD-cleared Russian subcontractors—possibly by helping them identify security needs and procuring needed equipment from Russian firms. The CTR program has allocated a total of $116 million in fiscal year 1992-96 funds—and has requested another $15 million for fiscal year 1997—to help improve the security of nuclear weapons in Russia. This $131 million includes $89.5 million on the new MOD transit and storage projects, of which $39.5 million is slated for improving MOD storage security. However, the costs of the MOD storage security projects—while still undefined—will almost certainly exceed $39.5 million. The program manager for these CTR projects told us that each of Russia’s 50 storage sites might cost about $2 million to upgrade, based on DOD’s current understanding of requirements. While CTR aid could help improve the security of Russian nuclear weapons to some degree, assessing the extent of this improvement will be very difficult. The CTR program’s draft 1996 multiyear plan indicates that the program lacks the data and analytical tools needed to assess the extent to which its nuclear security projects are achieving CTR objectives. Limited access to the sensitive locations where CTR nuclear weapons security aid is being used will affect the CTR program’s ability to determine how effectively the assistance is being used. For example, Russian officials recently denied a DOD audit team access to MOD sites where CTR-supplied emergency response equipment was located and instead brought such equipment to the DOD team. Similarly, any DOD integrating contractor for the nuclear weapons storage site security project would be precluded from visiting actual weapon storage sites. According to DOD, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan inherited about 2,500 strategic nuclear delivery systems from the FSU, along with an extensive nuclear weapons-related infrastructure. According to U.S. estimates, these four states must eliminate over 900 strategic nuclear delivery vehicles and safely remove over 4,000 nuclear warheads from deployment by 2001 to comply with START requirements. These estimates also indicate that if Russia ratifies START II, it must also eliminate another 200 launchers and remove up to 3,000 warheads from deployment. Under the terms of the Lisbon Protocol, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan must become non-nuclear weapons states by 2001. The CTR program has launched a broad array of projects to eliminate or reduce NIS nuclear delivery vehicles and infrastructure. These projects have helped Ukraine, Russia, Kazakstan, and Belarus dismantle nuclear delivery systems. Over the past year, progress has been made in implementing CTR nuclear dismantlement projects in the recipient countries. The CTR program has increased dismantlement-related equipment deliveries and completed some dismantlement projects. It has evolved from simply providing dismantlement equipment requested by the recipient countries to jointly developing technical requirements with them. According to DOD, Ukraine is proceeding with eliminations of strategic delivery systems. In Ukraine, the CTR program has completed deliveries of fuels, cranes, vehicles, and other assistance to facilitate the removal of nuclear warheads. CTR assistance helped Ukraine complete an SS-19 missile neutralization facility, funded a contractor to destroy SS-19 missile silos, and provided intermodal tank containers and a storage facility to safely transport and store nearly 4,000 metric tons of liquid rocket fuel removed during missile dismantlement. With CTR assistance, Ukraine will eliminate all of its SS-19 missiles and silos. The program has made less progress regarding Ukraine’s SS-24 missile systems. Under START, Ukraine plans to destroy its SS-24 silos and has already returned SS-24 warheads to Russia. However, it has not yet decided whether to dismantle its SS-24 missiles or retain them for space launch purposes. Recently, CTR program officials have begun work on defining Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure elimination projects. According to a Ukrainian Ministry of Defense official, such projects could include dismantling missile system fueling and storage sites and destroying nuclear warhead storage bunkers. According to DOD, Russia is now ahead of its START I schedules. During the past year, the CTR program has nearly completed equipment deliveries to help Russia dismantle heavy bombers, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. For example, CTR assistance has recently provided intermodal containers and flatbed railcars to safely transport and store some 100,000 metric tons of liquid rocket fuel during dismantlement. CTR-provided equipment and services will also help dispose of this fuel. Until earlier this year, the Russians had only requested CTR assistance in the form of equipment procurement and support. Now, however, CTR and Russian Committee of Defense Industry officials have begun to jointly develop Russian technical requirements for CTR aid. For example, both CTR and Russian officials are working together to eliminate over 900 solid rocket motors and 17,000 metric tons of solid rocket propellant. Also, in cooperation with the Russians, CTR program officials reviewed Russia’s SS-18 elimination process and determined that the Surovatikha facility has reached full capacity and cannot meet START II goals. CTR officials are now considering a Russian proposal to increase the dismantlement rate at this facility by over 60 percent. In August 1996, U.S. and Russian officials held discussions to help improve Russian submarine-launched ballistic missile dismantlement processes. In Kazakstan, CTR-provided equipment will help destroy seven heavy bombers and dispose of 7,800 metric tons of liquid rocket fuel. A CTR-funded contractor should begin restoring the SS-18 silo sites in September as Russia completes silo destruction efforts. By early next year, CTR aid plans to close nearly 60 nuclear weapon test tunnels. Program officials are also considering a project to dismantle a biological weapon production facility. In Belarus, a CTR-funded contractor should begin eliminating SS-25 missile launch pads by September 1996. A CTR-provided incinerator will help eliminate about 10,000 metric tons of liquid rocket fuel. In addition, CTR and Belarusian officials are defining nuclear infrastructure elimination projects that will help destroy missile storage and command and control bunkers and safely store radioactive materials. The CTR program plans to commit about $669 million for NIS dismantlement efforts through fiscal year 1996—a greater amount than it has invested in any of its other program areas. In addition, the CTR budget request for fiscal year 1997 allocates another $47 million for Ukrainian dismantlement efforts and $52 million more for Russia, including funding for initial START II-related efforts. The program has not requested any fiscal 1997 funds for Belarus and Kazakstan. As of August 5, 1996, DOD had notified Congress of plans to obligate about $669 million, had obligated nearly $383 million and had disbursed almost $218 million. Of the dismantlement funds notified to Congress, Ukraine will receive about $267 million and Russia will receive $236 million. Figure 2 shows the distribution of notified dismantlement funds among the recipient countries. Current CTR dismantlement cost estimates appear to be relatively certain at this point. However, future START II-related costs could increase total CTR dismantlement costs beyond the amount currently allocated for fiscal years 1992-97. A Russian official suggested to us that Russia could need several hundred million dollars to meet its START II requirements. Such an estimate may include contractor and logistics support for destroying submarine-launched ballistic missiles, dismantling SS-18s, and funding solid rocket motor and fuel elimination. U.S. and Russian officials continue to define these efforts. According to its draft multiyear plan, the program plans to assess the effectiveness of CTR dismantlement projects by determining how well recipients meet or exceed anticipated START drawdown rates. The plan acknowledges that the link between drawdowns and specific projects is generally based on recipient countries’ statements, rather than on quantifiable data available to the United States. However, in contrast to other CTR efforts, U.S. involvement in dismantlement activities may yield some quantifiable measures of impact. For example, CTR-funded projects have provided Ukraine with a capability—otherwise lacking—to dismantle and destroy its SS-19 missile systems. In Russia, CTR assistance could increase the missiles eliminated per year at an SS-18 dismantlement facility. The overall impact of the destruction projects will probably vary from one CTR recipient to another. Without CTR dismantlement assistance, Ukraine probably could not meet its START I requirements. CTR assistance enabled Ukraine to return all of its nuclear warheads to Russia by June 1996. A Ukrainian Ministry of Defense official told us that with CTR assistance his country can adhere to START I and honor its treaty obligations. In contrast, Russia met its START I delivery vehicle limit before significant amounts of CTR aid were delivered. However, a Russian official told us that CTR aid has helped Russia maintain its dismantlement efforts. He said that Russia dismantled more systems in the past year with CTR aid than in all prior years without it. Specifically, CTR efforts helped to safely store and transport some 100,000 metric tons of liquid rocket propellant and will soon help eliminate the fuel. U.S. personnel have observed the use of CTR-provided assistance in dismantling bombers and submarine launchers, as well as the poor condition of Russian dismantlement equipment. Russian officials have stated that CTR-provided hardware has been used to dismantle SS-18 missiles in Kazakstan. CTR assistance should help eliminate Kazakstan’s nuclear infrastructure, including 186 tunnels once used to test nuclear weapons at Degelen Mountain, and thus reduce the possibility of resumed nuclear testing at that site. A proposed CTR project at Kazakstan’s BioMedPreparat biological weapons production plant would dismantle key components of the facility, rendering it available for other purposes. CTR assistance to Belarus will help destroy concrete SS-25 launch pads in compliance with START. As in Kazakstan, the CTR program should help dismantle the remaining nuclear infrastructure. While Belarusian government officials have approved several projects, CTR officials are still defining the specific requirements. Russia currently has the world’s largest declared chemical weapon stockpile. The bulk of this 40,000 metric ton stockpile is comprised of nerve agents, rather than older mustard or blister agents. Russia has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Once it ratifies the convention, it will be committed to destroying this stockpile within 15 years of the convention’s entry into force. Russia does not have an operational capability to destroy large quantities of chemical weapons. DOD officials have stated that Russian chemical and nuclear weapon proliferation would pose a major security problem for the United States and that the eventual destruction of Russia’s huge stockpile would significantly reduce the chemical weapon threat. However, DOD officials have also stated that the threat of chemical weapons is less significant and urgent than that of nuclear weapons. To help address the threat posed by Russia’s declared stockpile, the CTR program has adopted a strategy of “jump starting” Russia’s chemical weapon destruction efforts. Executive branch officials have stated that CTR project assistance would help encourage Russian ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The program has taken the initial steps toward providing Russia assistance leading to creation of a pilot chemical weapon destruction facility at Shchuche that will have a destruction capacity of up to 500 metric tons of nerve agent contained in artillery shells and supporting eventual Russian establishment of a full-scale facility, capable of eliminating 1,200 metric tons annually. The purpose of the pilot facility is to gain sufficient design and operational data to obtain approval to expand the facility’s industrial capabilities to reach the full-scale capacity. The intent of the U.S. support program is not to eliminate the entire Russian chemical weapon stockpile, but rather to provide Russia with a technologically proven starting point. CTR aid has also begun providing Russia with chemical weapon destruction-related laboratories. The CTR program’s chemical weapon destruction project has made some progress in the past year. The CTR program and Russia concluded that Russia’s previously unproved two-step destruction process is effective and feasible for destroying Russia’s nerve agent stocks. The United States and Russia also moved to clarify their plans and working relationship regarding the destruction facility by signing an implementing arrangement. The arrangement designated MOD as Russia’s lead agency responsible for destroying chemical weapons and outlined U.S. and Russian roles in establishing the destruction facility. CTR and Russian officials also amended their July 1992 chemical weapons destruction agreement to increase U.S. funds by $13 million and identify DOD aid to help establish the pilot facility. U.S. and Russian representatives also developed a 1996 work plan for the pilot facility and five joint project plans. The project plans outlined each nation’s specific tasks and milestones in 1996 to begin the process of designing and developing a pilot facility using the newly validated Russian destruction process. CTR program officials plan to award an engineering services contract in December 1996 for the facility’s design and process scale-up, construction, and munitions processing equipment. By May 1997, CTR officials hope to have a preliminary design of the pilot facility and completed (1) tests on optimizing the Russian destruction technology and (2) a feasibility study to support Russian decisions on the facility’s location. An unexpected development was the project’s loss of $60 million of its $73 million fiscal year 1996 budget. CTR program officials shifted these funds because the President could not certify that Russia was complying with multilateral obligations concerning biological weapons, as required by law. Program officials were then unable to obligate the entire $13 million during fiscal year 1996 because of Russian delays in signing the implementing arrangement, according to a CTR official who told us that Russia held up the arrangement in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a U.S. commitment to fully fund the entire facility and provide greater intellectual property rights over the destruction process. Program officials also shipped three mobile chemical weapons destruction labs to Russia and reached agreement with Russian officials on a joint project plan to establish a central analytical laboratory in Moscow and begin hiring a contractor to oversee this project. DOD plans to award a contract by the end of September 1996. The mobile analytical laboratories are to (1) monitor and analyze environmental and verification samples at storage and destruction sites to assess the impact of chemical weapons destruction operations, (2) train personnel to operate destruction site laboratories and mobile labs, and (3) address public concerns about the safety of chemical weapons destruction activities. According to program officials, the mobile labs will cost $3 million, including vehicles, training, travel, and spare parts. The CTR program’s chemical weapon destruction project costs have been modest to date, relative to other CTR projects, but could increase greatly in the future. DOD has allocated $68 million in fiscal year 1992-96 CTR funds for chemical weapons destruction. DOD has asked Congress for another $78.5 million in fiscal year 1997 to continue program support. DOD will use the funds to further develop chemical and munitions processing equipment and systems and to begin designing the pilot facility. A 1995 CTR estimate—prepared without site-specific data—indicated that the pilot facility could ultimately cost as much as $900 million to build. To date, the CTR program has not asked for construction funds and has not committed to provide Russia more than $68 million in chemical destruction aid. U.S. and Russian experts have agreed to amend their bilateral assistance agreement annually to reflect yearly funding requirements—thus limiting the project’s annual financial obligation to the amount agreed upon in the annual amendment. Regardless of this arrangement, however, the total cost of the facility—and the U.S. share of that cost—remains undefined and potentially large. CTR officials told us that they hope to prepare a more certain cost estimate, based on a one-third completed design, in 1998. However, this estimate would not be ready until after DOD will have submitted its request for fiscal year 1998 funding. CTR officials told us that they do not plan to cap the program’s total contribution to the project at a certain level, as they have for the Mayak project. DOD stated that, as with all CTR projects, funds required for chemical weapon destruction will be assessed and requested from Congress on an annual basis. CTR program officials plan to assess the effectiveness of their chemical weapons destruction projects only in terms of their success in achieving project milestones. According to a program document, without direct U.S. involvement in Russian chemical weapons elimination, the CTR program lacks the data, control cases, and risk assessment models needed to assess these projects’ impact on the Russian chemical weapon threat. Moreover, DOD officials note that they cannot assess the program’s impact because Russia will not complete the task of destroying chemical weapons until after the CTR program ends in 2001. Nevertheless, DOD stated that Russian movement toward that goal will allow DOD to assess progress. While providing Russia with a proven chemical weapon elimination technology and a functioning pilot chemical weapon destruction facility capable of destroying 500 metric tons annually would greatly expand Russia’s current capabilities, the sheer size of the Russian stockpile will limit the pilot facility’s direct impact. The pilot would require more than a decade to destroy the artillery shells that constitute the site’s 14 percent share of the total Russian stockpile. It would not address Russia’s need to construct additional facilities at six more sites in time to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention’s time frames. CTR officials acknowledge that the pilot facility will not address Russia’s overall Chemical Weapons Convention requirements and suggest instead that the U.S-funded pilot facility could help “jump start” the slow-moving Russian effort to destroy its stockpiles. However, there are few current indications that Russia will find the needed resources. Russia estimates that it will need roughly $3.3 billion in January 1995 dollars to destroy the stockpile, according to its comprehensive plan. Russian officials told us in March 1996 that they lack such resources and are seeking non-Russian government sources of support. However, foreign aid for this effort is very limited. Aid being provided by Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States falls far short of Russia’s stated requirements. In May 1996, the United States and several other nations began discussing this issue in detail at a multilateral conference in Germany. Only the Netherlands pledged specified financial support for Russian chemical weapon destruction at the conference. To help clarify the presentation of programmatic and cost issues, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct that the annual CTR multiyear program plan submitted to Congress identify and explain (1) significant cost, schedule, or scope changes from the preceding year’s plan and (2) known uncertainties affecting project cost estimates and schedules. We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense refrain from obligating any CTR funds for constructing a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia until DOD has completed a construction cost estimate based on a one-third completed design and specified the U.S. share of the estimated costs. Congress may wish to consider linking DOD’s authority to obligate some or all of the funds that it may provide for constructing a fissile material storage facility in Russia to completion of a transparency agreement regarding the facility’s use. DOD concurred with our findings and recommendations. DOD stated that it will incorporate our recommendation regarding the CTR multiyear plan into subsequent versions. It also agreed not to obligate construction funds for the chemical weapon destruction facility until a 35-percent design has been completed and the costs have been better defined. DOD further stated that it will not completely disburse construction funds for the fissile material storage facility until transparency measures have been agreed with Russia. (DOD’s comments are reproduced in app. II.) CTR officials suggested several technical and editorial revisions. We have incorporated most of these suggestions into this report. This report is the latest of a series of GAO reviews of the CTR program since 1992 and draws upon data developed in the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. To assess the CTR program’s current planning process, we reviewed the CTR program’s draft multiyear plan, individual project plans, and cost estimates. In reviewing the draft plan, we assessed the level of detail and scope, the depiction of any uncertainties or difficulties concerning projects and cost estimates, and the description of changes that occurred after the CTR program’s 1995 plan. We decided that, to be useful, the plan should provide a reasonably complete and candid depiction of the projects’ status, prognosis, likely cost, and potential impact; identify any major changes from the preceding year’s plan; and explain why those changes have come about; and be timely. To assess the CTR program’s progress, likely cost, and potential impact regarding controls over FSU nuclear materials, we reviewed reports and cables detailing discussions with NIS officials; interviewed officials at DOD’s Threat Reduction Policy Office, CTR program office, Defense Special Weapons Agency, and Army Corps of Engineers. We also spoke with officials at the Department of State and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency concerning the status of transparency discussions. In addition, we discussed the status and prognosis of the Mayak and nuclear weapon security projects with high ranking officials from Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy and Ministry of Defense in Moscow in 1995 and in Washington in 1996. In doing so, we contrasted past and current depictions of project progress and assessed plans for overcoming current and foreseeable obstacles. We also reviewed the process used to prepare DOD’s estimates of the cost of the Mayak facility. Our assessment concerning the likely impact of these projects was based in large part from data presented in the CTR program’s draft program plan. To assess the CTR program’s progress, likely cost, and potential impact regarding the elimination of FSU delivery vehicles, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials at DOD’s CTR program office. In addition, we discussed the status and prognosis of these projects with high ranking officials from Russia’s Committee for Defense Industry and Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense in Moscow and Kiev in 1995 and Washington in 1996. In doing so, we contrasted past and current depictions of project progress and assessed plans for overcoming current and foreseeable obstacles. Our assessment concerning the likely impact of these projects was based in large part from data presented in the CTR program’s draft program plan. To assess the CTR program’s progress, likely cost, and potential impact regarding the destruction of Russian chemical weapons, we reviewed reports and cables detailing discussions with NIS officials; interviewed officials at DOD’s Threat Reduction Policy Office, CTR program office, and Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command. We also spoke with an official at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency concerning the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention. In addition, we discussed the status and prognosis of the chemical weapons projects with high ranking officials from the Russian President’s Commission for Chemical Weapons Destruction and attended an international North Atlantic Treaty Organization conference in Bonn, Germany, on eliminating weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, we contrasted past and current depictions of project progress and assessed plans for overcoming current and foreseeable obstacles. We also reviewed the process used to prepare DOD’s estimates of the cost of the pilot chemical weapons destruction facility. Our assessment concerning the likely impact of these projects was based in large part from data presented in the CTR program’s draft program plan. We conducted our review between August 1995 and August 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense and State; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions concerning the report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program has made continued progress in obligating and disbursing funds. In our last report, we noted that CTR obligations and disbursements had increased sharply to almost $599 million and $177 million, respectively, as of May 8, 1995. One year later (May 14, 1996) the program had obligated an additional $411 million and disbursed another $327 million. As of August 5, 1996, the program had obligated over $1 billion and disbursed more than $571 million. Figures I.1 and I.2 depict the allocation of these amounts among the program’s principal activities. Table I.1 lists the amounts that the Department of Defense (DOD) has notified, obligated, and disbursed for each CTR project as of August 5, 1996. (continued) International Science and Technology Center (Russia) Research and Development Foundation (Russia) Continuous communications link (Belarus) Strategic nuclear arms elimination (Ukraine) F. James Shafer Pierre Toureille Jo Ann Geoghan Beth Hoffman León Rona Mendelsohn Jeffrey Phillips Raymond Plunkett 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 provided information on the Department of Defense's (DOD) draft 1996 multiyear Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program plan, focusing on its: (1) estimated costs; and (2) potential impacts on helping control nuclear weapons and materials, and eliminating strategic delivery vehicles. GAO found that: (1) the draft 1996 CTR multiyear plan does not adequately reflect budgetary uncertainties associated with some projects and cost estimates or important developments that have occurred since 1995; (2) although the CTR program has made progress in helping Russia dismantle and store its nuclear weapons arsenal, DOD has not yet resolved important issues concerning planned Russian nuclear weapons storage and chemical weapons destruction facility projects; (3) the estimated costs for the chemical weapons facility are unknown; (4) the United States has capped its support for the nuclear weapons storage facility that is now under construction, but CTR officials do not plan to cap support for the chemical weapons destruction facility; (5) funding decisions for the chemical weapons destruction facility are compounded by the facility's potential high cost and questions on whether the facility will be effective at reducing the overall Russian chemical weapons threat; (6) DOD officials consider the threat from chemical weapons to be less urgent than the Russian nuclear threat; (7) Russia may not be able to meet the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention unless six more facilities are constructed and other nations resume their funding commitments; (8) CTR officials lack the data needed to independently determine the extent and effect of Russia's controls over nuclear materials; (9) DOD has allocated or requested almost $1.5 billion for chemical weapon destruction, nuclear security, and delivery vehicle destruction projects through 1997; and (10) CTR program costs through 2001 are estimated to be $3.2 billion. |
A ccording to the 2016 edition of the Plum Book , more than 1,000 executive branch positions are filled through appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (herein, advice and consent positions). The Constitution and federal statutes provide several authorities for temporarily filling vacancies in these positions: the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (Vacancies Act); the President's constitutional recess appointment power; and position-specific temporary appointment provisions. Each of these authorities is discussed below. When an executive branch advice and consent position covered by the Vacancies Act becomes vacant, it may be filled temporarily in one of three ways under the act: (1) the first assistant to such a position may automatically assume the functions and duties of the office; (2) the President may direct an officer who is occupying a different advice and consent position to perform these tasks; or (3) the President may select an officer or employee who is occupying a position, in the same agency, for which the rate of pay is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay at the GS-15 level, and who has served in that agency for at least 90 days during the year preceding the vacancy. In general, a temporary appointment under the Vacancies Act continues until no later than 210 days after the date the vacancy occurred or, if the vacancy occurred during a Senate recess, 210 days after the date the Senate reconvenes. The time restriction is suspended, and the acting officer can continue to serve, if a first or second nomination for the position has been submitted to the Senate for confirmation and is pending. The acting officer can continue to serve for an additional 210 days after the rejection, withdrawal, or return of such a nomination. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that a provision of the Vacancies Act limits the conditions under which an individual may serve in both an acting capacity and as the nominee to the same position. The court's opinion appears to allow an individual to serve on this basis only if the individual has served as the first assistant to the vacant position for more than 90 of the preceding 365 days or if the individual is serving as first assistant, and that position itself requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Temporary appointments to vacancies that exist during the 60-day period following the inauguration of a new President are treated differently, which gives the new President additional flexibility during the transition. The ordinary 210-day restriction period does not commence until the later of the following two dates: 90 days after the incoming President assumes office, or 90 days after the vacancy occurs. In general, once the time limitations of the Vacancies Act have been exhausted, only the head of the agency may perform any non-delegable function or duty of that office. Appointees under the Vacancies Act are authorized to "perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to [these] time limitations." The act does not apply to positions on multi-headed regulatory boards and commissions, or to new positions that have never been filled. The President's authority to make recess appointments is conferred by the Constitution, which states that "[t]he President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Presidents have made such appointments during within-session recesses ( intrasession recess appointments) and between sessions ( intersession recess appointments). Recess appointments expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. As a result, a recess appointment may last for less than a year, or nearly two years, depending on when the appointment is made. Presidents have occasionally used the recess appointment power in ways that have had the effect of circumventing the confirmation process. In response, Congress has placed restrictions on the President's authority to make recess appointments. Under 5 U.S.C. §5503(a), if the position to which the President makes a recess appointment falls vacant while the Senate is in session, the recess appointee may not be paid from the Treasury until he or she is confirmed by the Senate. The salary prohibition does not apply (1) if the vacancy arose within 30 days before the end of the session; (2) if a nomination for the office was pending when the Senate recessed, provided that the nominee was not previously recess appointed to the position; or (3) if a nomination was rejected within 30 days before the end of the session and another individual was given the recess appointment. A recess appointment falling under any one of these three exceptions must be followed by a nomination to the position not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session of the Senate. For this reason, when a recess appointment is made, the President generally submits a new nomination for the nominee even when an old nomination is pending. In some instances, a recess appointee whose nomination to the position is not successful might not be paid. These instances are discussed below. (See " Unsuccessful Nominations and Payment Limitations .") From the 110 th Congress onward, it has become common for the Senate and House to use certain scheduling practices as a means of precluding the President from making recess appointments. The practices do this by preventing the occurrence of a Senate recess of sufficient length for the President to be able to use his recess appointment authority. These congressional scheduling practices might have prevented President George W. Bush from making recess appointments at the end of his presidency; he made no recess appointments during the times this approach was in use. It also might have limited use of the recess appointment power by President Obama. In January 2012, President Obama appeared to challenge the ability of this practice to prevent the exercise of his authority. He made four recess appointments during a three-day recess between pro forma sessions of the Senate on January 3 and January 6, 2012, a period that was generally considered too short to permit recess appointments. The recess during which the President made the appointments was part of a period of Senate absence that, but for the pro forma sessions, would have constituted an intrasession adjournment of 10 days or longer. In an opinion regarding the lawfulness of these appointments, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice argued that "the President may determine that pro forma sessions at which no business is to be conducted do not interrupt a Senate recess for the purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause." The U.S. Supreme Court later concluded otherwise in a case regarding three of the four appointments. It held that, for purposes of the Clause, "the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business." The Court also held that the President may use the recess appointment power essentially only during a Senate recess of 10 days or longer. A Senate recess of 3 days "is not long enough to trigger the President's recess appointment power," and a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 is "presumptively too short to fall within the Clause" but "leaves open the possibility that a very unusual circumstance could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break." In some cases, Congress has expressly provided for the temporary filling of vacancies in a particular advice and consent position. Generally, such provisions employ one or more of several methods: (1) a specified official is automatically designated as acting; (2) a specified official is automatically designated as acting, unless the President provides otherwise; (3) the President designates an official to serve in an acting capacity; or (4) the head of the agency in which the vacancy exists designates an acting official. The top positions at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA), among others, are temporarily filled through the first method. For example, the U.S. Code provides that "[t]he Deputy Director [of OMB] acts as the Director when the Director is absent or unable to serve or when the office of Director is vacant." The relevant statute states that, at the FAA, the "Deputy Administrator acts for the Administrator when the Administrator is absent or unable to serve, or when the office of the Administrator is vacant." With regard to the SBA, federal law provides that the "Deputy Administrator shall be acting Administrator of the Administration during the absence or disability of the Administrator or in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Administrator." The top positions at the General Services Administration (GSA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) are temporarily filled through the second method above, in which a specified official is automatically designated as acting, unless the President provides otherwise. With regard to GSA, the "Deputy Administrator is Acting Administrator ... during the absence or disability of the Administrator and, unless the President designates another officer of the Federal Government, when the office of Administrator is vacant." Similarly, the "Deputy Commissioner [of SSA] shall be Acting Commissioner of the Administration during the absence or disability of the Commissioner and, unless the President designates another officer of the Government as Acting Commissioner, in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Commissioner." Positions for which the President is authorized to designate an acting official—the third method above—include the General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board and the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at the Department of Justice. In the case of the General Counsel, the service of the President's designee is limited to a period that would allow the Senate to act on a nomination: In case of vacancy in the office of the General Counsel the President is authorized to designate the officer or employee who shall act as General Counsel during such vacancy, but no person or persons so designated shall so act (1) for more than forty days when the Congress is in session unless a nomination to fill such vacancy shall have been submitted to the Senate, or (2) after the adjournment sine die of the session of the Senate in which such nomination was submitted. The provision regarding the Special Counsel includes no such limitations: "In the case of a vacancy in the office of the Special Counsel the President may designate the officer or employee who shall act as Special Counsel during such vacancy." In one manifestation of the fourth method, designation by agency head, in some departments and agencies, the agency head is empowered to establish a line of temporary succession in the event of a vacancy in a particular position. For the Department of Education, for example, the Deputy Secretary automatically takes over in the event of the Secretary's absence or disability, or when the position is vacant. In anticipation of potential vacancies in both positions, however, the Secretary is to establish a line of succession: The Secretary shall designate the order in which other officials of the Department shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary during the absence or disability of both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary or in the event of vacancies in both of those offices. Other provisions allow agency heads to designate individuals to fill vacancies in lower level positions temporarily. For example, the Attorney General "may designate a person to perform the functions of and act as marshal," as long as that individual has not been rejected by the Senate for appointment to the position. An individual appointed in this manner "may serve until the earliest of the following events: (1) [t]he entry into office of a United States marshal appointed [through the advice and consent process;] (2) [t]he expiration of the thirtieth day following the end of the next session of the Senate[;]" or (3) if the designee is nominated by the President and rejected by the Senate, "the expiration of the thirtieth day following such" rejection. This provision also illustrates the kinds of limitations that are sometimes included in temporary appointment provisions. For at least three positions—U.S. Attorney, Solicitor of Labor, and Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health—combinations of the tools identified here have been used to fill vacancies temporarily. By using more than one authority, the Administration has been able to place unconfirmed individuals in these positions for longer periods of time than would have been possible if only one authority had been used. With regard to U.S. Attorneys, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice determined, in 2003, that U.S. Attorney vacancies could be filled temporarily under specific provisions that allow for appointment by the Attorney General, under the provisions of the Vacancies Act, or under a combination of these authorities in sequence. The President temporarily filled vacancies in the two Labor Department positions by using, in succession, his recess appointment and Vacancies Act authorities. He recess appointed Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor of Labor on January 11, 2001. Several days before the appointment would have expired, at the close of the 107 th Congress, Scalia stepped down from the Solicitor position and was appointed to a non-career Senior Executive Service position. With the position of Solicitor technically vacant, the President then gave Scalia a temporary appointment to the position, on November 22, 2002, under the Vacancies Act. It appears that Scalia could have served at least 210 days in this capacity, but he resigned from the post on January 6, 2003. A similar sequence of authorities was used to place Richard E. Stickler in the position of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, first by recess appointment, on October 19, 2006, and later, under the Vacancies Act, on January 4, 2008. In some cases, individuals who are serving temporarily in advice and consent positions are also nominated to those positions. In the event that such a nomination is not successful, two provisions of law might subsequently prevent the individual from being paid as an acting official. Unlike the provisions of 5 U.S.C. §5503, which pertain to recess appointments alone and are discussed above, the following provisions appear to apply to any situation in which an individual is filling an advice and consent position on a temporary basis. One provision from the FY2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act may prevent the official from being paid if the nomination is rejected. The provision reads, "Hereafter, no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be paid to any person for the filling of any position for which he or she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination of said person." Similar provisions had been included in annual funding measures for most of, if not all of, the prior 50 years. As a practical matter, nominations are rarely rejected by a vote of the full Senate. A second provision, addressing a different set of circumstances, prevents an individual serving in an acting or temporary capacity in an advice and consent position from being paid for his or her services if he or she has been nominated to the position twice and the second nomination has been withdrawn or returned. This second provision, which was included in the FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, states: Effective January 20, 2009, and for each fiscal year thereafter, no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act may be used for the payment of services to any individual carrying out the responsibilities of any position requiring Senate advice and consent in an acting or temporary capacity after the second submission of a nomination for that individual to that position has been withdrawn or returned to the President. At times, a nominee could be hired as a consultant while awaiting confirmation, but he or she may serve only in an advisory capacity and may not be installed in the office to which he or she has been nominated. A nominee to a Senate-confirmed position has no legal authority to assume the responsibilities of that position based on his or her status as a nominee; the authority comes with one of the limited-term appointments discussed above, with Senate confirmation and subsequent presidential appointment, or through occupying another position to which the authority of the vacant position has been delegated, as discussed below. As discussed in this report, the temporary filling of an advice and consent position is governed by the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and position-specific statutes. However, when the time limitations of the Vacancies Act have been exhausted, it may be possible for the functions of a vacant office to be carried out indefinitely by another individual, usually the first assistant, pursuant to a delegation of authority by the agency head. In such instances, the official carries out these functions without assuming the vacant office. Generally, these functions may include any except those few that are statutorily vested specifically, and only, in the vacant office ("non-delegable duties"). In one such instance, described in a 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice was led by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for that office, Steven G. Bradbury, during a prolonged vacancy in the usual lead position, the Assistant Attorney General for OLC, after the time limitations of the Vacancies Act had been exhausted. The opinion states The issue remaining is whether Mr. Bradbury, as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General during the timeframe in which the office [of Assistant Attorney General for OLC] has been vacant, performed any functions or duties which under the Vacancies Act may be performed only by the Attorney General as head of the Department. According to the Department, Mr. Bradbury's service during the relevant time period has been in accordance with the Vacancies Act, since the position of Assistant Attorney General for OLC does not have any duties or functions which are exclusive to the position. In contrast to limitations imposed by the Vacancies Act, the first assistant or other official carrying out these delegated functions during the vacancy need not have served in the agency for a specified period prior to carrying out these duties. He or she might or might not occupy another advice and consent position. He or she may be a career or non-career appointee. | A vacant presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position (herein, "advice and consent position") can be filled temporarily under one of several authorities that do not require going through the Senate confirmation process. Under specific circumstances, many executive branch vacancies can be filled temporarily under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 or by recess appointment. In some cases, temporary filling of vacancies in a particular position is specifically provided for in statute. Generally, designation or appointment under one of these methods confers upon the official the legal authority to carry out the duties of the office. Alternatively, an individual may be hired by the agency as a consultant. A consultant does not carry the legal authority of the office, and may act only in an advisory capacity. In many instances, the functions of a vacant advice and consent office may be carried out indefinitely by another official, usually the first assistant, under the terms of an administrative delegation order of the agency head. In such instances, the official carries out these functions without assuming the vacant office. |
Section 319(a) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold law, establishes increased contribution limits for House candidates whose opponents significantly self-finance their campaigns. This provision, in tandem with Section 304, which applies a similar program to Senate candidates, is frequently referred to as the "Millionaire's Amendment." Generally, the complex statutory formula providesâusing limits that were in effect at the time the case was consideredâthat if a candidate for the House of Representatives spends more than $350,000 of personal funds during an election cycle, individual contribution limits applicable to his or her opponent are increased from the usual current limit ($2,300 per election) to up to triple that amount (or $6,900 per election). Likewise for Senate candidates, a separate provision generally raises individual contribution limits for a candidate whose opponent exceeds a designated threshold level of personal campaign funding that is based on the number of eligible voters in the state. For both House and Senate candidates, the increased contribution limits are eliminated when parity in spending is reached between the two candidates. BCRA also requires self-financing candidates to file special disclosure reports regarding their campaign spendingâas such expenditures are madeâin addition to reporting in accordance with the regular periodic disclosure schedule. In 2004 and 2006, Jack Davis was a candidate for the House of Representatives from the 26 th Congressional District of New York. During the 2004 election cycle, he spent $1.2 million, which was principally from his own funds, and during the 2006 cycle, he spent $2.3 million, which (with the exception of $126,000) came from personal funds. In 2006, after the Federal Election Commission (FEC) informed Davis that it had reason to believe that he had violated BCRA's disclosure requirements for self-financing candidates by failing to report personal expenditures during the 2004 election cycle, Davis filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaration that the Millionaire's Amendment was unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the FEC from enforcing the law during the 2006 cycle. A district court three-judge panel concluded sua sponte that Davis had standing to bring the suit, but rejected his claims on the merits and granted summary judgment to the FEC. Invoking BCRA's provision for direct appeal to the Supreme Court for actions brought on constitutional grounds, Davis appealed. Reversing the three-judge district court decision, in a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court in FEC v. Davis invalidated the Millionaire's Amendment as lacking a compelling governmental interest in violation of the First Amendment. Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and was joined, in part, by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Ginsburg also wrote an opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justice Breyer. The Court remanded the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. Citing prior decisions, the Court began its opinion by noting that it has long upheld the constitutionality of limits on individual contributions and coordinated party expenditures. While recognizing that contribution limits implicate First Amendment free speech interests, it has sustained such limits on the condition that they are "closely drawn" to serve a "sufficiently important interest" such as the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption. On the other hand, the Court observed that it has definitively rejected any limits on a candidate's expenditure of personal funds to finance campaign speech, finding that such limits impose a significant restraint on a candidate's right to advocate for his or her own election, which is not justified by the compelling governmental interest of preventing corruption. Instead of preventing corruption, use of personal funds lessens a candidate's reliance on outside contributions, thereby neutralizing the coercive pressures and risks of abuse that contribution limits seek to avoid. With regard to the Millionaire's Amendment, the Court observed that while it does not directly impose a limit on a candidate's expenditure of personal funds, it "imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises that First Amendment right." Further, it requires a candidate to choose between the right of free political expression and being subjected to discriminatory contribution limits. If it simply increased the contribution limits for all candidatesâboth the self-financed candidate as well as the opponentâit would pass constitutional muster. Although many candidates who can afford significant personal expenditures in support of their own campaigns may choose to do so despite the Millionaire's Amendment, the Court determined that they would bear "a special and potentially significant burden if they make that choice." In fact, the Court concluded that if a candidate vigorously exercises the right to use personal funds, it creates a fundraising advantage for his or her opponents. In its 1976 landmark decision Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) providing presidential candidates with the option to receive public funds on the condition that they comply with expenditure limits, even though it found overall expenditure limits to be unconstitutional. Distinguishing the Millionaire's Amendment from FECA's presidential public financing provision, the Davis Court observed that the choices presented by each of the statutes are "quite different." By forgoing public financing, a presidential candidate can still retain the unencumbered right to make unlimited personal expenditures. In contrast, the Millionaire's Amendment fails to provide any options for a candidate to exercise that right without limitation. Finding that the Millionaire's Amendment imposes a "substantial burden" on the First Amendment right to expend personal funds in support of one's own campaign, thereby triggering strict scrutiny, the Court announced that it is not sustainable unless it can be justified by a compelling governmental interest. As the Court held in Buckley, reliance on personal funds reduce s the threat of corruption, and therefore, the burden imposed by the Millionaire's Amendment cannot serve that governmental interest. Responding to the FEC's argument that the statute's "asymmetrical limits" are justified because they level the playing field for candidates of differing personal wealth, the Court pointed out that its jurisprudence offers no support for the proposition that this rationale constitutes a compelling governmental interest. According to the Court, preventing corruption or its appearance are the only legitimate compelling governmental interestsâthat have yet been identifiedâto justify restrictions on campaign financing. Moreover, "'the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.'" Specifically, the Court cautioned that restricting a candidate's speech in order to level opportunities for election among candidates presents "ominous implications" because it would permit Congress to "arrogate the voters' authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office." Voters are entrusted with the duty to judge candidates for public office and, according to the Court, Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which candidates should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, Article I, § 2, and it is dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters' choices. In considering the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements contained within the Millionaire's Amendment, the Court emphasized that it has repeatedly held that compelled disclosure significantly infringes on privacy of association and belief, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. Therefore, it has subjected such requirements to exacting scrutiny in order to ascertain whether there is a "relevant correlation" or "substantial relation" between the governmental interest and the information required to be disclosed. In view of its holding that the Millionaire's Amendment is unconstitutional, the Court likewise reasoned that the burden imposed by its disclosure requirements cannot be justified, and accordingly, struck them down. In a dissent, Justice Stevensâjoined, in part, by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyerâargued that the Millionaire's Amendment represents Congress's judgment that candidates who spend over $350,000 of their own money in a campaign for a House or Senate seat have an advantage over other candidates who must raise contributions. The statute imposes no burden on self-financing candidates and "quiets no speech." Instead, the dissent found that it does no more than merely "assist the opponent of a self-funding candidate" to make his or her voice heard and that "this amplification in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes in support of his campaign." As a result of finding no direct restriction on the speech of the self-financed candidate, the dissent would subject the Millionaire's Amendment to a less rigorous standard of review. Indeed, the dissent specifically criticized the Court's landmark Buckley ruling, which struck down limits on expenditures, arguing that "a number of purposes, both legitimate and substantial," can justify the imposition of reasonable spending limits. Maintaining that combating corruption and the appearance of corruption are not the only governmental interests justifying congressional regulation of campaign financing, the dissent remarked that the Court has also recognized the governmental interests of reducing both the influence of wealth and the appearance of wealth on the outcomes of elections. While conceding that such prior decisions have focused on the aggregations of wealth that are accumulated in the corporate form, it reasoned that the logic of such decisionsâparticularly concerns about the "corrosive and distorting effects of wealth" on the political processâcould be extended to the context of individual wealth as well. In a separate dissent, Justice Ginsburgâjoined by Justice Breyerâconcluded that sustaining the constitutionality of the Millionaire's Amendment would be consistent with the Court's earlier holding in Buckley v. Valeo . She resisted, however, joining Justice Stevens's dissent to the extent that it addresses the Court's ruling in Buckley invalidating expenditure limits. Noting that the Court had not been asked to overrule Buckley âand that this issue had not been briefedâJustice Ginsburg preferred to leave reconsideration of that case "for a later day." The Court's decidedly antiregulatory opinion in Davis appears to reaffirm its finding in the landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, that Congress has no compelling interest in attempting to level the playing field among candidates. In fact, the Davis Court determined that Congressional attempts to do so would supplant the choices of the voters. Notably, the decision also seems to be a departure from its 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC âupholding key portions of BCRAâwhere the Court expressed deference to Congress's expertise in regulating the system under which its Members are elected. While Justice Stevens still appeared to subscribe to this view, the majority of the Davis Court seemed less deferential. | The "Millionaire's Amendment" is a shorthand description for a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold law, which established increased contribution limits for congressional candidates whose opponents significantly self-finance their campaigns. In 2008, in a 5-to-4 decision, Davis v. Federal Election Commission , the Supreme Court invalidated this provision. The Court found that the burden imposed on expenditures of personal funds is not justified by the compelling governmental interest of lessening corruption or the appearance of corruption and therefore, held that the law is unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. |
But meals on international flights remain a fundamental part of the aviation equation, with the world’s biggest carriers showing a renewed interest to combat the negative perception and confront the myriad challenges that come with serving food at 36,000 feet.
Let me be clear: I’ve only eaten a handful of meals in my life on an airplane that would satisfy me back on Earth, but when it comes to eating, context is everything. When you take into account all that goes into an airplane meal, all of the immense logistical, financial, and scientific challenges conspiring to make food vanish altogether from the skies, it’s astounding we’re served anything at all.
Those challenges came into focus recently in San Francisco as a few dozen members of Singapore Airlines’ catering staff gathered for two days to test out the fall menu lineup for a chunk of its North American-based routes. Dressed in a mix of chefs’ coats and lab coats, armed with thick binders and clipboards, the group tasted and tweaked their way through nearly 200 first, business, and economy class dishes, taking notes, dispensing criticisms, and logistical concerns, then adjusting until the dishes addressed the laundry list of requirements it takes to make it to your seatback tray.
On the ground, they all looked like winners: lobster dumplings with steamed bok choi and a heady seafood broth; rows of gently steamed, artfully assembled dim sum; composed salads with autumn fruit and rosy curls of Spanish Iberico ham.
“That micro basil is an elegant touch,” whispered one chef to another.
But up in the air, the challenges of serving hot, visually-appealing, texturally-diverse meals pile up quickly. Does the chicken stuffed with dried apricots look right in that serving vessel? Can that appetizing garnish fit into the 2-inch space in the plane’s convection oven? Is it too expensive to pay a cook to cut those cherry tomatoes in half so they don’t roll around during flight? For an airline serving more than 50,000 meals each day out of their Singapore hub alone, the tiny details matter.
“The customer has every right to expect a good meal,” says Hermann Freidanck, Executive Chef for Singapore Airlines. “It’s our job to fulfill that, but it can be a challenge. A three-step process on the ground will become a 10-step process inflight.”
I’ve been asking if we can get In-N-Out burgers on board. It’s more challenging than you think.
To illustrate the difficulties airline caterers face, Freidanck’s executive sous chef Edmund Lee points to an experiment with one of California’s most iconic foods: the In-N-Out cheeseburger. “I’ve been asking my colleagues in LA to see if we can get In-N-Out on board. It’s more challenging than you think. The lettuce gets wilted, the cheese is off, the bun would be dry and hard. And that’s just a burger.”
All of this is to say nothing of the most important challenge of all: taste. As the jokes have accumulated over the years, airlines have worked to change the perception of in-flight cuisine. Singapore spent one million dollars to build a kitchen that simulates the low-pressure environment found at cruising altitude, a work zone where chefs can conduct more accurate taste tests. Delta turned over the corporate kitchen to big-name chefs like Michelle Bernstein and Michael Chiarello to up their culinary game. And some airlines have even commissioned outside research to help better understand the challenges they face feeding people five miles up in the sky.
Scientists found that perceptions of saltiness and sweetness drop by as much as 30 percent onboard.
In 2010, Lufthansa worked with the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics IBP to answer a variety of questions concerning inflight dining, among them, why passengers were ordering tomato juice onboard at an exaggerated clip. Fraunhofer’s scientists found that perceptions of saltiness and sweetness drop by as much as 30 percent onboard, due largely to the fact that our odor receptors (taste being largely a function of smell) are compromised in the bone-dry environment of an airplane cabin. This might make the salty-sweet punch of tomato juice more attractive to people who wouldn’t touch the stuff on the ground, but the impact on more subtle foods like seafood, chicken, and pasta can be devastating.
But it turns out it’s not just that moisture-sapping pressurized cabins that compromise taste. Glaring lights and the drone of the engine can also impact our perception of flavor. “In the unfamiliar environment of the aircraft cabin, people are more exposed to basic stimuli and less likely to notice details,” says Dr. Florian Mayer, one of the scientists behind Fraunhofer’s research. “This pushes up stimulus thresholds, with the result that a stronger stimulus is required to trigger a response.”
Cost-cutting pencil heads, palette-crushing cabin pressure, flavor-distracting engines: When you take all of these factors into account, the fact that we are served even mediocre meals constitutes a minor miracle in kitchen science. It’s not despite these challenges that I love airline food, but because of them.
When it comes to the little pleasures of life, environment, and circumstance are everything, which is why a cold can of Heineken and a Jennifer Aniston-Hugh Grant flick go down so easy at high altitudes—not because the beer is better or the movie is less saccharine, but because these tiny touches of real life distract us from the bizarre truth that we’re zipping across the sky in the belly of a metal bird. If we extend that generosity of judgment to average beers and lame romantic comedies, why don’t we do the same for that semi-mysterious entree?
If you drink wine, make sure it’s the most powerful grape on hand. Subtleties are lost above the clouds.
But my affinity for airline cuisine is not merely an appreciation of the dark arts it takes to create it. Over the years of nonstop air travel, I’ve developed a few strategies that help me avoid the types of disappointment infrequent flyers experience when they plunge head first into an inflight meal. First, always opt for the sauciest entrée: braises, stews, and curries get better over time, whereas pieces of lightly-dressed protein are almost uniformly dry and bland. (Be sure to choose tomato-based sauces over cream-based ones, which taste tame and one-dimensional at high altitude.) Make immediate use of those salt and pepper packets; though airline caterers salt their food more heavily, they still err on the side of restraint. And if you drink wine, make sure it’s the most powerful grape on hand. Subtleties are lost above the clouds.
As a general preemptive measure, fly Asian airlines as often as possible. “The coach service in Asian and Middle Eastern airlines is comparable to the business-class service you get from American carriers,” says William McGee. The Singapore girls will soak you in fruity Singapore Slings, All Nippon offers respectable soba and Japanese-style fried chicken to their coach passengers, and Korean Airlines boasts their own farm, which provides the building blocks for their legendary bibimbap.
And one last thing: Regardless of where you’re flying and whom you’re flying with, always take the chicken over the pasta. All that heating and reheating leaves the pile of noodles limp and lifeless, which is inexcusable at any altitude.
Photos and additional reporting by Gregory Dicum ||||| Photo courtesy of Gregory Dicum
Each Friday, Roads & Kingdoms and Slate publish a new dispatch from around the globe. For more foreign correspondence mixed with food, war, travel, and photography, visit their online magazine or follow @roadskingdoms on Twitter.
It’s the question that nobody ever truly wants to answer, the kind of query known to strike fear into the hearts of free men and women, to twist stomachs into knots, and make those willing to brave the not-so-friendly skies wish they had a parachute.
“Chicken or pasta?”
Advertisement
Airplane food has long been a punch line for late-night comedians and disenchanted road warriors. In one of the greatest customer complaint letters of all time, a Virgin Atlantic passenger offered up this critique to owner Sir Richard Branson: “The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird.”
But as the rest of the world collectively wrenches at the thought of another mystery meal at 36,000 feet, I have a confession to make: I love airplane food.
That’s right. The plastic tray of overcooked veggies, insipid sauces, and industrial condiments: I crave it. I love the summer sausage and soft, spreadable cheese packets. I love the cold, stone-hard bread, even more when dipped into the plastic tug of hydrogenated oil. I love dumping an entire packet of black pepper over my chicken, which is invariably drowning in a viscous brown sauce of unknown provenance. When the smell from the galley fills the main cabin and the wheels of the service carts start spinning, I shake with anticipation.
I don’t normally admit this. When one of those typical conversations comes up—the ones that start with “and what’s the deal with airline food?”—I shake my head in feigned disgust, offer up some prepackaged dismissal of the genre, and hope the moment passes before my true feelings surface. That’s because we are trained from our first moments of flying to not like airplane food, to mistrust those little trays filled with indistinguishable piles of starch, protein, and plant matter. And, on an objective level, there are plenty of faults to find with the starched salads and dubious cuts of meat served in economy class.
Advertisement
It wasn’t always this way. Meals were once the highlight of air travel. A 1958 Pan Am commercial shows an exuberant couple being fed from a cart containing great hunks of roast beef and holiday ham as the announcer tells us that “delicious food adds to the enjoyment. It’s is prepared in four simultaneously-operating galleys where dishes can be cooked in five-minute ovens.” Back then, federal government strictly regulated airfare prices, so the only way to compete for customers was by offering superior service. That meant rolling meat carts and briny seafood trays and free packs of cigarettes for dessert (really).
What nostalgists who talk about the golden age of flying forget, though, is that air travel back then was a privilege reserved for the rich. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles in 1958 cost $1,580 by today’s dollar. (Four times what it costs today). But all of that changed in 1978, when Congress finally deregulated air travel pricing. The fare wars soon followed, as airlines looked to cut costs elsewhere to make up for the lower ticket prices. Gone were the days of martini carts and caviar service.
Though slashing luxury food items may have been the most conspicuous change, the cut that rocked the industry and inspired a new era of corporate penny-pinching came from American Airlines’ chief Bob Crandall, who in 1987 calculated that removing a single olive from onboard salads would save the company $40,000. In the decades since Crandall’s olive, industry number crunchers have busied themselves with extrapolating the savings found for removing everything from beverage garnishes ($50,000, as United discovered) to salad strawberries ($210,000, for Delta) to those little bags of crushed pretzels ($2.5 million for Continental).
As the realities of sluggish post-9/11 air travel mounted, American carriers dropped domestic meal service altogether, with Continental serving up the industry’s last free economy class meal in October of 2010. Buy-on-board meals are now the standard on domestic flights, turning what was once a major expense into a profit center for airlines, says William McGee, author of the 2012 book Attention All Passengers.
Advertisement
“It’s gone from hot meals to cold meals, cold meals to snacks,” says McGee. “They conditioned us over time that our expectations should be lower and lower. What’s happened conversely at the same time is the quality of food in airports has increased tremendously, which is why a lot more people these days are brown bagging.”
But meals on international flights remain a fundamental part of the aviation equation, with the world’s biggest carriers showing a renewed interest to combat the negative perception and confront the myriad challenges that come with serving food at 36,000 feet.
Photo courtesy of Gregory Dicum
Let me be clear: I’ve only eaten a handful of meals in my life on an airplane that would satisfy me back on Earth, but when it comes to eating, context is everything. When you take into account all that goes into an airplane meal, all of the immense logistical, financial, and scientific challenges conspiring to make food vanish altogether from the skies, it’s astounding we’re served anything at all.
Those challenges came into focus recently in San Francisco as a few dozen members of Singapore Airlines’ catering staff gathered for two days to test out the fall menu lineup for a chunk of its North American-based routes. Dressed in a mix of chefs’ coats and lab coats, armed with thick binders and clipboards, the group tasted and tweaked their way through nearly 200 first, business, and economy class dishes, taking notes, dispensing criticisms, and logistical concerns, then adjusting until the dishes addressed the laundry list of requirements it takes to make it to your seatback tray.
Advertisement
On the ground, they all looked like winners: lobster dumplings with steamed bok choi and a heady seafood broth; rows of gently steamed, artfully assembled dim sum; composed salads with autumn fruit and rosy curls of Spanish Iberico ham.
“That micro basil is an elegant touch,” whispered one chef to another.
But up in the air, the challenges of serving hot, visually-appealing, texturally-diverse meals pile up quickly. Does the chicken stuffed with dried apricots look right in that serving vessel? Can that appetizing garnish fit into the 2-inch space in the plane’s convection oven? Is it too expensive to pay a cook to cut those cherry tomatoes in half so they don’t roll around during flight? For an airline serving more than 50,000 meals each day out of their Singapore hub alone, the tiny details matter.
Photo courtesy of Gregory Dicum
“The customer has every right to expect a good meal,” says Hermann Freidanck, Executive Chef for Singapore Airlines. “It’s our job to fulfill that, but it can be a challenge. A three-step process on the ground will become a 10-step process inflight.”
Advertisement
To illustrate the difficulties airline caterers face, Freidanck’s executive sous chef Edmund Lee points to an experiment with one of California’s most iconic foods: the In-N-Out cheeseburger. “I’ve been asking my colleagues in L.A. to see if we can get In-N-Out on board. It’s more challenging than you think. The lettuce gets wilted, the cheese is off, the bun would be dry and hard. And that’s just a burger.”
All of this is to say nothing of the most important challenge of all: taste. As the jokes have accumulated over the years, airlines have worked to change the perception of in-flight cuisine. Singapore spent $1 million to build a kitchen that simulates the low-pressure environment found at cruising altitude, a work zone where chefs can conduct more accurate taste tests. Delta turned over the corporate kitchen to big-name chefs like Michelle Bernstein and Michael Chiarello to up their culinary game. And some airlines have even commissioned outside research to help better understand the challenges they face feeding people five miles up in the sky.
In 2010, Lufthansa worked with the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics IBP to answer a variety of questions concerning inflight dining, among them, why passengers were ordering tomato juice onboard at an exaggerated clip. Fraunhofer’s scientists found that perceptions of saltiness and sweetness drop by as much as 30 percent onboard, due largely to the fact that our odor receptors (taste being largely a function of smell) are compromised in the bone-dry environment of an airplane cabin. This might make the salty-sweet punch of tomato juice more attractive to people who wouldn’t touch the stuff on the ground, but the impact on more subtle foods like seafood, chicken, and pasta can be devastating.
But it turns out it’s not just that moisture-sapping pressurized cabins that compromise taste. Glaring lights and the drone of the engine can also impact our perception of flavor. “In the unfamiliar environment of the aircraft cabin, people are more exposed to basic stimuli and less likely to notice details,” says Dr. Florian Mayer, one of the scientists behind Fraunhofer’s research. “This pushes up stimulus thresholds, with the result that a stronger stimulus is required to trigger a response.”
Advertisement
Cost-cutting pencil heads, palate-crushing cabin pressure, flavor-distracting engines: When you take all of these factors into account, the fact that we are served even mediocre meals constitutes a minor miracle in kitchen science. It’s not despite these challenges that I love airline food, but because of them.
When it comes to the little pleasures of life, environment, and circumstance are everything, which is why a cold can of Heineken and a Jennifer Aniston–Hugh Grant flick go down so easy at high altitudes—not because the beer is better or the movie is less saccharine, but because these tiny touches of real life distract us from the bizarre truth that we’re zipping across the sky in the belly of a metal bird. If we extend that generosity of judgment to average beers and lame romantic comedies, why don’t we do the same for that semi-mysterious entree?
But my affinity for airline cuisine is not merely an appreciation of the dark arts it takes to create it. Over the years of nonstop air travel, I’ve developed a few strategies that help me avoid the types of disappointment infrequent flyers experience when they plunge head first into an inflight meal. First, always opt for the sauciest entrée: braises, stews, and curries get better over time, whereas pieces of lightly-dressed protein are almost uniformly dry and bland. (Be sure to choose tomato-based sauces over cream-based ones, which taste tame and one-dimensional at high altitude.) Make immediate use of those salt and pepper packets; though airline caterers salt their food more heavily, they still err on the side of restraint. And if you drink wine, make sure it’s the most powerful grape on hand. Subtleties are lost above the clouds.
As a general preemptive measure, fly Asian airlines as often as possible. “The coach service in Asian and Middle Eastern airlines is comparable to the business-class service you get from American carriers,” says William McGee. The Singapore girls will soak you in fruity Singapore Slings, All Nippon offers respectable soba and Japanese-style fried chicken to their coach passengers, and Korean Airlines boasts their own farm, which provides the building blocks for their legendary bibimbap.
And one last thing: Regardless of where you’re flying and whom you’re flying with, always take the chicken over the pasta. All that heating and reheating leaves the pile of noodles limp and lifeless, which is inexcusable at any altitude. | Airplane food may be the butt of many, many jokes, but Matt Goulding admits to craving "the plastic tray of overcooked veggies, insipid sauces, and industrial condiments." And no, he's not joking. But he's quick to point out that context matters. "I've only eaten a handful of meals in my life on an airplane that would satisfy me back on Earth," he writes for Roads & Kingdoms in a piece highlighted on Slate. But in the air, there's a lot going on that you may not realize. For one, your ability to perceive saltiness and sweetness can plunge by 30%, which makes the delicate flavors of chicken and pasta taste just plain awful. A plane's lights and engine also impact your flavor awareness, and cabins mess with your odor receptors, too. And then there are other weird considerations for the airline (like whether to pay extra to cut cherry tomatoes in half so they don't roll). Put it all together and in the end, "the fact that we are served even mediocre meals constitutes a minor miracle in kitchen science," writes Goulding. But there's a way to make your next experience with that minor miracle a bit tastier: Go for the sauciest dish, use those salt and pepper packets pronto, and always choose chicken over oft-reheated pasta. Read his full column here. |
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Radovan Karadzic listened intently as the verdict and sentence was read out
Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has been convicted of genocide and war crimes in the 1992-95 Bosnian war, and sentenced to 40 years in jail.
UN judges in The Hague found him guilty of 10 of 11 charges, including genocide over the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.
Karadzic, 70, is the most senior political figure to face judgement over the violent collapse of Yugoslavia.
His case is being seen as one of the most important war crimes trials since World War Two.
He had denied the charges, saying that any atrocities committed were the actions of rogue individuals, not the forces under his command.
The trial, in which he represented himself, lasted eight years.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia Bakir Izetbegovic said it was a verdict of "tremendous importance"
The current president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, Milorad Dodik, condemned the verdict.
"The West has apportioned blame to the Serbian people and that guilty cliche was imposed on all the decision-makers, including in this case today... Karadzic," he said at a ceremony to commemorate the anniversary of the start of Nato air strikes against Yugoslavia in 1999.
"It really hurts that somebody has decided to deliver this verdict in The Hague exactly today, on the day when Nato decided to bomb Serbia... to cause so much catastrophic damage and so many casualties," Mr Dodik added.
At the scene: Paul Adams, BBC News, The Hague
Radovan Karadzic had said no reasonable court would convict him. But listening to Judge Kwon, it was hard to see how any reasonable court could not convict him.
Mr Karadzic listened intently, the corners of his mouth pulled down in a look of permanent disgust and, just perhaps, disbelief. By the end of an hour and 40 minutes, it was obvious what was coming.
There's a strong sense of satisfaction here that one of the chief architects of Bosnia's bloody dismemberment has finally been found guilty. The court's work is almost done.
But all eyes now will be on the fate of Karadzic's main general, Ratko Mladic. His name came up a great deal during Judge Kwon's summation, particularly in regard to the massacre of Srebrenica.
It will be astonishing if Gen Mladic doesn't face a similar verdict and sentence.
Karadzic verdict vital to Bosnia's future
Balkans war: a brief guide
Profile: Radovan Karadzic
Bosniak and Serb reaction
Exploring the corridors of the Hague tribunal
Meanwhile, some relatives of victims expressed disappointment at the outcome.
"This came too late," said Bida Smajlovic, whose husband was killed at Srebrenica.
"We were handed down a verdict in 1995. There is no sentence that could compensate for the horrors we went through or for the tears of only one mother, let alone thousands," she was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.
Karadzic's lawyer said he would appeal, a process that could take several more years.
Image copyright EPA Image caption Many Bosnians have been following the trial closely
"Dr Karadzic is disappointed and astonished. He feels that he was convicted on inference instead of evidence and will appeal [against] the judgement," Peter Robinson told journalists.
Karadzic faced two counts of genocide.
He was found not guilty of the first, relating to killing in several Bosnian municipalities.
But he was found guilty of the second count relating to Srebrenica, where Bosnian Serb forces massacred more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys.
"Karadzic was in agreement with the plan of the killings," Judge O-Gon Kwon said.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What happened at Srebrenica? Explained in under two minutes
The massacre happened in July 1995 when Srebrenica, an enclave besieged by Bosnian Serb forces for three years, was overrun. The bodies of the victims were dumped in mass graves.
Karadzic was also found guilty of crimes against humanity relating to the siege and shelling of the city of Sarajevo over several years which left nearly 12,000 people dead.
The judge said he had significantly contributed to a plan which emanated from the leadership and whose primary purpose was to spread terror in the city.
Charges
Genocide
Count 1 - genocide (in municipalities of Bratunac, Foca, Klyuc, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik) - not guilty
Count 2 - genocide (in Srebrenica) - guilty
Crimes against humanity
Count 3 - persecutions - guilty
Count 4 - extermination - guilty
Count 5 - murder - guilty
Count 7 - deportation - guilty
Count 8 - inhumane acts (forcible transfer) - guilty
Violations of the laws or customs of war
Count 6 - murder - guilty
Count 9 - terror (in Sarajevo) - guilty
Count 10 - unlawful attacks on civilians (in Sarajevo) - guilty
Count 11 - taking hostage of UN observers and peacekeepers - guilty
The full indictment
Mr Karadzic was also found guilty of orchestrating a campaign known as "ethnic cleansing" of non-Serbs from the territory of the breakaway Bosnian Serb republic, in which hundreds and thousands were driven from their homes.
He would only be expected to serve two-thirds of his sentence. His time spent in detention - slightly more than seven years - will count towards the total.
Top UN human rights official Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein welcomed the verdict as "hugely significant".
He said the trial "should give pause to leaders across Europe and elsewhere who seek to exploit nationalist sentiments and scapegoat minorities for broader social ills".
At least 100,000 people in total died during fighting in the the Bosnian war. The conflict lasted nearly four years before a US-brokered peace deal brought it to an end in 1995.
Gen Ratko Mladic, who commanded Bosnian Serb forces, is also awaiting his verdict at The Hague.
Image copyright AP Image caption Radovan Karadzic in August 1995
Karadzic Timeline
1945: Born in Montenegro
1960: Moves to Sarajevo
1968: Publishes collection of poetry
1971: Graduates in medicine
1983: Becomes team psychologist for Red Star Belgrade football club
1990: Becomes president of Serbian Democratic Party
1990s Political leader of Bosnian Serbs
2008: Arrested in Serbia
2009: Trial begins at The Hague
2016: Guilty verdict, sentenced to 40 years
Were you affected by the war in Bosnia? Let us know about your experiences. Email [email protected] with your stories.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways: ||||| Wartime leader of Bosnian Serbs found guilty of 10 of 11 charges at international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
The former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić has been found guilty of genocide over the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica and sentenced to 40 years in jail.
The key verdict from a United Nations tribunal in The Hague was delivered 18 months after a five-year trial of Karadžić, accused of being one of the chief architects of atrocities during the 1992-95 Balkans war.
The 70-year-old, who insisted his actions were aimed at protecting Serbs during the Bosnian conflict, was found guilty of 10 out of the 11 charges he faced at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Karadžic trial points to advantages of focused criminal tribunals Read more
Prosecutors said that Karadžić, as political leader and commander-in-chief of Serb forces in Bosnia, was responsible for some the worst acts of brutality during the war, including the 44-month deadly siege of Sarajevo and the 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 Bosnian men and boys in the Srebrenica enclave.
Speaking after the verdicts, Serge Brammertz, the tribunal’s chief prosecutor, said: “Moments like this should also remind us that in innumerable conflicts around the world today, millions of victims are now waiting for their own justice. This judgement shows that it is possible to deliver it.”
The presiding ICTY judge delivering the ruling, O-Gon Kwon, cleared Karadžić of one charge: responsibility for genocide in attacks on other towns and villages where Croats and Bosnians were driven out.
On Srebrenica, Kwon said: “On the basis of the totality of the evidence, the [ICTY] finds that the accused shared the expanded common purpose of killing the Bosnian Muslim males of Srebrenica and that he significantly contributed to it.”
Karadžić was the only person with the power to intervene and protect those being killed, Kwon said. “Far from that,” he said, “the accused ordered Bosnian male detainees to be transferred elsewhere to be killed. With full knowledge of the ongoing killing, Karadžić declared a state of war in Srebrenica.”
Karadžić’s other convictions were for five counts of crimes against humanity and four of war crimes, including taking UN peacekeepers hostage, deporting civilians, murder and attacks on combatants.
During the 100-minute verdict and sentencing, Karadžić sat impassively, not in the dock but on the defence bench, as he opted throughout the five-year trial to act as his own lead counsel.
He smiled and nodded to one or two familiar faces from the Serb press in the gallery, but hardly glanced at the public gallery, which was packed with survivors and victims’ family members, mostly women grieving lost sons and husbands. They obeyed the tribunal instructions to stay quiet throughout the proceedings, though there was a quiet grunt of disappointment when Karadžić was acquitted of one of the genocide charges.
The only time Karadžić appeared nervous was when he stood to receive sentence, his arms stiff by his side. His lawyer said he would appeal.
Outside the tribunal, there was anger that Karadžić did not receive a life sentence. “Is the tribunal not ashamed? Do the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats not have a right to justice? He got 40 years. That’s not enough,” said Kada Hotic, one of the bereaved mothers from Srebrenica.
The verdicts are the most significant moment in the 23-year existence of the ICTY, and among the last it will deliver. Set up in 1993, the court has so far indicted 161 suspects. Of those, 80 were convicted and sentenced, 18 acquitted, 13 sent back to local courts and 36 had the indictments withdrawn or died.
The former psychiatrist and charismatic politician, still with his characteristic bouffant hairstyle, is the most senior Balkans leader to face judgment at the ICTY. The former Serbian president Slobodan Milošević died in his cell in The Hague in 2006 before judges could deliver their verdicts on his trial.
Apart from Karadžić, three suspects remain on trial, including his military chief, Ratko Mladić and Serb ultranationalist Vojislav Šešelj. Eight cases are being appealed and two defendants are to face retrials. The judgment in Šešelj’s case is scheduled for next Thursday.
Karadžić was indicted along with Mladić in 1995 but evaded arrest until he was captured in Belgrade, Serbia, in 2008. At the time he was posing as New Age healer Dr Dragan Dabic, and was disguised by a thick beard and shaggy hair.
More than 20 years after the guns fell silent in Bosnia, Karadžić is still considered a hero in Serb-controlled parts of the country, and the verdict is unlikely to help reconcile the enduring deep divisions in Bosnia and the region. ||||| (CNN) Radovan Karadzic, nicknamed the "Butcher of Bosnia," was sentenced to 40 years in prison Thursday after being found guilty of genocide and other crimes against humanity over atrocities that Bosnian Serb forces committed during the Bosnian War from 1992 to 1995.
A special U.N. court in The Hague, Netherlands, found the 70-year-old guilty of genocide over his responsibility for the Srebrenica massacre, in which more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed by Bosnian Serb forces under his command.
Karadzic, former leader of the breakaway Serb Republic in Bosnia, is the highest-ranking political figure to have been brought to justice over the bitter ethnic conflicts that erupted with the collapse of the former Yugoslavia.
After the verdict, thousands of Serbian ultranationalist supporters of Karadzic took to the streets of Serbian capital of Belgrade, carrying images of the former leader and saying he was being punished for being a Serb.
On the streets of Belgrade, people voiced mixed reactions to the sentence.
"He was given 40 years, did not get a life? So it's a disaster," one man said.
Another said, "They should charge other people, not Radovan Karadzic. He defended Serbian people, sacrificed himself for Serbian people, but authorities in Serbia sent him to Hague."
Prosecutor Serge Brammertz said in a statement that the verdict and sentence "will stand against continuing attempts at denying the suffering of thousands and the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia."
"Moments like this should also remind us that in innumerable conflicts around the world today, millions of victims are now waiting for their own justice," he added. "This judgment shows that it is possible to deliver it."
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hailed the verdicts as a "historic" result for the people of the former Yugoslavia and for international criminal justice, while the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, said they exposed Karadzic as "the architect of destruction and murder on a massive scale."
Karadzic, a former psychiatrist, was found guilty of 10 of the 11 charges against him, including extermination, persecution, forcible transfer, terror and hostage taking.
In a statement, the tribunal said it found Karadzic had committed the crimes through his participation in four "joint criminal enterprises," including an overarching plot from October 1991 to November 1995 "to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory."
The trial was heard by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia -- an ad hoc court the United Nations established to prosecute serious crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia.
John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International's director for Europe and Central Asia, said the results confirmed Karadzic's "command responsibility for the most serious crimes under international law carried out on European soil since the Second World War."
The Croatian government hailed the verdicts Thursday -- which came at the end of an eight-year trial -- as welcome but long overdue, calling them "the minimum, for which the victims and their families unfortunately waited too long."
Genocide in Srebrenica
In July 1995, tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims had sought refuge in the spa town of Srebrenica -- designated a U.N. "safe area" -- as the Bosnian Serb army marched toward them.
But with only about 100 lightly equipped Dutch peacekeepers there for protection, the town was overrun by Serb forces.
Delivering the verdicts, presiding Judge O-Gon Kwon said the tribunal found that about 30,000 Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly men had been removed to Muslim-held territory by Bosnia Serb forces acting on Karadzic's orders.
Karadzic's forces then detained the Muslim men and boys in a number of locations before taking them to nearby sites, where they were executed by the thousands.
The tribunal found that Karadzic was the only person within the Serb Republic with the power to intervene to prevent them being killed, but instead he had personally ordered that detainees be transferred elsewhere to be killed.
It found he shared with other Bosnian Serb leaders the intent to kill every able-bodied Bosnian Muslim male from Srebrenica -- which amounted "to the intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica," the tribunal said in a statement.
Civilians targeted in Sarajevo
Other charges against Karadzic stemmed from the infamous siege of Sarajevo, from 1992 to 1995, during which more than 11,000 people died.
JUST WATCHED Haunted by the Bosnian War Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Haunted by the Bosnian War 03:06
The judge said Bosnian Serb forces had consistently and deliberately targeted civilians in Sarajevo, acts that constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"Sarajevo civilians were sniped while fetching water, walking in the city, and when using public transport. Children were sniped at while playing in front of their houses, walking with their parents or walking home from school," the judge said.
He said Karadzic was "consistently informed" about the targeting of civilians, had allowed it to intensify and used it to exert pressure in pursuit of his political goals.
The judge said the sniping attacks on the civilian population, which instilled extreme fear among the city's residents, could not have occurred without Karadzic's support, and the only reasonable inference was that the former Serb leader had intended murder, unlawful attacks on civilians and terror.
U.N. peacekeepers taken hostage
The tribunal also found Karadzic guilty of taking U.N. peacekeepers hostage in May and June 1995, with the judge calling him a "driving force" behind a plot to put the hostages in key military and other strategic locations to deter NATO airstrikes on the targets.
The judge said the U.N. personnel were also threatened during their detention, with the goal of bringing a halt to the strikes altogether.
Karadzic was found not guilty on one of the counts of genocide, relating to crimes against Bosnian Muslims and Croats in "municipalities" throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The tribunal found that Serb forces had killed, raped, forcibly displaced and tortured the other ethnic groups in the municipalities, and found Karadzic guilty of persecution, extermination, deportation, forcible transfer and murder in relation to crimes committed there.
However, the judge said, the court was unable to identify or infer genocidal intent, and therefore couldn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt that genocide had occurred there.
Bizarre path to justice
Karadzic, who had denied the charges against him -- blaming any war crimes committed on rogue elements -- has the right to appeal.
He is also entitled to credit for the time he has spent in custody since his arrest in July 2008.
His road to The Hague has been a long one, marked by bizarre twists. He went into hiding in 1996 and was not arrested until 12 years later. When he emerged, he was heavily disguised by a white beard, long hair and spectacles.
Radovan Karadzic used a disguise of a beard and glasses while in hiding.
Serb officials revealed that Karadzic had been hiding in plain sight -- working in a clinic in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, under a false identity as a "healer."
He had also managed to publish a book of poetry during his time on the run.
He was extradited to The Hague to face charges and pleaded not guilty. He initially tried to represent himself, leading to delays in his trial, but eventually was forced to accept an attorney.
Thursday's verdict comes more than a year after the end of his trial in 2014. The 500-day trial included evidence from 586 witnesses and more than 11,000 exhibits. | A UN tribunal has found Radovan Karadzic, aka the "Butcher of Bosnia," guilty of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and sentenced the 70-year-old to 40 years in prison. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found the former Bosnian Serb leader "criminally responsible" for the 3.5-year siege of Sarajevo that killed 12,000 and for the slaying of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war, reports the Guardian. The New York Times says the atrocities "were part of the most severe war crimes since World War II." The tribunal has previously convicted and sentenced 80 people; three others are on trial, including Karadzic's military chief. Karadzic had pleaded not guilty to 11 charges, including two counts of genocide, noting he had tried to protect Serbs and was a "true friend to Muslims," per the Times. But after a 491-day trial, judge O-Gon Kwon said Thursday that Karadzic was "consistently informed" about Bosnian Serb forces targeting civilians in Sarajevo and "in agreement with the plan of the killings" at Srebrenica, report the BBC and CNN. He was found guilty of all charges but one: a genocide charge related to a campaign to expel Bosnian Muslims and Croats from traditionally-Serb areas. However, he was convicted of persecution, extermination, deportation, forcible transfer, and murder in that case. |
This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Let's say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He's a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO killed a guy to get ahead in his career, but the CEO doesn't get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?Okay, keep your answer in mind.The next question is for supporters of President Obama. Let's say your political views map closely to the President's positions. He's your guy. But suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen in the United States to help his reelection. And assume, as with the CEO example, that the facts of the killing are undisputed and the President found a legal means to avoid prosecution. In that hypothetical case, would you still vote for President Obama? Or would you say it is a firing offense for a President to kill a citizen to advance his career?I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don't think there is such a thing as a "firing offense."For the record, President Obama did not technically kill anyone to get elected. That was just a hypothetical example. But he is putting an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law. And I assume the President - who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth - is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected. What other reason could there be?One could argue that the President is just doing his job and enforcing existing Federal laws. That's the opposite of what he said he would do before he was elected, but lying is obviously not a firing offense for politicians.Personally, I'd prefer death to spending the final decades of my life in prison. So while President Obama didn't technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow's life, and his family's lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders. And he is doing it to advance his career. If that's not a firing offense, what the hell is?Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration. But he's enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can't be sure. And I'm fairly certain he'd want a second term. He might find it "economical" to use federal resources in other ways than attacking California voters. And he is vocal about promoting states' rights, so he's got political cover for ignoring dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.So while I don't agree with Romney's positions on most topics, I'm endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.: Congratulations to Politico for being the first to take this post out of context. I'm a little disappointed in Jezebel, Gawker and Salon for being slow to the party. Are all of their context-removers on vacation or something?]: Nipping on the heels of Politico, Mediaite.com weighs in with their own out-of-context outrage. They managed to throw in some charges of racism and something about rape. Well done.]: Kudos to Reason.com for doing a good job preserving the context of this post while still quoting from it. Notice their story headline shows they understand the central point of my post. And since their readership probably overlaps a lot with mine, my writing makes sense in their environment too. That rarely happens. -- Scott]: Meanwhile, at Huffington Post, where context goes to die , a key point in my blog post has been summarized as: ". . . cartoonist Scott Adams said he's under the impression Romney would be softer on marijuana than President Barack Obama." Is that how you would interpret my sentence "Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration"? If not, you can't write for Huffington Post.: Daily Kos takes the context destruction trophy by proudly quoting from the Politico article's out-of-context treatment. Daily Kos scored a rare "double" by taking out of context a piece that was already out of context. Their under-informed readers chimed in to point out that they are sure I don't believe in evolution, which I've often publicly said meets the tests to be called a scientific fact. Another commenter points out that I must hate women because the Alice character is getting less time in Dilbert. You can't get that kind of insight anywhere but Daily Kos.": Newser.com gets an "A" for reporting the story objectively and even mentioning that context is an issue and readers can come here to see it in its native context. Nicely done.]: A little late to the party, but Gawker finally weighed in with a snarky dismissal of their misinterpretation of what I wrote. It's not a party until you guys show up. Can Jezebel be far behind?] ||||| The creator of the well-known comic strip “Dilbert” is grudgingly endorsing Mitt Romney for president.
A key factor in his decision, wrote cartoonist Scott Adams, is what he described as President Barack Obama’s role in a ruling in federal court to send to prison a California man who operates a medical marijuana dispensary, with a sentence between 10 years and life.
Text Size -
+
reset
“And I assume the President — who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth — is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected,” Adams wrote, pinning blame for the man’s arrest on Obama. “What other reason could there be?”
“Personally, I’d prefer death to spending the final decades of my life in prison,” Adams continued. “So while President Obama didn’t technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow’s life, and his family’s lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders. And he is doing it to advance his career. If that’s not a firing offense, what the hell is?”
Adams, who said that he disagrees with Romney on “most topics,” said “one can’t be sure” where Romney would stand on the subject — so he offered up his endorsement of the GOP nominee.
“Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration,” he wrote. “But he’s enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can’t be sure. And I’m fairly certain he’d want a second term. He might find it “economical” to use federal resources in other ways than attacking California voters. And he is vocal about promoting states’ rights, so he’s got political cover for ignoring dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.
“So while I don’t agree with Romney’s positions on most topics, I’m endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.” ||||| A Southern California man faces ten years to life in prison for operating a medical marijuana dispensary, despite the fact that such businesses are legal in the state of California.
Rancho Cucamonga resident Aaron Sandusky was convicted in a federal court Friday of two marijuana-related counts. The first is conspiracy to manufacture marijuana plants and maintain a drug-involved premises. The second count is possession of marijuana plants with intent to distribute -- which essentially means he was running a pot shop, notes LA Weekly. On each count, the jury found that Sandusky had worked with at least 1,000 marijuana plants.
Sandusky, 41, faces a minimum of 10 years to life in prison. He was taken into custody after the trial and the sentencing hearing is scheduled for Jan. 2013.
The charges stem from Sandusky's three medical marijuana collectives, known as "G3 Holisitic," in the Inland Empire cities of Upland, Colton and Moreno Valley. The U.S. attorney's office had sent Sandusky letters in Oct. 2011 warning him that the stores were violating federal law, and in response Sandusky closed two of them.
The next month, federal agents raided the remaining store, in Upland, twice. They seized marijuana plants and $11,500 in cash, effectively wiping out Sandusky's entire business.
The conviction at the federal court level is a blow to the medical marijuana community in California, some of whom have been supporting Sandusky through a website raising money for his legal defense.
His case also underscores the contrast between California -- which recognizes the medicinal properties of pot and protects marijuana dispensaries -- and federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal controlled substance with no accepted medical use.
Federalism issues didn't come into play during the trial, which Zach Weissmueller, a writer for libertarian magazine Reason, believes weakened Sandusky's case. In a blog for Reason, Weissmueller writes:
The federal government was successful in quelling any discussion of medical marijuana laws, federalism, or jury nullification--all of which were specters looming over the case when they discussed it in open court while jurors were not present. In closing statements, the federal prosecutors were sure to emphasize to jurors that personal feelings, political beliefs, and morals do not matter. The law is the law. One prosecutor instructed the jury "not to debate the law, but to apply the law." If there was one important takeaway from the prosecution's closing, it was this phrase, emblazoned on one of their presentational slides: "Factual determination, not moral judgment."
Another point of contention during the trial was the fact that the judge did not allow Sandusky to claim entrapment based on President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder's public statements on medical marijuana.
Throughout his first campaign, Obama had said he wouldn't use federal resources to circumvent state laws about medical marijuana. During a 2009 press conference, Holder followed up on that promise, saying that federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries would be coming to an end unless the shops violated both state and federal law.
Sandusky had been charged along with five others who worked at G3, all of whom took plea deals and avoided a trial. During the course of the trial, G3 co-founder and owner John Leslie Nuckolls II, one of the men charged, admitted to having worked for the county District Attorney's Office and the DEA, reports the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
In an August interview with ReasonTV (video above), Sandusky had called the conflict between California medical marijuana laws and federal drug laws a "constitutional battle" and vowed to defend the 10th Amendment right for states to pass their own laws. "If I have to go to jail for 20 years defending it, then so be it," said Sandusky. "If a jury finds me guilty of violating federal law, then I'll go do the time." ||||| Dilbert creator Scott Adams, last seen blaming society for being cruel to rapists and defending a chain email depicting President Obama as a chimpanzee, has now, appropriately enough, endorsed Mitt Romney for President. Coming, as it does, on the same day as the big Dennis Miller endorsement, it appears that Team Romney has now completely locked down the White Guys Who Laughed In 1993 demographic.
While Adams’ endorsement is no surprise (other than the accompanying fact that Dilbert still exists), nor is it really news, his “logic” is worth more laughs than his comic strip ever was.
First, some background. There are things called “newspapers” that are like a whole bunch of websites printed on paper, and in these newspapers are things called “comic strips.” Many of them are for kids, but there have been, like, three (The Far Side, Bloom County, Doonesbury, did I miss any?) funny ones for adults. Dilbert is one of the other kind, and it’s creator, Scott Adams, is a model citizen of entitled white male America. Like a lot of these guys, Adams gets his librul on when it comes to his own right to smoke weed or do whatever the eff he wants (aka “Libertarianism”), but gets all Republican-y when it comes time to pay for the society that protects and promotes his privileges.
Thus, the premise of Adams’ endorsement is that President Obama has been too tough on medical marijuana dispensaries, but Mitt Romney will be better because he sucks so much. Or something like that. Also, the President kinda killed a guy, but not really. But he totally killed a guy:
Let’s say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He’s a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO killed a guy to get ahead in his career, but the CEO doesn’t get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?
Well, the President didn’t kill a guy, but he did allow federal agents to enforce federal drug laws, which is kinda the same thing. Adams reasons that President Obama should be fired for enforcing laws that people like Mitt Romney will never allow to be changed. I don’t like the President’s record on medical marijuana, but in my imaginary business, I don’t fire the guy who killed one dude so I can hire Hannibal Lecter.
In case you missed it, here’s the guy Dilbert wants to replace Obama with:
Follow Tommy Christopher (@TommyXtopher) on Twitter.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected] | No matter how much you like President Obama, you shouldn't vote for him, Dilbert creator Scott Adams argues in his latest provocative blog post. Why? Well, "suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen … to help his reelection," Adams muses. Would you still vote for him? Because in Adams' mind, Obama has done something nearly as bad in prosecuting people like medical marijuana dispensary owner Aaron Sandusky, presumably for political reasons. Sandusky was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison, even though his business was legal in California. "Personally, I'd prefer death to spending the final decades of my life in prison," Adams writes. Obama is "ruining this fellow's life, and his family's lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders." So while Adams disagrees with Romney on many things, he's endorsing him. "Jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense." The column has since been picked up by Politico, Mediaite, and others, and Adams says it's frequently being taken out of context. To read Adams' full post, click here. |
Food prices at the grocery store are up, following an increase in production costs and wholesale prices. In March, retail food prices rose 0.4% from the preceding month, matching February’s increase. These marked the largest monthly gains in food prices since September 2011, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Food prices are often volatile and are affected by a number of factors. While certain factors reflect human decision -- such as the changing tastes of consumers and farmers' planting choices -- others are forces over which farmers have very little control. Issues such as weather conditions and diseases can cause severe supply shortages that cause the price of products to rise.
ALSO READ: Nine Countries That Hate America Most
In recent years, drought in the western U.S. has driven up the prices of meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables. Parts of California, the Southwest, and the Great Plains have suffered from three consecutive years of drought, according to Brad Rippey, meteorologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). More than two-thirds of California is currently covered by extreme drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Of course, drought directly impacts crops. “Agriculture uses about 80% of California’s water,” Rippey told 24/7 Wall St., and, because of cutbacks in water delivery, “a lot of fields may have to lay fallow.”
Drought has also driven up meat prices because it caused feed prices to spike in recent years, Rippey added. The higher feed prices increase the cost of raising cattle for slaughter and, in the end, the meat prices for consumers. Bacon prices have gained more than nearly any other food tracked by the BLS since the start of the decade, rising 35% to $4.13 per pound.
ALSO READ: The 15 Highest-Paying Companies in America
The price of the only food product that has risen more than beef is bacon, which soared 53% since January 2010. This is due in large part to the spread of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv) in hogs. Although the disease has no effect on humans or food, it can be fatal for young pigs and is therefore expected to cut into hog production considerably. Ham and pork chop prices have also increased since 2010, up 32% and 24%, respectively.
Diseases are hardly limited to livestock. Citrus fruit, too, has suffered from a disease. Production of both oranges and grapefruits has dropped as citrus greening disease has damaged Florida crops -- which account for the majority of grapefruits and oranges produced in the U.S. Trade publications, national media, and even the USDA have portrayed the disease as a threat to the survival of the citrus industry.
Demand is another key factor that drives food prices. According to Steve Freed, vice president of research at ADM Investor Services, the agricultural world pays attention to a number of trends that can drive prices. These include the state of major economies, such as the U.S. and China, as well as consumer tastes. “We'll be watching any change in U.S. and world diet,” he added.
To identify the food prices that have risen the most, 24/7 Wall St. examined average retail price data published by the BLS Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period January 2010 through March 2014. Similar kinds of products, including certain beef and pork products, were grouped together to avoid duplication. We also reviewed data on commodity futures from CME Group and the IntercontinentalExchange Group for a range of products. A number of reports produced by the USDA were also considered.
These are the 10 fastest rising food prices.
10. Grapefruit
> 4-yr. change: +22%
> 1-yr. change: +6%
> Current price: $1.02 per lb.
Grapefruit farmers are currently battling citrus greening, a disease that has devastated Florida’s citrus crops. The disease is spread by an insect called the Asian citrus psyllid. It causes citrus trees to slowly die as fruit drops from the tree prematurely and unripened. According to the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, citrus greening -- also called Huanglongbing -- “undoubtedly poses the most serious threat that the Florida citrus industry has ever faced.” Likely as a result, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service predicts a massive national production decline. The U.S. Grapefruit crop is forecast to fall to 26.1 million boxes in the 2013-2014 year, down from 30.4 million boxes in the 2010-2011 year. This is largely driven by declines in Florida production.
ALSO READ: America's Fastest Shrinking Cities
9. Chicken
> 4-yr. change: +22%
> 1-yr. change: +5%
> Current price: $1.54 per lb.
As beef and pork prices continue to rise, consumers are also increasingly switching to chicken, which cost an average of just $1.54 per pound as of March, according to the BLS. By comparison, a pound of ham costs $2.93. Unlike feed cattle and live hogs, however, broilers -- chickens that are bred for meat production -- do not trade on an exchange. This may be surprising given that Americans actually consume more chicken than beef or pork. Additionally, recent long-term USDA forecasts indicate Americans will consume even more chicken in the future, while curbing their intake of beef and pork. Fast food companies, too, have increasingly featured chicken in their new products. These include Domino’s Specialty Chicken -- a pizza layered on top of chicken that serves as the base -- and KFC’s Double Down, a bacon and cheese sandwich with two pieces of fried chicken in lieu of bread.
8. Turkey
> 4-yr. change: +24%
> 1-yr. change: +9%
> Current price: $1.73 per lb.
The vast majority of industrial turkey feed is corn and soy based. With steady increases in soybean and corn prices in recent years due to drought, it is no surprise that rising production costs have increased consumer prices for the poultry industry. Turkey breeding is down slightly, with the growth rate of eggs in incubation down 1 percentage point and hatchery flock expansion also slowing, thus decreasing the turkey population. However, turkey production is expected to increase, according to the USDA, due to stronger projected turkey prices and lower feed costs.
7. Wine
> 4-yr. change: +25%
> 1-yr. change: +8%
> Current price: $10.75 per liter
Consumer prices for wine have risen 25% between January 2010 and this March. However, it is unclear whether the spike was due to supply and demand forces. Consumer wine prices tracked by the BLS are highly volatile and can fluctuate by more than $2 per liter from one month to the next -- enough to make comparisons over time difficult. One potential problem for consumers, and for producers, may be drought in California, because about 90% of the nation’s wine production comes from the state. Potentially good for future prices, USDA staff estimates that wine production in Europe rose 18.7% last year. European Union countries account for roughly 60% of global wine production, by volume.
6. Margarine
> 4-yr. change: +30%
> 1-yr. change: -1%
> Current price: $2.11 per lb.
Margarine was once considered a healthier alternative to butter. However, this year butter consumption reached a 40-year high, while margarine sales have plummeted. Like many processed foods, margarine contains trans fats, which research has linked to heart disease. Since the FDA’s requirement to disclose trans fats content on food labels came into effect in 2006, Americans have shied away from Margarine. Despite falling demand, margarine prices are up 30% since 2010. Because margarine is made of vegetable oils, higher prices for soybeans and corn can increase the price consumers pay for margarine at the register. The prices of both soy and corn have soared in recent years. This may partly explain the price increase of margarine.
5. Peanut Butter
> 4-yr. change: +30%
> 1-yr. change: -2%
> Current price: $2.71 per lb.
Like several food products with rising prices, the poor growing conditions for peanuts in recent years are behind the increase in peanut butter prices. While prices are down slightly from a year ago, peanut butter still costs an estimated 30% more than it did in 2010. Much of the price increase followed the abysmal 2011 growing season in the Southern U.S. -- nearly half of the nation’s peanuts are produced in Georgia. Output in 2012 was considerably better, but in 2013 production fell again, down 38% from 2012. A significant uptick in Chinese demand in 2012 may have also increased prices, although exports to China have since leveled off.
4. Coffee
> 4-yr. change: +31%
> 1-yr. change: -17%
> Current price: $5.00 per lb.
Brazil, the world’s largest supplier of arabica beans, has suffered from a severe drought this year. But because many producers have amassed stockpiles, and top coffee retailers such as Starbucks have locked-in short-term prices, consumers have yet to feel the pinch from the poor crop year. Coffee futures, however, have risen considerably -- up nearly 70% year-to-date. For consumers, coffee prices have actually declined in the last year -- although coffee prices in general have risen 31% since the start of 2010. Higher prices may eventually reach consumers. A USDA study found that retailers were less likely to considerably raise prices in response to short-term increases in commodity prices. However, where higher costs lasted for longer periods, costs would be shifted to customers.
3. Oranges
> 4-yr. change: +35%
> 1-yr. change: +23%
> Current price: $1.21 per lb.
ALSO READ: America's Most Content (and Miserable) Cities
Florida citrus growers have had to contend with citrus greening, a disease spread by a small invasive insect called the Asian citrus psyllid. The disease has hit citrus growers hard, cutting significantly into crop production. The lower supply, in turn, has led to increased prices, both in the futures market for frozen orange juice concentrate, as well as for consumers. Since the start of 2010, the price for navel oranges has risen 35%. However, much of this increase was just in the last year, as consumer prices for oranges rose 23% between March 2013 and March 2014 -- more than any other food product. And prices may continue to rise. According to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. national orange production is forecast to decline 18% from the previous year to a total of 166 million boxes, with 110 million from Florida.
2. Ground Beef
> 4-yr. change: +35%
> 1-yr. change: +8%
> Current price: $4.13 per lb.
Drought in the Western U.S. and declining numbers of cattle being sent to slaughter are both major causes of higher beef prices, according to the USDA. Futures for live cattle -- which are cattle ready for slaughter -- reached an all-time high earlier this year. These higher futures prices appear to be showing up at the register. The price of a pound of uncooked ground beef has risen 35% since 2010. And for some types of beef, the price increases have been even greater. For example, lean and extra lean ground beef now costs $5.27 per pound, a 55% increase from January 2010 as well as an all-time record.
1. Bacon
> 4-yr. change: +53%
> 1-yr. change: +13%
> Current price: $5.55 per lb.
Sliced bacon cost an average of $5.55 per pound as of March, up from $3.63 per pound in January 2010. In the last year alone, the price of bacon increased 13%. One factor that may contribute to this recent increase may be the spread of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv) in hogs. While PEDv poses no risk to humans or food safety, the disease is expected to cut into hog supplies. Sam Hines, executive vice president of the Michigan Pork Producers Association, told CBS Radio that “U.S. production is going to decline this year about seven percent and that will probably translate into 10 to 20 percent higher prices for pork.” Currently, lean hog futures -- settling in May -- are up over 20% on the year, and consumer prices of products such as pork and ham may increase further. Ham prices are up 32% since January 2010, and 6% since last March. Similarly, pork chop prices are up 24% and 8% during those periods.
Related Articles ||||| Livestock have always been more than just slabs of meat. Traditionally, the inedible parts, like beef fat, were rendered to make products like soap and candles. It's a common refrain from sustainability advocates: "We used to use the whole cow," they'll say. Well, it turns out we still do. Rendering is a booming industry worth more than $10 billion today—the only difference is, the products the plants create have changed.
The Farmland Food Plant in Milan, Missouri, for example, uses the inedible parts of hogs—blood, glands, bone, fat, and skin—to produce everything from biofuels and fertilizers to insulin, pet food, and livestock feed. And why not? Americans only consume a little more than half of the meat produced by livestock, leaving the rest for either waste or reuse.
Mapping the connections between raw materials and finished products
Read More
It's not just hogs rendered in factories across the U.S. either. Cows, sheep, and poultry also get the recycling treatment. Cows are particularly productive: Their protein can be used as a nutritional supplement in livestock feed, while their fats and oils can be used for crayons, shaving cream, detergent, and even dynamite (produced from glycerin in the fat). All in all, the rendering means that only about 4 percent of meat product is lost to waste in North America, as NPR pointed out a few months back.
"Rendering is an extremely green process," Jessica Meisinger, a director at the National Renderers Association, tells me in an email. "Rendering takes this extra [product] and uses it rather than sending it to the landfill or composting—both of which allow natural decay to occur which results in large amounts of greenhouse gases."
Plus, Meisinger notes, rendering reuses carbon, as well as nutrients like protein and minerals like phosphorus that would otherwise have to be found from non-renewable sources or additional farming.
But while reusing entire animals does contribute to cutting down the amount of waste from meat production, rendering is by no means a catch-all solution to making meat production sustainable. The process of raising livestock is a pollution source itself, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, which highlighted livestock farms as an environmental issue area because of the toxic waste it can produce.
Of course, that first step—raising livestock to be used and rendered—is unavoidable if people want to eat meat. And even though meat rendering may be a process that produces biofuels, it's not as clean as it should be, making it another imperfect step in the U.S.'s ever-changing and complex food system. ||||| Eating ham has never been more expensive than this year, partly because U.S. pigs are too fat.
Hogs in the U.S. weigh the most ever after farmers fed them longer to make up for losses caused by a virus that killed millions of piglets. While heavier hogs means more pork per animal, their hind legs exceed the size used for producing the 7-pound spiral-cut, half hams that are the most popular for family meals during year-end holidays.
Half of annual ham consumption by Americans occurs at Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, and retail prices through October were up 26 percent this year to a record $3.433 a pound, government data show. The increase was fueled by the virus, which shrank the domestic herd and reduced the number of hogs slaughtered this year by 5.2 percent, boosting costs for meat buyers including Noodles & Co. (NDLS)
“This year has been a struggle for people that sell half hams because heavier hogs are coming to market,” Brian Mariuz, chief financial officer of HoneyBaked Ham Co.’s Michigan division, said by telephone from Troy, Michigan. The unit runs 74 of HoneyBaked’s more than 400 U.S. stores. “Seven-pound hams are in the highest demand and in the lowest supply.”
Meat processors slaughtered 92.09 million hogs this year through Nov. 15, down from 97.17 million in the same period a year earlier, after outbreaks of the deadly porcine epidemic diarrhea virus shrank domestic herds, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. Even with hogs weighing a record 215.5 pounds (97.8 kilograms) each on average, pork output through September was down 1.2 percent to 16.71 billion pounds.
Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Sliced bacon in Wyanet, Illinois, on Aug. 14, 2014. Close Sliced bacon in Wyanet, Illinois, on Aug. 14, 2014. Close Open Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Sliced bacon in Wyanet, Illinois, on Aug. 14, 2014.
Food Prices
Hog futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange are up 6.4 percent this year, heading for the biggest annual increase since 2010.
Pork’s price gains have contributed to higher meat costs, which the government forecasts will rise more than any other food group this year. The Consumer Price Index for meat, poultry, fish and eggs increased 8.3 percent in the year through October.
Around the holidays, U.S. consumers favor spiral-cut half hams, created by slicing the meat in one continuous coil around the bone, according to Urner Barry, a food-industry publisher in Bayville, New Jersey. A typical light ham weighs 17 pounds to 20 pounds and yields two half hams. The wholesale price of that cut more than doubled this year, USDA data show. HoneyBaked’s hams fetch $7.59 a pound this year, up 30 cents from a year ago, while the cost is up 50 cents, CFO Mariuz said.
Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Twenty one day-old pigs stand in a trailer prior to transport to a nearby weaning-to-market barn at Lehmann Brothers Farms LLC in Strawn, Illinois. Close Twenty one day-old pigs stand in a trailer prior to transport to a nearby... Read More Close Open Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg Twenty one day-old pigs stand in a trailer prior to transport to a nearby weaning-to-market barn at Lehmann Brothers Farms LLC in Strawn, Illinois.
With about 5 million fewer hogs slaughtered so far this year, that’s reduced the number of hind legs used for hams by more than 10 million. At the same time, there has been an increase in hams weighing 23 pounds to 27 pounds, which is too big for most consumers interested in buying half a ham.
Seasonal Price
“There’s a lot of hams not showing up on the market,” said Russell Barton, who covers the ham market for Urner Barry. “So many of them are not at an optimal weight.”
While ham prices usually fall in the fourth quarter, during a seasonal increase in supply, they probably will be the highest ever for that period this year, said Steve Meyer, the president of Paragon Economics, an agricultural market researcher in Adel, Iowa.
Retailers and meat distributors generally place their holiday orders in July and August, according to Brandon Scholz, president of the Wisconsin Grocers Association. This year, wholesale ham reached an all-time high of $1.4368 a pound July 29, USDA data show. Prices were at 92.2 cents on Nov. 18, which was the highest for that day since the USDA data begins in 1998. Some stores will continue to make last-minute purchases even in December, Urner Barry’s Barton said.
Smaller Discounts
Grocers are advertising fewer discounts on pork than in recent years. In the week ended Nov. 20, 11,220 retail supermarkets featured spiral hams at an average price of $3.12 a pound, down from 12,660 at $2.40 last year, USDA data show.
Christmas week is the highest for ham sales, followed by Easter and Thanksgiving, according to Sherry Frey, vice president at West Dundee, Illinois-based Nielsen Perishables Group. Last year, Americans bought 318 million pounds of ham during November and December, or 50 percent of the annual total, according to IRI, a Chicago-based market research firm. Consumers increased spending on ham by 5.1 percent to $1.52 billion in the five years through 2013, even as the amount of meat dropped 6.4 percent, IRI data show.
Fatter Pigs
Not all pork is getting more expensive. Heavier hogs are helping to revive meat output. Pork production in September rose to 1.87 billion pounds, up 2 percent from the same month a year earlier, USDA data show. The wholesale cost of pork bellies, used to make bacon, dropped 27 percent the 12 months through Nov. 18 to 93.12 cents a pound, the lowest for that day in four years.
Hams for curing have become scarce and more expensive in Cadiz, Kentucky, home of the Trigg County Ham Festival, says Austin Hart, who took first prize this year. While Hart said that he and his grandfather won’t stop buying and preparing the meat for the holidays, he’s bracing for more price increases -- of as much as 50 percent for the raw meat.
“It’s a family tradition,” the 22-year-old said in a telephone interview Oct. 28.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Mulvany in Chicago at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Millie Munshi at [email protected] Steve Stroth, Patrick McKiernan | We use almost every part of the pig imaginable—even the blood, glands, and bones, the Atlantic reports—but when it comes to holiday dinners, Americans are very specific about what they want to serve: Spiral-cut ham, averaging about 7 pounds, is the most popular choice, Bloomberg reports. But there's currently a dearth of that cut, because this year's hogs are so obese that their hind legs are too large for the half-ham process. "Seven-pound hams are in the highest demand and in the lowest supply," the CFO for a HoneyBaked Ham division tells Bloomberg. The cause: A nasty virus wiped out millions of piglets, leading farmers to feed surviving pigs longer in an effort to make up the poundage. Ham during the holidays is big business: Half of our yearly ham consumption takes place during Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners. If you are able to track down a 7-pounder this holiday season, there will probably be a hefty price tag: Prices through the end of September rose 24% to $3.389 per pound, a record high, though ham prices have been rising overall for the past few years (up 32% since 2010, Yahoo reports). It's not all bad news from the pen: There is an excess of certain types of hams—plenty of 23- to 27-pounders, Bloomberg notes—and these big pigs are aiding pork production overall, which is up 2% this September over a year prior. (If you're looking to go retro, this 112-year-old ham is still supposedly edible.) |
WMATA was created in 1967 by an interstate compact that resulted from the enactment of identical legislation by Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, with the concurrence of the U.S. Congress. Since then, WMATA has been responsible for planning, financing, constructing, and operating a comprehensive mass transit system for the Washington metropolitan area. WMATA began building its Metrorail system in 1969, acquired four regional bus systems in 1973, and began operating the first phase of Metrorail operations in 1976. In January 2001, WMATA completed the originally planned 103-mile Metrorail system that now includes 83 rail stations on 5 rail lines. WMATA operates in a complex environment, with many organizations influencing its decision-making and funding and providing oversight. WMATA is governed by a Board of Directors, which sets policies and oversees all of WMATA’s activities, including budgeting, operations, development and expansion, safety, procurement, and other activities. In addition, a number of local, regional, and federal external organizations affect WMATA’s decision-making, including: (1) state and local governments, which subject WMATA to a range of laws and requirements; (2) the Tri-State Oversight Committee, which oversees WMATA’s safety activities and conducts safety reviews; (3) the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which develops the short- and long-range plans that guide WMATA’s capital investments; (4) the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which provides oversight of WMATA in many areas; and (5) the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates accidents on transit systems as well as other transportation modes. WMATA estimates that its combined rail and bus ridership will total 324.8 million passenger trips in fiscal year 2001, making it the second largest heavy rail rapid transit system and the sixth largest bus system in the United States, according to WMATA officials. WMATA’s proposed fiscal year 2002 budget totals nearly $1.9 billion. Of the total amount, about 56 percent, or $1.06 billion, is for capital improvements; 42 percent, or $796.6 million, is for operations and maintenance activities; and the remaining 2 percent, or $37 million, is for debt service and other projects. WMATA’s funding comes from a variety of federal, state, and local sources. Unlike most other major urban transit systems, WMATA does not have dedicated sources of revenues, such as local sales tax revenues, that are automatically directed to the transit authority. WMATA receives grants from the federal government and annual contributions by each of the local jurisdictions that WMATA serves, including the District of Columbia and the respective local jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. For example, in its fiscal year 2002 proposed operating budget totaling $796.6 million (for rail, bus, and paratransit services), WMATA projects that approximately 55 percent of its revenues will come from passenger fares and other internally generated revenues, and 45 percent will come from the local jurisdictions served by WMATA. With regard to its capital program for infrastructure renewal, WMATA projects that about 47 percent of its proposed 2002 budget will come from federal government grants, 38 percent from federally guaranteed financing, and 15 percent from the local jurisdictions and other sources. WMATA has also received funding directly through the congressional appropriations process over the past 30 years— totaling about $6.9 billion—for construction of the originally planned subway system. WMATA did not have to compete against other transit agencies for this funding, which ended in fiscal year 1999. Metrorail’s expenses and revenues represent the largest portion of WMATA’s operating budget. For example, in fiscal year 2000—the latest year for which final actual figures are available—Metrorail’s operating expenses accounted for 56 percent, or $392.1 million, of WMATA’s overall operating costs of $704.8 million. At the same time, Metrorail’s passenger fares and other revenues accounted for about 76 percent, or $292.5 million, of WMATA’s overall internally generated revenues of $384.9 million. As a measure of financial performance, Metrorail’s cost recovery ratio (revenues divided by expenses) represents one of the highest of any rail transit system in the nation, according to FTA. For example, during fiscal years 1996 through 2000, Metrorail recovered, on average, 73 cents for every dollar that WMATA spent to operate and maintain the rail system. With regard to capital investment issues, GAO issued a report in December 1998 that identified capital decision-making principles and practices used by outstanding state and local governments and private sector organizations. In order to evaluate the extent to which WMATA followed best practices in planning, selecting, and budgeting for its capital investments, we compared WMATA’s practices with those of leading public and private organizations that we studied in 1998. Accordingly, in this report, we assess the extent to which WMATA (1) integrates its organizational goals into the capital decision-making process through structured strategic planning and needs determination processes, (2) uses an investment approach to evaluate and select capital assets, and (3) maintains budgetary control over its capital investments. One of the key operating challenges facing Metrorail has been the increasing problems caused by the advancing age of its existing infrastructure. Metrorail has experienced vehicle, escalator, elevator, and other system equipment and infrastructure problems over the past several years. These problems have resulted in, among other things, an increasing number of train delays. For example, the number of train delays due to system problems increased from 865 in fiscal year 1996 to 1,417 in fiscal year 2000, or by about 64 percent. WMATA attributes these problems primarily to its aging rail equipment and infrastructure. Forty-five percent of Metrorail’s 103-mile system is from 17 to 25 years old, and another 33 percent is from 9 to 16 years old. Similarly, 39 percent of Metrorail’s 762- car fleet has been operating since 1976; another 48 percent went into service during the 1980s. WMATA has estimated that the expected useful life of a rail car is 40 years if a major renovation is performed at the mid- point of the car’s life cycle. WMATA is addressing Metrorail’s equipment and infrastructure problems through a number of projects in its capital-funded Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP), described in detail later in this letter. One key IRP project—the Emergency Rail Rehabilitation Program—is focused on improving Metrorail’s service reliability problems. Through this program, now in its second year, WMATA has made significant progress in implementing many rail system improvement projects. For example, by August 2000, WMATA had completed almost all of the program’s accelerated car maintenance projects on such critical components as brakes and doors on over 600 rail cars. In addition, WMATA’s statistics show that for the period covering July 2000 through January 2001, the number of passenger offloads had decreased by 15 percent, compared with the same period in the previous year. In particular, WMATA officials noted that offloads during the spring “Cherry Blossom Season” in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, decreased, on average, from 9 per weekday in 1999 to 4.8 per weekday in 2001. Furthermore, by June 2000, work was under way to maintain and rehabilitate 170 station escalators. IRP includes other key projects, such as the rail car rehabilitation project, which will enhance the reliability of 364 cars that were built in the 1980s. These cars will be overhauled and rehabilitated under a 5-year contract awarded in December 2000. WMATA expects to take delivery of the first rehabilitated cars in August 2002. Metrorail also faces another significant operating challenge brought about by ever-increasing ridership. Metrorail is now operating at near capacity during peak demand periods, causing some uncomfortably crowded trains. WMATA’s recent studies on crowding found that demand has reached and, in some cases, exceeded scheduled capacity—an average of 140 passengers per car—during the peak morning and afternoon hours. For example, of the more than 200 peak morning trips that WMATA observed over a recent 6-month period, on average, 15 percent were considered “uncomfortably crowded” (125 to 149 passengers per car), and 8 percent had “crush loads” (150 or more passengers per car). Metrorail’s overcrowded conditions are primarily the result of the substantial growth in ridership it has experienced over the last several years, an insufficient number of rail cars to operate more and longer trains on a regular basis, and system and other constraints on expanding rush-hour trains from six cars to eight cars—the maximum size that station platforms can accommodate. WMATA has several actions under way to ease Metrorail’s overcrowded conditions. Most notably, the agency ordered 192 new rail cars that it had expected to begin deploying in the summer of 2001. We note, however, that WMATA suffered a setback in June 2001 when it took action to delay delivery of these cars until the rail car contractor corrects technical problems. As of late June 2001, WMATA officials told us that they expect to begin phasing the first new cars into service by the fall of 2001. Over the next year or so, WMATA plans to deploy the majority of these cars where and when the heaviest ridership is occurring, allowing for adjustments to train sizes. For example, on some lines, the train size will change from four cars to six cars. WMATA is also examining Metrorail’s core capacity needs to determine, among other things, what improvements in capacity—cars and power, for example—will be required to operate eight-car trains on a regular basis during peak demand periods. WMATA expects to complete this study in the fall of 2001. Finally, Metrorail’s maintenance and repair shop capacity could be challenged as early as the fall of 2001 with the delivery of the first group of new rail cars. Depending on the number of cars that can be repaired outside of the shops, WMATA could need up to 126 repair shop spaces, or 12 more than the 114 spaces that would be available for scheduled maintenance and unscheduled repairs at that time. Furthermore, Metrorail’s repair shop capacity may be exhausted and could become even more of a problem after the fall of 2002, when delivery of the remaining new cars is expected to be completed. In addition, WMATA plans to acquire a total of at least 94 additional rail cars to accommodate new revenue service on the Largo extension to the Blue Line in Maryland (which is currently under construction); increased demand on the Orange Line in Virginia due to service expansion; and service growth on other existing rail lines, thus adding to the maintenance and repair shop capacity problem. Although WMATA officials believe that the agency’s current shop capacity may not be favorable for the expeditious turnaround of vehicles requiring maintenance and repair, they pointed out that they are taking steps to ease the capacity problem. For example, in the near term, WMATA has four “blow down pits”—spaces in its largest shops used to clean the underside of a car prior to its scheduled maintenance—that can also be used for maintenance and repair. In addition, WMATA plans to open a new facility in 2002 that will expand its current shop capacity to accommodate 126 rail cars. At the same time, however, WMATA recognizes that it currently does not have the capacity to maintain and repair the additional cars for the Largo extension. WMATA is taking two actions to address this problem. First, WMATA is surveying its existing shops to determine whether their capacity can be expanded. The agency expects to complete the survey in the fall of 2001, possibly beginning expansion efforts as early as 2002. Second, WMATA plans to build a new repair shop in the Dulles Corridor. However, this facility would not be available until about 2010, when construction of the Dulles Corridor extension is to be completed. WMATA has established programs to address safety and security risks that affect its rail and bus systems. WMATA’s safety program has evolved since the mid-1990s, when a series of rail accidents and incidents led to several independent reviews that cited the need for program improvements. For example, in 1997, FTA reported the results of a safety review it performed of WMATA’s rail activities in response to several serious accidents and incidents that occurred in 1996. The review concluded that WMATA had not adequately maintained a planned approach to safety program tasks or dedicated appropriate financial and personnel resources to accomplish these tasks. In addition, FTA found that WMATA’s safety efforts had been weakened by frequent changes in the organizational reporting level of its safety department and a deemphasis of safety awareness in public and corporate communications. The review also found that WMATA’s safety department had been moved from place to place in the organization, making its work difficult, its priorities uncertain, and its status marginal. Under a newly formed state safety oversight program, the leadership of a new General Manager, and a new bus transit safety program, WMATA has responded to these criticisms by upgrading and enhancing its safety activities. For example, the current General Manager made safety a priority by reviewing the transit authority’s safety function and revising its system safety program plan, which contains detailed protocols for identifying and assessing hazards. WMATA’s safety plan also includes requirements for identifying, evaluating, and minimizing safety risks throughout all elements of the WMATA rail and bus systems. The plan also identifies management and technical safety and fire protection activities to be performed during all phases of bus and rail operations. In addition, WMATA’s current General Manager delegated specific safety responsibilities to the transit agency’s Chief Safety Officer who reports directly to the General Manager and is now responsible for (1) managing system safety, occupational safety and health, accident and incident investigation, and fire protection; (2) overseeing construction safety and environmental protection; and (3) monitoring the system safety program plan. By elevating its internal safety organization and increasing its emphasis on safety activities, WMATA has given safety a higher degree of attention and priority. More recently, following a serious tunnel fire in 2000, WMATA created a safety task force to review its operations control center’s handling of the incident. In addition, WMATA’s General Manager asked the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) to conduct a comprehensive peer review of the transit agency’s emergency procedures for handling tunnel fires. APTA’s findings and recommendations, in several ways, confirmed the findings identified in WMATA’s internal investigation. For instance, both investigations supported the need for efforts to formalize and strengthen training for operations control center personnel and ensure that emergency procedures are addressed in the training and certification of operations staff. The two reviews made 32 recommendations concerning, among other things, communications policy and training. At the time of our review, WMATA had taken actions to implement 30 of the 32 recommendations, including providing training to its staff on communicating more effectively with fire authorities and opening a fire training center for WMATA employees and local firefighters. WMATA is in the process of addressing the other two recommendations. Despite a recent rise in the number of rail and bus safety incidents, which WMATA attributes to the large increase in rail and bus ridership and the recent hiring of many new bus drivers, APTA and FTA now believe that WMATA has a “very good” safety program as evidenced by the low injury rates on both its rail and bus systems. For example, WMATA has experienced low injury rates in its rail stations over the last 5 years—on average, only .37 injuries per 1 million passenger miles. Very few of these injuries were serious or fatal. However, the absolute number of rail station injuries increased from 366 in fiscal year 1999 to 474 in fiscal year 2000, and the rail station injury rate increased from 0.34 to 0.43 for the same 2 years. WMATA documents also show that about 50 percent of all rail injuries occurred on escalators. According to WMATA’s Chief Safety Officer, the root cause of the majority of these incidents is mainly human factors, not equipment failure, employee performance, or unsafe conditions. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, for example, WMATA’s records show that no escalator incidents were caused by electrical or mechanical failure or unsafe conditions. WMATA is promoting escalator safety by conducting public awareness campaigns and adding safety devices. Similar to his initiatives affecting WMATA’s safety program and plan, WMATA’s General Manager has delegated authority to WMATA’s Chief of Police to plan, direct, coordinate, implement, and evaluate all police and security activities for the transit agency. WMATA’s Chief of Police heads the Metro Transit Police Department, which has an authorized strength of 320 sworn and 103 civilian personnel. The Department has jurisdiction and arrest powers on WMATA property throughout the 1,500 square mile transit zone that includes Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. WMATA’s Metro Transit Police Department addresses security through its system security program plan, participates in external security reviews, and collects and evaluates crime statistics. To emphasize the importance of system security, the Department established a set of comprehensive security activities in its system security program plan. The plan is designed to maximize the level of security experienced by passengers, employees, and other individuals who come into contact with the transit system; to minimize the cost associated with the intrusion of vandals and others into the system; and to make the transit system more proactive in preventing and mitigating security problems. WMATA has also participated in FTA’s voluntary transit security audit program, and FTA officials have concluded that WMATA’s overall security program demonstrates a high level of attention to passenger and employee security. WMATA statistics indicate that serious crimes such as homicide and rape occur rarely on the transit system. During the period from 1996 through 2000, no rapes occurred, and there were two murders in the system. Most of the crimes committed in the transit system are far less serious, such as disorderly conduct and trespassing. More of the crimes are committed in the system’s parking lots than on the rail and bus system, and more crimes are committed on the rail system than on the buses. Some crimes, such as motor vehicle theft and robbery, increased somewhat from 1999 to 2000. To address those increases and the problem of crime in its parking lots, WMATA has increased undercover patrols of parking lots and rail stations. WMATA operates in a complex environment that makes capital decision- making difficult. For example, unlike most other major urban transit systems, WMATA does not have a dedicated revenue source to fund its capital programs, thus subjecting the agency to the appropriations processes of the federal, state, and local governments that fund its programs. In addition, WMATA’s General Manager and staff must achieve consensus and obtain final approvals for the agency’s capital projects from many organizations and government levels, including its own Board of Directors; numerous local and state jurisdictions within the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia that the transit agency serves; the TPB of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; the Federal Transit Administration; and the U.S. Congress, which has provided WMATA with funding over the years to build its Metrorail system. In spite of these challenges, WMATA has incorporated some of the best capital investment practices followed by leading public and private sector organizations. We believe that WMATA could benefit by building on those practices by formalizing some aspects of its capital decision-making process and expanding its strategic and capital planning efforts. WMATA created a Capital Improvement Program in November 2000 to consolidate its ongoing and planned capital improvement activities. This program has three elements to address all aspects of the agency’s capital investments, including (1) an Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP) for system rehabilitation and replacements, (2) a System Expansion Program (SEP), and (3) a System Access and Capacity Program (SAP). First, IRP is designed to rehabilitate or replace WMATA’s existing assets, including rail cars, buses, maintenance facilities, tracks, and other structures and systems. IRP is estimated to cost $9.8 billion over the next 25 years. Secondly, SEP is designed to expand fixed guideway services, selectively add stations and entrances to the existing Metrorail system, and improve bus service levels and expand service areas. WMATA has not yet estimated the total costs associated with its planned SEP projects. Third, SAP— which is estimated to cost about $2.5 billion over the next 25 years—was established to improve access to and the capacity of the transit system by providing additional rail cars and buses, parking facilities, and support activities to accommodate ridership growth. It also includes the study to determine the modifications needed to Metrorail’s core capacity to sustain current and future ridership volumes. WMATA expects to complete this study in the fall of 2001. In our December 1998 report, GAO identified capital decision-making principles and practices used by outstanding state and local governments and private sector organizations. In order to evaluate the extent to which WMATA followed best practices in planning, selecting, and budgeting for its capital investments, we compared WMATA’s practices with those of the leading public and private organizations that we studied in 1998. Accordingly, in this report, we assess the extent to which WMATA (1) integrates its organizational goals into the capital decision-making process through structured strategic planning and needs determination processes, (2) uses an investment approach to evaluate and select capital assets, and (3) maintains budgetary control over its capital investments. Table 1 describes the best practices that were applied within each of these three areas, which the 1998 GAO report categorized as “principles” used by leading organizations to make capital investment decisions. In our December 1998 report, we found that leading organizations begin their capital decision-making process by defining their overall mission in comprehensive terms and multiyear goals and objectives. This enables managers to identify the resources needed to satisfy the organization’s program requirements on the basis of the program’s goals and objectives. To do this, an organization must have identified its mission and goals through a strategic planning process. To assist with identifying any gap between an organization’s resource needs and its existing capital capabilities, leading organizations maintain systems that capture and report information on existing assets and facilities. This information is frequently updated and accessible to decisionmakers when needed. Leading organizations also consider a full range of possible ways to achieve the organization’s goals and objectives, including examining both capital and noncapital alternatives. WMATA has articulated an overall organizational mission statement and a goal of doubling ridership by the year 2025 and is beginning to develop a business planning process. It has not, however, fully developed a strategic planning process that defines multiyear goals and objectives and clearly links its project outcomes—including capital projects—to achieving those goals and objectives. In particular, WMATA has not developed a formal strategic plan that defines multiyear goals and objectives for the agency, nor does it have annual performance plans that explain the specific ways in which WMATA will attempt to achieve those goals and objectives. WMATA has completed a comprehensive assessment of its infrastructure renewal requirements, and it is in the process of assessing its system capacity requirements. With regard to its System Expansion Program, however, it has not conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, although it does consider regional transportation needs, costs, and benefits before deciding to support proposed expansion projects. For example, WMATA has established a “Project Development Program” to develop conceptual designs, “order of magnitude” cost estimates, and other information on some of the proposed projects contained in the expansion program. WMATA plays a limited role in analyzing and evaluating alternatives for meeting its system expansion needs. This limited role stems from its relationships with (1) TPB, which plays a key role in developing, coordinating, and approving plans for all regional transportation needs and alternatives including transit, highways, and other transportation modes; and (2) the state and local jurisdictions served by WMATA, which have the lead role in identifying and evaluating transit expansion alternatives within a specific “corridor” or subarea of the Washington metropolitan area. After leading organizations identify their strategic goals and objectives and assess alternative ways of meeting their capital needs, they go through a process of evaluating and selecting capital assets using an investment approach. An investment approach builds on an organization’s assessment of where it should invest its resources for the greatest benefit over the long term. Establishing a decision-making framework that encourages the appropriate levels of management review and approval is a critical factor in making sound capital investment decisions. These decisions are supported by the proper financial, technical, and risk analyses. Leading organizations not only establish a framework for reviewing and approving capital decisions, they also have defined processes for ranking and selecting projects. Furthermore, they also develop long-term capital plans that are based on the long-range vision for the organization embodied in its strategic plan. WMATA has incorporated several elements of an investment approach to evaluating and selecting capital improvement projects, but the agency could benefit from a more formal, disciplined decision-making framework. With regard to its program for infrastructure renewal, WMATA officials told us that all appropriate managers were involved in deciding which projects should be selected after a comprehensive needs assessment was performed in March 1999. WMATA also performed a one-time ranking of those projects on the basis of preestablished criteria, including asset function, condition, and other factors. However, WMATA has not established a formal executive-level review group within the agency for making decisions on capital projects, nor does it have formal procedures or a standard decision package for considering the relative merits of its capital projects each year. Also, WMATA officials told us that they play a relatively small role in proposing, evaluating, and selecting system expansion projects. They said that the decisions on such projects are generally driven by the state and local jurisdictions sponsoring the projects. WMATA has contacted state and local transportation executives from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to explore ways to increase WMATA’s involvement in conducting alternatives analyses for system expansion projects, thereby increasing its influence on those decisions. Furthermore, although WMATA has performed a comprehensive assessment of infrastructure renewal requirements and has taken a first step in outlining system expansion needs, it has not developed a comprehensive long-term capital plan that defines and justifies its internal capital asset decisions for all of the capital projects falling within WMATA’s Capital Improvement Program. Such a plan would allow WMATA to define its strategy and justification for selecting each capital project and would provide baseline information on each project’s life-cycle costs and schedules, performance requirements, benefits, and risks. A more formal long-term capital planning process allows an organization to establish priorities and assist with developing current and future budgets. A well-thought-out review and approval framework can also mean that capital investment decisions are made more efficiently and are supported by better information. Furthermore, were WMATA to develop a more disciplined decision-making framework—with documented support for the alternatives that WMATA favors—the agency would potentially have more influence with the federal government and state and local jurisdictions that ultimately decide whether to provide funding for projects. Finally, officials at leading organizations that GAO studied agreed that good budgeting requires that the full life-cycle costs of a project be considered when an organization is making decisions to provide resources. This practice permits decisionmakers to compare the long-term costs of spending alternatives and to better understand the budgetary and programmatic impact of decisions. Most of those organizations make a commitment to the full cost of a project up front and have developed alternative methods for maintaining budgetary control while allowing flexibility in funding. One strategy they use is to budget for and provide advance funding sufficient to complete a useful segment of a project. A useful segment is defined as a component that (1) provides information that allows an agency to fully plan a capital project before proceeding to full acquisition or (2) results in a useful asset for which the benefits exceed the costs even if no further funding is appropriated. Another strategy used by some leading organizations is to use innovative financing techniques that provide new sources of funding or new methods of financial return. WMATA uses many of the funding strategies followed by leading organizations. For example, to comply with requirements imposed by FTA and its predecessor agencies, WMATA completed its Metrorail system by negotiating for funding in useful or “operable” segments. Furthermore, the agency has used a wide variety of innovative capital financing techniques to fund its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and operations activities and to leverage its capital assets to generate additional income. However, WMATA faces a number of uncertainties in obtaining the funding it believes it needs to meet its capital requirements, and the agency has not developed plans that describe how it would address large anticipated funding shortfalls in its programs for infrastructure renewal and system capacity. For example, WMATA has not developed alternate scenarios of how such funding shortfalls would be absorbed by the various asset categories under the Infrastructure Renewal Program or by the projects identified under the System Access and Capacity Program. The funding shortfalls are anticipated to total $3.7 billion over the next 25 years and represent an average annual shortfall of about $150 million for both programs. Furthermore, the budget shortfall could significantly increase when WMATA completes its ongoing assessment of Metrorail’s core capacity in the fall of 2001. Our review showed that WMATA has identified the operational and safety challenges it faces and has established sound policies, programs, and practices to meet those challenges. We note that in the operations and maintenance area, WMATA is in some ways a “victim” of its own success in that its challenges have largely resulted from ever-increasing passenger ridership demands, along with the inevitable aging of its equipment and infrastructure. In the safety and security area, WMATA has established programs to identify, evaluate, and minimize risks throughout its bus and rail systems; and it has upgraded its safety organization in recent years to improve its internal management and oversight of safety problems. WMATA has low incident rates of injury and serious crime on both its rail and bus systems. As a result, WMATA is viewed by outside organizations, such as FTA and APTA, as having very good safety and security programs. To address its long-term capital needs, WMATA has established a Capital Improvement Program that incorporates some of the best capital investment practices followed by leading public and private sector organizations. However, we believe that WMATA could benefit by building on those practices by formalizing some aspects of its capital decision- making process and by expanding its strategic and capital planning efforts. For example, by developing a multiyear strategic plan and annual performance plans, WMATA could more clearly define its vision, direction, strategies, and priorities—not only for capital planning and decision- making, but for all aspects of its activities. Also, WMATA could benefit from establishing a consolidated capital plan that would allow the agency and its external stakeholders to weigh and balance the need to maintain its existing capital assets against the demand for new assets. A more active role for WMATA in capital planning would provide better information for federal, state, and local decisionmakers that fund WMATA’s projects and would increase WMATA’s influence with them. Similarly, a more formal internal review and approval process for making capital decisions within WMATA—including formal procedures and standard decision packages for considering the relative merits of various capital projects each year—would help WMATA establish priorities, develop budgets, and facilitate periodic reviews of all ongoing and proposed projects. It would also provide greater assurance of continuity within the organization if key managers move to other positions or leave the agency. In addition, WMATA could provide valuable analysis and insights through a more active role in identifying and evaluating alternatives for system expansion projects. Leading organizations consider such alternatives analysis to be a critical factor in making sound capital investment decisions. Because the state and local jurisdictions take the lead in identifying and deciding on expansion projects, WMATA often does not become involved in crucial early decisions about the most appropriate and efficient ways to expand the system. WMATA is exploring ways to increase its involvement in conducting alternatives analyses for system expansion projects, thereby increasing its influence on those decisions. We support WMATA’s efforts in this area. Finally, WMATA has not fully planned how it will address large anticipated funding shortfalls in its programs for infrastructure renewal and system access and capacity. WMATA officials expressed concerns that developing such plans could undermine their efforts to obtain what they believe is the required funding amount for the two capital programs. In our view, however, prudent management requires that the agency identify the steps needed to address any anticipated shortfalls and develop alternate plans for carrying out its capital activities, depending on the level of funding obtained from federal, state, and local sources. To improve the agency’s strategic planning and capital investment practices, we recommend that WMATA’s General Manager and Board of Directors take the following actions: Develop a long-term strategic plan and annual performance plans that clearly define the agency’s multiyear goals and objectives and its specific plans for achieving those goals and objectives. Develop a long-term capital plan that covers all three programs of its newly formed consolidated Capital Improvement Program (Infrastructure Renewal Program, System Expansion Program, and System Access and Capacity Program). This plan should: document WMATA’s capital decision-making strategy and link it to the agency’s overall goals and objectives; define each project’s justification and its baseline lifecycle costs, schedule, performance requirements, benefits, and risks; include alternate funding strategies and project outcomes, depending on the availability of funding from federal, state, and local sources; and be updated annually or biennially. Formalize WMATA’s capital decision-making process for the consolidated Capital Improvement Program by establishing and documenting an internal review and approval framework and standard procedures and decision packages for analyzing and deciding on projects. Develop a process and procedures—in consultation with the TPB and the state and local jurisdictions served by WMATA—for taking a more active role in (1) identifying, analyzing, and evaluating alternatives for expanding WMATA’s transit system; and (2) proposing the most efficient and cost- effective projects for expanding the system. We provided the Department of Transportation and WMATA with draft copies of this report for their review and comment. The Department of Transportation had no comments on the report. WMATA concurred with all of our major recommendations aimed at improving the agency’s strategic planning and capital investment practices and indicated that it has already taken steps to begin implementing some of our recommendations. WMATA did not agree with the subpart of our second recommendation that calls for developing alternative capital funding strategies and project outcomes, depending on the availability of funding from federal, state, and local sources. WMATA cited its concern that developing contingency plans for addressing anticipated budgetary shortfalls would encourage its funding agencies to reduce the level of resources provided to WMATA. We continue to believe, however, that prudent management requires WMATA to plan for such shortfalls, which could be significant after WMATA completes its assessment of Metrorail’s core capacity in the fall of 2001. WMATA’s comments and our response are located in appendix V. Our work was primarily performed at WMATA headquarters (see app. IV for a detailed description of our scope and methodology.) We conducted our work from September 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the General Manager, WMATA; the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation; Hiram J. Walker, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; and the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others on request. If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512- 2834 or Ronald E. Stouffer on (202) 512-4416. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix VI. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) operates and maintains the second largest rail transit system in the United States, as measured by the number of passengers carried per year. In fiscal year 2000 (July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000), Metrorail carried about 163.3 million passengers. For the 9-month period ending in the third quarter of fiscal year 2001, ridership increased by almost 6 percent compared to the same period in fiscal year 2000. Metrorail’s operations and maintenance activities are extensive, including all activities required to operate and maintain the equipment and entire infrastructure that supports the movement of passengers. The Metrorail system, consisting of 103 miles of track, 83 stations, and 5 separate rail lines, operates 7 days a week, providing 18.5 hours of service each weekday and 18 hours daily on weekends. System maintenance activities include such things as cleaning, scheduled (preventive) maintenance, unscheduled repairs, and some upgrades. These maintenance activities are performed on a broad range of equipment and facilities that includes 762 rail cars; 103 miles of subway, surface, and elevated track; 576 escalators; 180 station elevators; 1,937 fare collection machines; 6 maintenance facilities; and other elements of the system’s infrastructure. Metrorail’s revenues and expenses represent the largest portion of WMATA’s overall operating budget. For example, in fiscal year 2000, Metrorail’s operating expenses accounted for $392.1 million, or 56 percent of WMATA’s overall operating expenses of $704.8 million. Furthermore, Metrorail brings in the largest portion of WMATA’s internally generated operating revenues. In fiscal year 2000, for example, Metrorail’s passenger fares and other revenues accounted for about $292.5 million, or 76 percent of WMATA’s overall internally generated revenues of $384.9 million. As a measure of financial performance, Metrorail’s cost recovery ratio represents one of the highest of any rail transit system in the nation, according to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For example, during fiscal years 1996 through 2000, Metrorail recovered, on average, 73 cents for every dollar that WMATA spent to operate and maintain the rail system. Metrorail has experienced vehicle, escalator, elevator, and other system equipment and infrastructure problems over the past several years. Data provided by WMATA show that vehicle, track, system, and other problems have resulted in, among other things, an increasing number of train delays and passenger “offloads.” For example, the number of train delays due to such problems increased from 865 in fiscal year 1996 to 1,417 in fiscal year 2000, or by about 64 percent. At the same time, the number of passenger offloads increased by about 55 percent—from 783 in fiscal year 1996 to 1,212 in fiscal year 2000. WMATA attributes these problems primarily to its aging rail equipment and infrastructure. Forty-five percent of Metrorail’s 103-mile system is from 17 to 25 years old. Another 33 percent is from 9 to 16 years old. Only 22 percent is relatively new—constructed within the past 8 years. Similarly, 39 percent of Metrorail’s 762 rail car fleet has been operating since 1976. Another 48 percent went into service during the 1980s, and only 13 percent is relatively new—placed into service in the mid-1990s. Further, an assessment of the condition of Metrorail’s equipment and infrastructure performed in 1998 found that certain assets, such as stations and tunnels, were in a “degraded” condition, suffering from, among other things, deferred maintenance and postponement of rehabilitation due to funding constraints. The general effect of deferring maintenance is a lowering of overall system quality; an increase in the cost of regular and corrective maintenance; and an increase in the cost of rehabilitation work, when it is finally performed. WMATA is addressing Metrorail’s equipment and infrastructure problems through a number of projects in its Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP). One key project being carried out under IRP is the Emergency Rail Rehabilitation Program, which is focused on reducing the serious service reliability problems—including problems with rail car equipment, train “wayside relays,” and customer communications—highlighted in the spring of 1999. Now in its second year, this program has a number of goals, including reducing train delays and passenger offloads by 50 percent. To achieve these goals, the program provides for, among other things, accelerated maintenance projects to correct performance problems on the fleet’s oldest rail cars, with all work scheduled to be completed by November 2003. The program also provides for additional maintenance efforts on station escalators and improvements in critical facilities and communication equipment, including additional fare gates and upgraded passenger announcement systems. WMATA has made significant progress in carrying out many of the emergency program’s rail system improvement projects. For example, by August 2000, WMATA had completed almost 8 of 12 car maintenance projects on such critical components as brakes and doors on 662 rail cars. Furthermore, WMATA’s statistics show that for the period covering July 2000 through January 2001, the number of passenger offloads had decreased by 15 percent, compared with the same period in the previous year. In particular, WMATA officials noted that offloads during the spring “Cherry Blossom Season” in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area decreased, on average, from 9 per weekday in 1999 to 4.8 per weekday in 2001. Other examples of WMATA’s progress under the emergency program include the award of a contract for maintenance and rehabilitation of 170 station escalators; installation of rail system scanners at all station kiosks for status monitoring by station managers, allowing them to respond to passenger inquiries with real-time information on incidents and delays; installation of electronic display signs on station platforms, showing train arrivals and service delays; and installation of 44 additional fare gates. In addition to the emergency rehabilitation program, IRP includes other key projects that address Metrorail’s aging equipment and infrastructure problems. One of these—the rail car rehabilitation project—will enhance the reliability of 364 cars that were built in the 1980s. These cars will be overhauled and rehabilitated under a contract awarded in December 2000. The work, according to WMATA, will greatly reduce the cars’ energy consumption and maintenance costs and improve their overall reliability. WMATA expects to take delivery of the first rehabilitated cars in August 2002. Work on all of the cars is expected to be completed by summer 2005. Another key IRP project addresses the water infiltration problem that has occurred within the rail system’s tunnels and stations. This problem has resulted in the degradation of critical wayside systems and equipment that are housed in the tunnels and stations, including automatic train control, communications, power equipment, cabling, and lighting. WMATA’s leak remediation project will control the infiltration of water while a related project will provide drainage in locations with standing water or extreme water infiltration. As of March 2001, approximately 3,700 leaks had been repaired out of about 4,600 scheduled for repair by the end of June 2001. In addition, WMATA has an ongoing multiyear contract to rehabilitate 14 drainage-pumping stations. By March 2001, the work on one pumping station had been completed and work on two others was beginning. Some of the other IRP projects directed at improving the rail system include the following: Rail car enhancements: This project is designed to improve the accessibility, safety, maintenance, appearance, and reliability of the rail car fleet by retrofitting or replacing certain rail car equipment such as intercar barriers. Station enhancements: This project includes the rehabilitation, replacement, and installation of, among other things, concrete structures, sidewalks, stairwells, stairways, and exterior lighting to maintain the integrity of the stations’ structures, prevent additional deterioration, and provide a safe environment for passengers. Automatic train control (ATC) and power systems rehabilitation: This project addresses the need to rehabilitate the ATC equipment and replace worn-out, obsolete electrical systems with new components that use new technology and save energy. Track and structures rehabilitation: This project is being carried out to control the corrosion and deterioration of track, tunnels, and elevated structures due to the effects of weather and water infiltration, among other things. WMATA also faces operating challenges brought about by ever-increasing ridership. Metrorail is now operating at near capacity during peak demand periods, causing some uncomfortably crowded trains. WMATA has several actions under way to ease Metrorail’s overcrowded conditions, including adding new rail cars to the system, which will allow Metrorail to increase the size of some trains. Metrorail’s current passenger load standards allow for an average of 140 passengers per car on all trains and 155 passengers per car on any single train during peak demand periods. The current Metrorail fleet is composed of two types of cars. One type—the Rohr car—has a full-load capacity of 175, including 80 seated and 95 standing passengers. The other model—the Breda car—can also accommodate 175 passengers, but it has 12 fewer seats. For planning purposes, WMATA considers scheduled capacity—number of trains, cars per train, and intervals between trains— to be meeting ridership demands if the number of passengers in a car during the peak half-hour is, on average, 140 or fewer. An average greater than 140 indicates that demand is exceeding capacity. Demand is also considered exceeding capacity when an individual trip exceeds an average of 155 passengers per car consistently throughout a month. For the purpose of assessing rail service levels during peak demand periods, WMATA defines passenger loads and comfort levels as follows: (1) up to 99 passengers per car as “seated with some standing,” (2) 100 to 124 passengers as “crowded but comfortable,” (3) 125 to 149 passengers as “crowded and uncomfortable,” and (4) 150 or more passengers as “crush load.” In measuring Metrorail’s performance over the 6-month period ending in January 2001, WMATA observed 233 trips during the peak morning hour (7:45 to 8:45); an average of 15 percent of the train cars were uncomfortably crowded, and about 8 percent had crush loads. At the same time, WMATA found that of the 225 trips observed during the peak afternoon hour (5:00 to 6:00), an average of 15 percent of the train cars were uncomfortably crowded, and about 5 percent had crush loads. Metrorail’s overcrowded conditions are primarily the result of three separate but related factors. First, WMATA’s records show that Metrorail ridership has grown by about 10 percent over the past 4 years—from about 148 million passengers in fiscal year 1997 to 163.3 million in fiscal year 2000. According to WMATA, during fiscal year 2000, on average, 558,000 weekday trips were taken on Metrorail, with several months experiencing daily average trips in the 580,000 to 590,000 range. The number of Metrorail trips that occur in the peak periods has grown at an even greater rate. Morning peak period ridership has increased 16 percent from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2000. During the morning and afternoon peak periods, almost 200,000 people, on average, used the Metrorail system in 2000. The second factor contributing to overcrowding is Metrorail’s lack of a sufficient number of rail cars to operate more and longer trains on a regular basis, without creating service and reliability problems. For example, in order to meet higher-than-expected ridership demands on the Green Line’s new Branch Avenue extension, WMATA had to reduce by 6 the number of cars required for its strategic “gap trains” and by 26 the number of cars in its operating spares inventory. Like gap trains, the operating spares also contribute to service reliability. By reducing the number of operating spares and gap trains, WMATA was able to increase the number and size of the trains operating on the Green Line without reducing service on its other four lines. However, in reducing the number of operating spares and gap trains, WMATA recognizes that it also increased the potential for service disruptions due to mechanical problems. Finally, if Metrorail had a sufficient number of vehicles to expand its rush- hour trains from six cars to eight cars, the trains would have more room to accommodate passengers, with the result that the most crowded trains would become more comfortable. Although the Metrorail system was originally designed to accommodate eight-car trains, until recently, WMATA had been uncertain about whether longer trains could stop safely inside stations and whether the system had enough electricity to power longer trains on a regular basis. For example, all Metrorail cars are 75 feet long, and all station platforms measure 600 feet in length. This means that an eight-car train must stop precisely at the end of the platform for passengers to exit and enter the cars safely. To address concerns about whether the rail system can operate and accommodate longer trains on a regular basis, Metrorail began testing eight-car trains on each of its lines in December 2000. The results of these tests, presented to the Operations Committee of the Board of Directors in March 2001, indicate that eight-car trains could be operated in limited service only if additional vehicles—besides those currently on order—are purchased and improvements are made to the power system and automatic train control equipment. Further use of eight-car trains would require an even greater investment in these and other elements of the system, such as maintenance and storage capacity. WMATA is examining Metrorail’s core capacity needs to determine, among other things, what improvements in capacity—cars and power, for example—will be required to operate eight-car trains on a regular basis during peak demand periods.WMATA expects to complete this study in the fall of 2001. WMATA has other actions under way to ease Metrorail’s overcrowded conditions. Most notably, the agency has ordered 192 new rail cars that it had planned to phase into service over the 12-month period beginning in the summer of 2001. However, WMATA suffered a setback in June 2001 when it took action to delay delivery of these cars until the rail car manufacturer corrects technical problems. As of late June 2001, WMATA officials told us that they now expect to begin phasing the first new cars into service by the fall of 2001. The majority of the new cars will be placed into service where the heaviest ridership is occurring and will allow WMATA to adjust train sizes. For example, on some lines, the train size will change from four cars to six cars. WMATA does not anticipate that the additional cars will have a large effect on passenger comfort levels, especially if ridership continues to grow; however, it believes the new cars will reduce the percentage of trips with crush loads. According to WMATA, the new cars were intended to address a 1-percent per year growth in ridership, but Metrorail has been averaging more than that. WMATA has also established goals for improving Metrorail’s passenger load standards and therefore passenger comfort levels. Although no time limit has been established for achieving these goals, they include reducing the primary load standard from 140 to 105 passengers per car on all trains—a 25-percent reduction—and reducing the secondary load standard from 155 to 115 passengers per car on any single train—a 26-percent reduction—during peak demand periods. WMATA’s maintenance and repair shop capacity could be stretched to near maximum levels as early as the fall of 2001 with the expected delivery of the first group of the 192 new rail cars. Furthermore, Metrorail’s repair shop capacity may be exhausted when delivery of the remaining rail cars is completed by the fall of 2002. WMATA is determining whether and how its current shop capacity could be expanded. WMATA’s ability to regularly maintain and repair its rail fleet directly affects the reliability and quality of Metrorail service. Currently, WMATA has 6 facilities with a total capacity to maintain and repair 118 cars daily. These facilities are located throughout the Metrorail system. The oldest and largest shop, opened in 1974, is 1 of 2 facilities able to service more than 20 cars each and perform heavy repairs and overhauls in addition to scheduled maintenance and unscheduled repairs. Of the remaining 4 facilities, 3 have the capacity to service 20 cars each; 1 facility has only 8 repair spaces. WMATA plans to open a new facility in 2002 that will expand its current capacity to accommodate 126 cars. As of March 2001, Metrorail’s total available fleet consisted of 762 cars. Given that WMATA has shop spaces for 118 cars and that some cars can be repaired outside of the shop, repair shop capacity in fiscal year 2000 was sufficient, for planning purposes, to support Metrorail’s maintenance and repair requirements. According to WMATA, the number of shop spaces required for maintenance and repairs equals the number of cars needed for revenue service, plus the number of spare cars (20 percent of the available fleet) needed for fleet management, multiplied by a factor of 15 percent (the typical number of cars held out of revenue service daily for maintenance and repairs). WMATA also considers the fact that about 15 percent of “running repairs”—repairs to address problems that occur while vehicles are in service—can be performed safely outside of the repair shop. WMATA typically holds about 112 rail cars out of service daily for maintenance and repair. However, WMATA officials told us that they expect to receive about 80 of the 192 new rail cars by the end of the fall of 2001, which will increase the available fleet size to 842 cars. Of the 80 new cars, 32 are required for service on the Green Line’s Branch Avenue extension. The remainder will be placed into revenue service where required. Thus, by the end of the fall of 2001, WMATA could need 126 repair shop spaces—15 percent of the 842-car fleet—or 8 more than capacity. Depending on the number of cars that can be repaired outside of the repair shop, shop capacity could be inadequate to meet requirements at that time. Further, because the new cars will require acceptance testing before they are placed into service, WMATA will have to relinquish four shop spaces to the manufacturer. Testing, which could require at least 5 days for each car, will be done at one of the larger facilities, where four shop spaces have been dedicated to the car manufacturer. As the balance of the new cars are delivered—10 cars per month over 11 months following the initial delivery in the fall of 2001—repair shop capacity could become even more of a problem by the fall of 2002. At that time, WMATA will have 126 shop spaces and the number of cars required for revenue service will have increased to 914 (762 existing cars, plus 192 new cars, less the 40 cars scheduled for rehabilitation). Consequently, WMATA could need 136 repair shop spaces—15 percent of the 914-car fleet—or 10 more than capacity. Furthermore, WMATA plans to order a total of at least 94 additional vehicles to accommodate new revenue service on the Largo extension to the Blue Line in Maryland (which is currently under construction), increased demand on the Orange Line in Virginia due to service expansion, and service growth on other existing rail lines. WMATA plans to begin the process for procuring these cars in summer 2001 in order to meet projected passenger demands on the Largo extension by early 2005. Although WMATA officials believe that the agency’s current shop capacity may not be favorable for the expeditious turnaround of vehicles requiring maintenance and repair, they pointed out that they are taking steps to ease the capacity problem. For example, in the near term, WMATA has four “blow down pits”—spaces in its largest repair shops used to clean the underside of a car prior to its scheduled maintenance—that can also be used for maintenance and repair. At the same time, however, WMATA recognizes that it has no capacity to maintain and repair the 94 additional cars. According to WMATA’s 1999 rail fleet management plan, the number of cars requiring scheduled maintenance and unscheduled repairs is expected to rise over the next 5 years. This increase in maintenance and repairs will occur because (1) the newer Breda cars will be nearing their midlife; (2) the renovation of the Rohr cars will be 10 years old and the cars will be nearing the end of their service life; and (3) a total of 286 new rail cars will have been added to the fleet, increasing the fleet size by about 37 percent. WMATA is taking two actions to address the maintenance and repair shop capacity problem. First, WMATA is surveying its existing shops to determine whether their capacity can be expanded. The agency expects to complete the survey in the fall of 2001, possibly beginning expansion efforts as early as 2002. The most likely shop to be expanded first is the smallest one, where the number of shop spaces would be increased from 8 to 20. Second, WMATA plans to build a new repair shop within the Dulles Corridor in Virginia. However, this facility will not be available until about 2010, when the Dulles Corridor rail line extension is expected to be completed. At the direction of Congress, the federal government has delegated responsibility for overseeing WMATA and other transit agencies’ rail safety activities to state agencies. In December 1995, FTA issued a state safety oversight rule for rail fixed guideway systems. However, there are no similar federal rules that govern the safety of transit bus systems. In 2000, FTA initiated a voluntary transit bus safety program to promote a better understanding of state safety regulations and disseminate assistance to the industry. In December 1995, FTA issued a state safety oversight rule (49 C.F.R. Part 659) requiring states to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideway systems.According to FTA, the rule was designed to reduce all incidents that harm passengers and employees, whether these incidents are the result of unintentional occurrences (safety) or intentional acts (security). The state safety oversight rule includes provisions for passenger and employee security in recognition that safety and security risks are interrelated for rail transit passengers and employees. Under the rule, states are to designate an oversight agency (or agencies) to oversee the safety of the rail transit systems operating within its borders.When the rail system operates within only a single state, that entity must be an agency of the state; when it operates in more than one state, the affected states designate a single entity to oversee the system. The state may not designate the rail transit system as the oversight agency. In March 1997, transportation departments from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia designated the Tri-State Oversight Committee (TOC) as the state oversight agency for WMATA. As required by the rule, TOC developed a system safety program standard, a document that establishes the relationship between the oversight and transit agencies and specifies the procedures that the transit agency must follow. In addition, the oversight agency requires WMATA to develop and implement system safety and security program plans, report accidents and unacceptable hazard conditions, and conduct safety reviews. WMATA has developed both system safety and security plans to comply with the state safety oversight rule. The plans are companion documents, which together act as a blueprint for providing safety and security for WMATA. Under the state safety oversight rule, FTA has the responsibility to monitor and evaluate the states’ compliance with the rule. In the fall of 1998, FTA initiated a State Safety Oversight Audit Program to support monitoring activities for the rule. Under this program, FTA audits determine whether state oversight agencies are carrying out the program and examine ways in which the overall program can be improved. In February 2000, FTA completed an audit of TOC, during which FTA identified six deficiencies and three areas of concern. FTA found, among other things, deficiencies in TOC’s (1) process for reviewing the system safety program standard and program plan, (2) hazardous condition investigations and corrective actions, (3) 3-year safety reviews, and (4) oversight agency reporting and certification to FTA. For example, FTA found that TOC had no formal procedures for approving and tracking corrective actions. The purpose of the corrective action plan management process is to document communication between the rail system and the oversight agency regarding the resolution of identified hazards. In response to this deficiency finding, TOC agreed to review and discuss with WMATA its corrective action plans at regularly scheduled meetings, vote to approve or disapprove those measures, and require that additional measures be included in the action plan. According to an FTA official, the agency is satisfied with TOC’s responses to all of its audit findings. There is no overall federal regulation requiring oversight for transit bus safety. Under authority provided by the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has exempted passenger carrier operations that were part of federal, state, or quasi-public operations. FHWA has no authority to perform any safety reviews or inspections of transit bus operations. In 1998, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that there were substantial safety deficiencies in, and little federal or state oversight of, the transit bus industry. According to NTSB, the federal government was spending, at that time, over $6 billion to subsidize the operation of transit agencies, yet the safety oversight of transit bus operations was essentially nonexistent. FTA had a state safety oversight program but, as described previously, it applied only to those agencies conducting rail transit operations. According to NTSB, FTA has traditionally looked either to state regulation, if it exists, or to self-regulation by the transit industry to safeguard the public’s use of transit systems. However, FTA has only a few methods for assessing the safety of transit bus agencies that receive federal funding, including (1) sharing safety information among transit agencies, (2) performing triennial oversight reviews of all transit functions that may include a few safety-related questions, and (3) conducting investigations of safety hazards under 49 U.S.C. 5329. According to NTSB, however, none of these methods provide a comprehensive assessment of transit bus safety throughout the country or a remedy for any of the problems that may exist. Accordingly, the NTSB report recommended that DOT develop and implement an oversight program to assess and ensure the safety of transit bus operations that receive federal funding. In November 2000, FTA’s Office of Safety and Security initiated a bus transit safety program in response to concerns about the potential for catastrophic bus accidents. According to FTA officials, the overall objective of the program is to foster a better understanding of transit bus safety and disseminate technical assistance to the industry. FTA identified several program tasks, including developing a model transit bus safety program. Ultimately, potential models for a national framework will be presented that could provide transit bus safety practice guidance for bus entities. According to FTA, the program is not intended to create a bus oversight program that mirrors the rail fixed guideway safety oversight program; rather, its purpose is to compare and contrast current approaches to bus safety regulation and oversight in the country in hopes of identifying best practices for large and small transit bus systems. According to an FTA safety official, FTA will receive and incorporate comments from industry groups like the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) on program tasks and hopes to have all of the program tasks completed by the summer of 2001. WMATA’s primary mission is to provide safe and reliable public transportation service. Thus, safety considerations encompass all aspects of WMATA’s functions from planning and design to construction and operations. According to WMATA, safety is a major consideration at every stage of all of its rail and bus activities. WMATA addresses safety objectives through its system safety program plan, but it has also responded to outside safety reviews by FTA and others. In addition, the transit agency collects and analyzes safety performance data to determine if safety performance meets established safety objectives. In 1983, WMATA’s Board of Directors approved a system safety policy statement establishing the transit authority’s safety philosophy and objectives. Among other things, the policy statement directed WMATA to develop a comprehensive system safety program plan to eliminate or control safety hazards and reduce accident rates. In response to the Board, WMATA developed a plan that sets forth requirements for identifying, evaluating, and minimizing safety risks through all elements of the Metrorail and Metrobus systems. The plan identifies management and technical safety and fire protection activities performed during all phases of bus and rail operations. It also defines formal requirements for, among other things, (1) the implementation of established safety and fire protection criteria; (2) mechanisms for identifying and assessing safety hazards; and (3) methods for conducting investigations of accidents, incidents, or unsafe acts. WMATA’s current General Manager has delegated specific safety responsibilities to the transit agency’s Chief Safety Officer. The Chief Safety Officer has a staff of 26 people and is responsible for managing system safety, occupational safety and health, accident and incident investigation, fire protection, oversight of construction safety and environmental protection, and for monitoring the system safety program plan. Safety personnel investigate accidents involving fatalities, serious injuries, multiple hospitalizations, major fires, and derailments. WMATA is subject to a variety of oversight reviews and audits by federal agencies and private and regional associations, such as APTA, TOC, and FTA. For example, several serious accidents and incidents occurring in the mid-1990s in WMATA’s subway system raised concerns about safety and led to a 1997 report by FTA. Since then APTA has also conducted safety- related reviews of WMATA’s operations. In September 1997, FTA reported on its review of WMATA’s rail operations and found serious deficiencies in WMATA’s safety-related operating practices. FTA reviewed WMATA following a series of accidents and incidents at WMATA that raised concerns about the transit authority’s commitment to safety as its top priority. For example, in January 1996 a train operator was killed at a station when his train slid on icy tracks into parked railcars. In April of the same year, WMATA disconnected the operating mechanisms for the midcar emergency doors on about 100 rail cars without informing the public. Later that month, two workers were injured when their tools made contact with a live electrical cable that should have been deactivated while tracks were being repaired. In addition, a delayed response to a fire in May 1996 put firefighters and passengers at risk. FTA’s review concluded that WMATA had not kept abreast of the formal disciplines that constitute system safety, such as having a planned approach to system safety program tasks, and had not provided appropriate financial and personnel resources to accomplish tasks. In addition, FTA found that WMATA’s safety efforts had been weakened by frequent changes in the reporting level of the safety department, staff and budget reductions, and a deemphasis of safety awareness in public and corporate communications. For example, WMATA’s safety department had moved several times within the organization, making its work difficult, its priorities uncertain, and its status marginal. Also, from 1992 to 1996, safety department staff was reduced from 17 to 12 positions, and only 8 positions were filled at the time of FTA’s review. Finally, as a result of the safety department’s movement through the organization, it became responsible for other functions, further reducing its ability to meet its safety responsibilities. According to FTA, these limitations were reflected in, among other things, the absence of strong public and employee safety awareness programs. FTA’s report found that these problems existed before the arrival of the current management team in the fall of 1996 and concluded that WMATA had taken important first steps to change the situation. For example, in 1996, WMATA’s new General Manager made safety a priority and selected a new Chief Safety Officer who would report directly to him. The General Manager also directed a review of the transit authority’s safety function and revised its system safety program plan, which now includes detailed protocols for identifying and assessing hazards. According to an FTA safety official, WMATA’s safety program is considered “very good” compared to the safety programs at other transit agencies. Under FTA rules, state oversight agencies must conduct an on-site safety review of the transit agency’s implementation of its system safety program plan at least every 3 years. As WMATA’s state oversight agency, TOC used APTA to conduct a safety review in September 1998. APTA’s audit addressed policies, processes, and procedures as set out in WMATA’s system safety program plan and included a review of supporting documentation, interviews with agency personnel, and field observations. In its subsequent report, APTA found 12 deficiencies in such areas as quality assurance programs, plant maintenance, and engineering and technical support and operations. According to APTA, since issuance of its report, WMATA has developed corrective action plans for each of the deficiencies that demonstrate the transit authority’s commitment to strengthening performance standards and ensuring that the processes are effective and prevalent throughout the agency. APTA also concluded that although it does not comparatively rate transit systems as to how effective they are in managing and implementing their safety programs, WMATA is regarded as one of the industry leaders in transit system safety program development and implementation. More recently, WMATA acted to address problems resulting from a tunnel fire that occurred in April 2000. A power cable shorted out in a tunnel between two subway stations, causing an electrical tunnel fire, extremely lengthy delays in service, and the need to evacuate passengers from a subway train. In response to the incident, WMATA created a safety task force to review its operations control center’s handling of the incident. In addition, WMATA’s General Manager asked APTA to conduct a comprehensive peer review of the transit agency’s emergency procedures for handling tunnel fires. Specifically, the General Manager asked APTA to review WMATA’s general agency policies, procedures, rules and practices; coordination with emergency responders; operations control center policies and practices; and front-line employee response to fires. APTA’s findings and recommendations were, in many ways, consistent with the findings of WMATA’s internal investigation. For instance, APTA and WMATA’s recommendations supported the need for efforts to formalize and strengthen training for operations control center personnel and ensure that emergency procedures are addressed in the training and certification of operations staff. The 2 reviews made 32 recommendations affecting fire safety policy and procedure, related equipment, communications, and training. At the time of our review, WMATA had taken actions to implement 30 of the 32 recommendations. According to WMATA’s Chief Safety Officer, the agency developed a list of corrective actions as a result of the fire, is training its staff to communicate more effectively with fire authorities so everyone understands incidents that are taking place, and plans to open a fire training center to train WMATA employees and local firefighters. According to the Chief Safety Officer, WMATA also started collecting information on fire and smoke incidents in Metrorail and Metrobus operations after the April 2000 tunnel fire. These incidents include cable fires, trash fires, and smoke incidents. Figure 1 shows that 22 of the 47 fire and smoke incidents occurring in the Metrorail system from April 20, 2000, to December 31, 2000, had no impact on service. However, other smoke and fire incidents have caused delays in Metrorail service of as much as 2 hours. WMATA collects and analyzes safety data to determine if safety performance meets established safety objectives. Analysis of this system- specific data can be used to determine trends and patterns in system operation. WMATA reports information, such as injuries, collisions, and derailments occurring in its Metrobus and Metrorail systems, to its Board of Directors and others on a quarterly and annual basis. Table 2 shows the number and injury rates for rail station and rail on-board injuries for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Rail station injuries include, among other things, elevator and escalator injuries; injuries on platforms, mezzanines, and free areas; and injuries occurring outside stations. Rail on-board injuries occur inside trains due to doors, defective equipment, and boarding or alighting trains. A WMATA safety official told us that most of these injuries were not serious. Table 2 shows that WMATA has experienced low rail station injury rates over the 5-year period—only 0.37 injuries per 1 million passenger miles. However, the absolute number of rail station injuries increased from 366 in fiscal year 1999 to 474 in fiscal year 2000, and the injury rate increased from 0.34 to 0.43 for the same 2 years. WMATA officials attribute this increase primarily to the crowding resulting from increased ridership. WMATA documents show that over 50 percent of all rail station injuries have occurred on escalators. According to WMATA’s Chief Safety Officer, the root causes of the majority of these incidents are human factors, not equipment failure, employee performance, or unsafe conditions. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, for example, no escalator incidents were caused by electrical or mechanical failure or unsafe conditions. WMATA is promoting escalator safety by conducting public awareness campaigns (e.g., brochures and community outreach) and adding safety devices, such as shut-off switches and glide stops. Table 2 shows that rail on-board injuries and injury rates have also been low over the 5-year period. However, the number of injuries and the injury rate almost doubled between fiscal years 1999 and 2000. WMATA documents show that boarding and alighting trains has accounted for, on average, about 45 percent of all rail on-board injuries during the 5-year period. Our review of WMATA documents also shows that rail collisions and derailments occur infrequently. For example, as shown in table 3, WMATA has experienced 18 rail collisions from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000, with only 1 occurring in fiscal year 2000. WMATA defines rail collisions as collisions of trains in revenue service with other trains, equipment, or objects on tracks that result in damage to equipment or property. According to a WMATA safety official, none of these collisions involved two trains; rather, most incidents involved a train hitting an object that was on or near train tracks. None resulted in a fatality. In addition, there have been only two train derailments involving trains in revenue service that were transporting passengers during the 5-year period, both occurring in fiscal year 1999. A WMATA safety official said that neither of these incidents resulted in injuries. Table 3 shows rail collisions and derailments occurring during fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Table 4 shows that bus passenger injury and bus collision incident rates have remained stable during fiscal years 1996 through 2000, although both total injuries and collisions increased over the last year. According to WMATA, it suspects increases in bus ridership as well as inexperienced operators driving in increasingly congested traffic areas and on new and extended routes as the cause for increased bus incidents. For example, WMATA recently hired 766 new operators to cover retirements. Nevertheless, WMATA considers more than 60 percent of these incidents to be nonpreventable. WMATA has new and planned programs to reduce bus incidents, such as recognition programs, spot checks, a mentor program, promotional programs, route assessments, and new traffic warning signs to prevent rear-end collisions. During fiscal years 1996 through 2000, there were a total of 21 fatalities in WMATA’s transit system—11 fatalities in the Metrobus and 10 in the Metrorail systems. Of the 11 bus fatalities, 5 involved bus collisions with other vehicles, 4 involved persons being struck by a bus, 1 person died on board a bus during an accident, and 1 person died while alighting a bus. Of the 10 rail fatalities, 4 were suicides, 2 involved escalator entrapment, 2 occurred boarding or alighting trains, 1 was the WMATA employee killed in the 1996 incident mentioned previously, and 1 was a person killed when struck by a train. WMATA’s Metro Transit Police Department is responsible for the system’s transit security—which has been defined as freedom from intentional danger for passengers, employees, and the transit system. The department has jurisdiction and arrest powers on WMATA property throughout the 1,500 square mile transit zone that includes Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia and has an authorized strength of 320 sworn and 103 civilian personnel. According to WMATA, its police department, which is the only nonfederal trijurisdictional police agency in the country, is responsible for law enforcement, revenue protection, and security services. Similar to his emphasis on safety issues, WMATA’s current General Manager has delegated authority to the Chief of Police to plan, direct, coordinate, implement, and evaluate all police and security activities for the transit agency. WMATA has developed a systemwide security program plan, participates in external security reviews, and collects and evaluates crime statistics. To emphasize the importance of system security, WMATA’s Metro Transit Police Department established a set of comprehensive security activities documented in its system security program plan. The plan is designed to maximize the level of security experienced by passengers, employees, and other individuals who come into contact with the transit system and to minimize the cost associated with the intrusion of vandals and others into the system. As noted previously, the system security program plan is a companion document to the system safety program plan. One of the security plan’s objectives is to make the transit system more proactive in preventing and mitigating security problems. Many proactive security measures have been in place since the inception and design of the transit system, including station lighting, recessed walls, closed circuit televisions, and alarm systems. WMATA has also developed strategies to reduce crime and provide a secure environment, including strict enforcement of a “zero tolerance” philosophy on crime, emphasis on prevention rather than a response to crime, and crime prevention training for civilians and WMATA employees. The amount of serious transit-related crime has fallen nationwide over the last few years. Nevertheless, according to FTA, the public’s perception about the lack of security continues to have a significant impact on transit ridership nationwide. To combat this perception, FTA initiated a voluntary transit security audit program in 1996. The goal of the program is to assist transit agencies in achieving the highest potential level of a safe and secure transportation environment by encouraging transit systems to develop, implement, and maintain a transit security system that will protect passengers, employees, vehicles, revenue, and property. The program has four objectives, including (1) providing assistance to transit agencies in developing and initiating system security program plans; (2) evaluating the level of preparedness of each system; (3) sharing best practices used by transit police, security, and operations personnel to enhance security for passengers and employees; and (4) evaluating the quality of security provided by transit systems for passengers, employees, and system facilities. Since the program started, FTA has completed two security audits of WMATA. In April 1997, FTA conducted its first on-site transit security audit of WMATA. At that time, FTA officials stated that they were impressed with efforts taken by WMATA transit police and the operating and maintenance departments to comply with FTA’s security requirements. Furthermore, FTA found that the comprehensive nature of WMATA’s security program demonstrates a high level of attention to passenger and employee security. FTA recommended that the transit police play a greater role in the development of agency operating procedures and training programs. It also recommended the development of a technology plan to address police radio communications, the crime records system, and the use of mobile data terminals for filing police reports. In its October 1997 follow-up audit, FTA stated that it was pleased with WMATA’s efforts to comply with FTA’s previous recommendations and suggestions. In addition, FTA observed exemplary security practices and found that WMATA’s transit police were very committed and well supported by top management. The audit recommended, among other things, that the transit police increase its involvement in developing and distributing procedures for systemwide security-related issues. FTA will conduct further security reviews of WMATA on a regular basis under its security audit program. In everyday practice, WMATA’s transit police and its security management team are faced with the need to allocate and assign available security personnel and other resources to best address crime and incidents and to enhance the public’s perception of the transit system as being a safe environment. WMATA collects and analyzes summary statistics to identify trends in crime, assess performance, and design appropriate countermeasures. WMATA’s reporting system groups crimes into two categories that are similar to, but not entirely consistent with, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting System. Currently, WMATA’s Part I crimes include eight crime categories such as arson, homicide, and robbery. Part II crimes include other “less serious” crimes, such as disorderly conduct, drunkenness, and trespassing. WMATA plans to revise its crime categories by January 2002 to be consistent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s reporting system. Part II crimes occur much more frequently than Part I crimes in WMATA’s Metrorail and Metrobus systems. From 1996 through 2000, for example, Part II crimes accounted for 72 percent (13,556 crimes) of the nearly 19,000 total crimes committed in the transit system. Part I crimes accounted for only 28 percent (5,401) of all crimes. Yearly total crime counts for the 5-year period ranged from a high of 4,491 crimes in 1998 to a low of 3,510 in 1996. Table 5 shows Part I and Part II crimes committed in the transit system for the 5-year period. As table 6 shows, Part I crimes are committed more often in the Metrorail system than in the Metrobus system. From 1996 through 2000, for example, Part I crimes were committed, on average, about 7 times per million riders in the rail system. In contrast, Part I crimes occurred less than once per million riders on the bus system. Larceny, motor vehicle theft, and robbery accounted for the majority of all Part I crimes committed in WMATA’s entire transit system. From 1996 through 2000, for example, those 3 crime categories accounted for, on average, 93 percent (5,030 crimes) of all Part I crimes. Of those 3 categories, larceny made up, on average, 51 percent of all Part I crimes. Other Part I crimes, such as burglary, homicide, and rape, occurred rarely. Table 6 shows Part I crimes committed in the transit system from 1996 through 2000. WMATA’s crime statistics show that Part I crimes are committed much more frequently in WMATA’s parking lots than on either its Metrobus or Metrorail systems. Part II crimes, however, have been more evenly distributed between parking lots and the Metrorail system over time. From 1996 through 2000, for example, Part I crimes were committed, on average, 64 percent of the time in parking lots and about 31 percent of the time in the Metrorail system. Over the 5-year period, Part II crimes have been committed, on average, about 54 percent of the time in the Metrorail system and 40 percent of the time in parking lots. To address the problem of parking lot crimes Metro recently increased its undercover patrols of the system’s parking lots. Metrobus has experienced only about 6 percent of all Part I and 6 percent of all Part II crimes for the 5-year period. Table 7 shows crimes committed by location from 1996 through 2000. In a December 1998 report, GAO identified capital decision-making principles and practices used by outstanding state and local governments and private sector organizations. In this report, we describe WMATA’s Capital Improvement Program and compare WMATA’s practices with those of leading public and private organizations. In particular, we assessed the extent to which WMATA (1) integrates its organizational goals into the capital decision-making process through structured strategic planning and needs determination processes, (2) uses an investment approach to evaluate and select capital assets, and (3) maintains budgetary control over its capital investments. WMATA created a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in November 2000 to consolidate its ongoing and planned capital improvement activities. This program contains three elements to address all aspects of the agency’s capital investments, including (1) system rehabilitation and replacements, (2) system expansion, and (3) system access and capacity. Under CIP, WMATA’s Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP)—created in March 1999—is designed to rehabilitate or replace WMATA’s existing assets, including rail cars, buses, maintenance facilities, tracks, and other structures and systems. This program currently includes 28 projects that are estimated to cost $9.8 billion over a 25-year period from fiscal years 2001 through 2025. Also under CIP, WMATA has initiated programs to expand the original transit system and enhance passengers’ access to Metrorail. For example, WMATA established what is now known as the System Expansion Program (SEP) by issuing a plan in April 1999 to more closely join bus services, rail services, and highway improvements to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the regional transportation network. SEP has three major objectives: (1) to expand fixed guideway services; (2) to selectively add stations and entrances to the existing Metrorail system; and (3) to improve bus service levels and expand service areas. A fourth objective of the April 1999 plan—improving access to and capacity of the Metrorail system—is now called the System Access/Capacity Program, as described below. SEP currently includes four approved and proposed projects to expand various components of the rail system. WMATA has not yet estimated the full lifecycle costs for all four projects. The third element of CIP is the System Access and Capacity Program (SAP), formerly part of the April 1999 Transit Service Expansion Plan. SAP was established as a separate program in November 2000 to provide additional rail cars and buses, parking facilities, and support activities to accommodate ridership growth. It also includes a study to determine the modifications needed to the Metrorail system’s core capacity to sustain current ridership volumes and increased passenger demands resulting from future expansions. According to WMATA’s proposed fiscal year 2002 budget, SAP currently includes 16 projects with a total expected cost of approximately $2.5 billion over the next 25 years. In successful organizations, strategic planning guides the decision-making process for all spending, including capital spending. Strategic planning can be defined as a structured process through which an organization translates a vision and makes fundamental decisions that shape and guide what the organization is and what it does. A strategic plan defines an organization’s long-term goals and objectives and the strategies for achieving those goals and objectives; annual performance plans describe in greater detail the specific processes, technologies, and types of resources, including capital, that are needed to achieve performance goals in a given year. Leading organizations use their strategic planning process to link the expected outcomes of projects, including capital projects, to the organization’s overall strategic goals and objectives. Strategic planning provides the underpinnings for agencies to develop comprehensive and effective plans for all activities, including capital investments. It can also facilitate communication within the agency itself as well as between the agency and its external clients. WMATA has articulated a mission statement for the agency and an “organizational goal” of doubling transit ridership by the year 2025 to maintain the existing transit market share, enhance mobility and accessibility, improve air quality, reduce congestion, and support regional growth and travel demands. WMATA officials have also told us that they are creating a business planning process to address key areas, including (1) ridership retention and growth, (2) customer satisfaction, (3) system quality and safety, (4) service capacity and expansion, and (5) internal capabilities and organizational development. We support WMATA’s efforts in these areas, although they have not yet resulted in plans that include the elements that leading organizations consider essential to the strategic planning process. In particular, WMATA has not developed a long-term strategic plan that defines multiyear goals and objectives for the agency and its strategies for achieving those goals, nor has it developed annual performance plans that explain the specific processes, technologies, and types of resources, including capital, that will be applied during a given year to address the performance goals and objectives. WMATA also does not have a document that links the expected outcomes of all of its capital projects—including IRP, SEP, and SAP projects—to achieving the agency’s strategic goals and objectives. Our 1998 report pointed out that conducting a comprehensive needs assessment of program requirements is an important first step in an organization’s capital decision-making process. A comprehensive needs assessment considers an organization’s overall mission and identifies the resources needed to fulfill both immediate requirements and anticipated future needs on the basis of multiyear goals and objectives that flow from the organization’s mission. Again according to our 1998 report, to begin the needs assessment process, leading organizations assess the extent to which stated goals and objectives are aligned with the organization’s mission. Multiyear goals and objectives outline how the organization intends to fulfill its mission. The goals describe, in general terms, the organization’s policy intent and define its direction; objectives serve to move the organization from broad general goals to specific, quantifiable results and time-based statements of what the organization expects to accomplish. The needs assessment is results- oriented in that it determines what is needed to obtain specific outcomes. The focus placed on results drives the selection of alternative ways to fulfill a program’s requirements. When conducting a needs assessment, leading organizations assess internal and external environments. They examine the organization’s primary role and purpose, the strengths and weaknesses of its current organizational structure, and its current activities and how they are accomplished. They also examine external factors that affect or influence the organization’s operations, such as existing or future mandates and the expectations of its customer groups. Leading organizations also define the period of time a needs assessment should cover and how often it is to be updated. WMATA has performed a comprehensive assessment of capital requirements for infrastructure renewal. The foundation for the current IRP was a needs assessment completed by a contractor (Frederick R. Harris, Inc.) in March 1999 and additional assessments performed by WMATA staff to update and expand the information provided by the Harris report. The overall objectives of the assessments were to (1) develop a comprehensive understanding of the transit system’s assets and their condition, (2) determine what is needed to maintain the overall condition of WMATA’s infrastructure and support transit service enhancements, (3) relate system needs to available funding through a system for prioritizing projects and expenditures, and (4) support the transition of the transit system from a “start-up” to a renewal mode. Through these reviews, WMATA obtained a comprehensive inventory of its capital assets, an assessment of the condition of those assets, and recommendations for proposed projects and estimated costs for addressing the agency’s infrastructure renewal requirements over a 25-year period. By comparing its resource needs information with data on its current asset capabilities, WMATA was able to identify the gaps between what it needed to maintain its current infrastructure in good repair and what resources it had available to address infrastructure needs. To improve system access and capacity, WMATA is in the process of identifying current and needed capabilities to determine any performance gaps between them. WMATA is currently assessing the Metrorail system’s core capacity to determine any modifications needed to accommodate current ridership and increased passenger demand generated from future subway expansions. The core capacity assessment is scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2001. WMATA also developed its April 1999 Transit Service Expansion Plan, which identified overall planned expansion efforts given WMATA’s goal of doubling ridership over the next 25 years. The plan states that some of the proposed projects fall into a time frame of 10 to 25 years, and others fall beyond a 25-year horizon. Although the expansion plan outlines a transit vision for the Washington region and represents a positive first step in outlining expansion needs, it does not meet most of the requirements for a comprehensive needs assessment. For example, the plan identifies three overall goals for the role of public transit in the Washington metropolitan area and contains objectives, or elements, to implement these goals. However, the objectives do not always describe specific, quantifiable results or contain time-based statements of what the organization expects to accomplish. Also, the plan does not explain how the agency assessed needs to arrive at the specific proposed projects in the plan, and it does not outline the purpose and scope of each proposed project. Furthermore, it does not examine external factors that might affect the agency’s ability to carry out the plan—such as the transit agency’s lack of dedicated funding and the uncertainty caused by its dependence on annual funding decisions by numerous state, local, and federal government sources—nor does it specify how and when the plan will be updated. Finally, with regard to considering the expectation of customer groups, a representative of the Transportation Planning Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments told us that WMATA did not fully coordinate the plan with that group before it was published. Although WMATA has not performed a comprehensive needs assessment for system expansion, it does consider regional transportation needs, costs, and benefits before deciding to support proposed expansion projects. For example, WMATA has established a “Project Development Program” to develop conceptual designs for some of the proposed projects contained in the Transit Service Expansion Plan. The goal of this program is to develop initial planning and engineering information for proposed projects that can lead to a more detailed alternatives analysis. Under this program, WMATA is considering alternative ways of providing transit services within specific corridors; developing “order of magnitude” costs and preliminary ridership estimates; and evaluating potential land use, economic development, and other issues related to specific proposed projects. Leading organizations consider a wide range of alternatives to satisfy their needs, including noncapital alternatives, before choosing to purchase or construct a capital asset or facility. When it is determined that capital is needed, managers also consider repair and renovation of existing assets. For its system expansion program, WMATA has a limited role in identifying and evaluating alternatives before deciding to support specific expansion projects. This limited role stems from WMATA’s relationship to other organizations, including (1) the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and (2) the state and local jurisdictions served by WMATA. WMATA is beginning to explore—with transportation officials in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia—ways to increase its involvement in identifying and evaluating alternatives before the state and local jurisdictions select expansion projects for detailed planning, development, and implementation. We support WMATA’s efforts in this area and believe that the agency could provide valuable analysis and insights through a more active role in the decision-making process for capital expansion projects. With regard to assessing regional transportation needs and alternatives, TPB plays the key role in determining the overall transportation needs of the Washington region and identifying and evaluating alternatives (including noncapital alternatives) to meet those needs. As the regional forum for transportation planning, TPB prepares plans and programs that the federal government must approve before federal aid transportation funds can flow to the Washington region. TPB develops long- and short- range plans that include alternative transportation modes and methods in the region, including highway projects, WMATA’s bus and rail services, bus services provided by local jurisdictions in the region, ridesharing and telecommuting incentives, bike and pedestrian paths, and pricing strategies to manage transportation demands. WMATA’s General Manager is a member of TPB and provides input on proposed transit projects for infrastructure renewal, system expansion, and system access and capacity for TPB’s approval and inclusion in its long- and short-range plans. TPB has also prepared a draft planning document—required by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration—which includes projects for identifying and evaluating transportation requirements and alternatives in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, including transit-related projects. The document contains projects to (1) survey workers about their travel patterns and employer-sponsored commuting programs, (2) measure traffic volumes in local jurisdictions, and (3) examine the potential for new and innovative bus services in the Washington metropolitan area. With regard to identifying and evaluating transit expansion alternatives within specific parts of the metropolitan area known as “corridors,” the state and local jurisdictions served by WMATA have the lead role in performing alternatives analyses and proposing projects for detailed planning and federal funding, as required by FTA. According to WMATA officials, the agency’s decisions about which system expansion projects to support are driven by the state and local jurisdictions that sponsor the project and secure a major segment of the proposed project’s funding. For example, the decision to support the project extending Metrorail’s Blue Line to Largo was largely made by the representatives of Maryland’s Department of Transportation, which sponsored the project, and by the members of WMATA’s Board of Directors who represent Maryland jurisdictions. WMATA has had a limited role in identifying and analyzing the corridor- level alternatives required by FTA. After the state and local jurisdictions select a specific expansion project to pursue, they take the lead in preparing the corridor-level alternatives analysis, with limited technical input, if necessary, from WMATA. These analyses range from a “baseline alternative” that may involve little or no investment to making significant capital investments in constructing or expanding a transit system. FTA requires that the alternatives analysis provide information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of alternative strategies, ultimately leading to the selection of a locally preferred alternative to the community’s mobility needs. The alternatives analysis is considered complete when a locally preferred alternative is selected by local and regional decisionmakers and adopted by the metropolitan planning organization—in this case, TPB in its financially constrained long-range plan. In addition to SEP, we also reviewed the extent to which WMATA considers alternatives on its two other capital improvement programs— IRP and SAP. With regard to IRP, there are limited opportunities for the agency to consider alternative approaches to meeting requirements, given that this program addresses the WMATA assets that are needed to maintain current transit service levels. Nonetheless, WMATA did consider alternatives for IRP in some cases. For example, WMATA has evaluated the relative costs of extending the useful life of its rail cars, buses, and escalators by performing extensive mid-life overhauls versus purchasing new vehicles or equipment at the end of the shorter expected service life. As a result, WMATA decided to perform the overhauls and extend the life of its vehicles and equipment, resulting in expected savings over time. With regard to SAP, because WMATA is in the process of assessing its requirements, it is not yet at the stage of its capital decision-making process where alternative approaches have been fully identified and evaluated. WMATA expects to identify its requirements in this area by the end of 2001. An investment approach builds upon an organization’s assessment of where it should invest its resources for the greatest benefit over the long- term. Establishing a decision-making framework which encourages the appropriate levels of management review and approval is a critical factor in making sound capital investment decisions. These decisions are supported by the proper financial, technical, and risk analyses. Leading organizations not only establish a framework for reviewing and approving capital decisions, they also have defined processes for ranking and selecting projects. Furthermore, they also develop long-term capital plans that are based on the long-range vision for the organization embodied in the strategic plan. WMATA has not established a formal executive-level review group within the agency for making capital decisions, nor does it have formal procedures or a standard decision package for considering the relative merits of various capital projects each year. With regard to IRP, according to WMATA officials, all appropriate mid-level and senior managers at WMATA were involved in deciding which IRP projects should be established after the March 1999 Harris study (and subsequent updates by WMATA staff). Also, a committee of mid-level managers has been formed to review, among other things, the small number of requests for new IRP projects that are generated each year as part of the annual budget process. WMATA officials use briefing slides and other underlying analyses to reach consensus within the agency on IRP issues. In addition, WMATA’s management must obtain approval for IRP-related issues and budgets from its Board of Directors, which has a formal Budget Committee that issues guidance, holds periodic meetings to review IRP and other budget issues, and documents its decisions and their rationale in formal meeting minutes. Although WMATA officials throughout the organization provide input into the IRP decision-making process, a more formal process with standardized procedures and documentation and periodic reviews of all ongoing and proposed IRP projects would provide WMATA with a sound basis for clarifying, justifying, and documenting its capital decisions. It would also provide greater continuity within the organization if key managers move to other positions or leave the agency. In response to our review, WMATA officials told us that they plan to establish a new office within the agency that will provide oversight of all established capital projects, including their program scope, schedules, and costs. We view this as a positive step in increasing WMATA’s control over its ongoing projects, and it could provide the basis for a more formal executive review and approval process that promotes a continual evaluation of the merits of all ongoing and proposed capital projects in WMATA’s Capital Improvement Program. Within the System Expansion Program, WMATA officials told us that they play a relatively small role in proposing, evaluating, and selecting projects. According to WMATA officials, system expansion projects are first identified by local jurisdictions, which are also responsible for securing full up-front funding for their respective projects. These officials informed us that WMATA becomes involved in the projects after they have been identified and funding has been secured by the respective jurisdictions. Although WMATA has established priorities for its system expansion program on the basis of the broad need to serve regional travel patterns and sustain the economic vitality of the region, WMATA has not taken the lead in preparing financial, technical, and risk analyses for alternative expansion projects and reviewing various proposed projects on the basis of such analyses. Leading organizations consider this framework to be a critical factor in making sound capital investment decisions. Given that the state and local jurisdictions take the lead in identifying and deciding on expansion projects, WMATA does not become involved in crucial early decisions on pursuing the most appropriate and efficient ways to expand the system and may therefore be limiting its influence on those decisions. However, WMATA could influence those decisions were it to have a more disciplined decision-making framework resulting in documented support for the alternatives it favors. Once jurisdictions have identified and secured funding for proposed expansion projects, FTA guidelines require detailed documentation justifying the projects and following them to completion. These documents include an environmental impact statement and a long-range funding plan. However, these documents are prepared only after the respective jurisdictions have identified the projects. Established practices in capital decision-making include the preparation of such documents as part of the overall capital review and approval process, before the projects are ranked and funds are committed to the projects themselves. The documents are used as supporting documentation for decision or investment packages to justify capital project requests. WMATA does not currently prepare such decision or investment packages before deciding on system expansion projects. Our 1998 report points out that leading organizations have defined processes for ranking and selecting projects. The selection of projects is based on preestablished criteria and a relative ranking of investment proposals. The organizations determine the right mix of projects by viewing all proposed investments and existing assets as a portfolio. They generally find it beneficial to rank projects because the number of requested projects exceeds available funding. The criteria such organizations use in ranking projects include linkage to strategic objectives, costs, benefits, risks, safety concerns, customer service significance, and political implications. In particular, it is important to clearly identify the risks of proposed projects, assess the potential impact of the risks, and develop risk mitigation strategies. With regard to IRP, WMATA performed a one-time priority ranking of proposed projects on the basis of preestablished criteria as part of the March 1999 study conducted by Frederick Harris, Inc. These criteria included how critical the asset’s function was to delivering safe and reliable service; the level of degradation associated with the asset’s current condition; and other factors, such as the costs and benefits of the reinvestment, the income-producing potential of the asset, and the policy implications of various investments. According to WMATA officials, the agency has not periodically updated or reassessed the priority ranking completed in March 1999 because most of the projects in IRP have remained intact, and their priority does not change from year to year. They further noted that any minor changes required in the program from year to year are incorporated through the annual budget process. Although WMATA officials stated that the priority ranking of IRP projects does not need to be periodically reassessed over the years, leading organizations perform such periodic reassessments to help ensure that the organization is fully considering the relative merits, needs, and risks of all projects in light of changing conditions. With regard to its projects for system expansion, access, and capacity, WMATA has not formally ranked its proposed projects on the basis of established criteria. The jurisdictions that WMATA serves identify future expansion and access projects. In April 1999, WMATA established overall priorities for system expansion projects on the basis of the need to serve regional travel patterns and sustain the regional economy; however, WMATA officials told us that individual proposed expansion projects are not in any priority order. In our view, the criteria used by WMATA are not the types of specific criteria that leading organizations use to rank projects. Leading organizations use such criteria as linkage to organizational strategies, cost savings, market growth, and project risk to rank capital projects. Leading organizations develop long-term capital plans to guide implementation of organizational goals and objectives and help decisionmakers establish priorities over the long term. Although WMATA has prepared some documents that could serve as the starting point for such a plan, it has not developed a formal long-term capital plan that identifies and justifies all of its capital projects, links those projects to long-term strategic goals and objectives, and is periodically updated to reflect changing circumstances. With regard to IRP, the study conducted by Frederick Harris, Inc., in March 1999 contains many of the elements of a capital plan for infrastructure renewal. For example, the study proposed a set of projects after a thorough assessment of requirements. It also prioritized the proposed projects on the basis of established criteria that included how critical the asset’s function was to delivering safe and reliable service and information on the asset’s current condition. The study also estimated the life-cycle costs of carrying out each proposed project over a 20-year period. Although it provides an excellent foundation for capital infrastructure renewal planning, the Harris study does not fully meet the intent of an agency capital plan because it does not contain the ultimate decisions reached on which IRP projects are to be funded. Also, WMATA is not using the proposed project ranking contained in the Harris study as the vehicle for updating its capital decisions on the IRP program annually or biennially, as would be expected with an agency capital plan. Instead, WMATA documents its IRP decisions in a series of briefing slides that it uses to highlight IRP issues and recommendations for the purpose of gaining approval within WMATA and approval from WMATA’s Board of Directors. WMATA has also not developed a long-term capital plan that defines capital asset decisions for the system expansion and access programs. In April 1999, WMATA developed its Transit Service Expansion Plan covering a 25-year horizon. Although this plan represents a positive first step in identifying potential capital projects, it does not define the agency’s capital decision-making process or provide sufficient documentation on any of the proposed projects’ justifications, resource requirements, risks, or priorities. Without such information, WMATA and its external stakeholders cannot make informed choices about managing the agency’s capital resources. Finally, WMATA could benefit from preparing a consolidated long-term capital plan that incorporates all of the projects within its Capital Improvement Program for infrastructure renewal, system expansion, and system access and capacity. We recognize that WMATA’s capital funding sources are earmarked for specific categories of capital projects and cannot be interchanged (e.g., use IRP funding to pay for a system expansion project or vice versa). However, establishing a consolidated capital plan would nonetheless allow the agency to weigh and balance the need to maintain its existing capital assets against the demand for new assets. Officials at leading organizations that GAO studied agreed that good budgeting requires that the full costs of a project be considered when decisions are made to provide resources. Most of those organizations make a commitment to the full cost of a project up front and have developed alternative methods for maintaining budgetary control while allowing flexibility in funding. One strategy they use is to budget for and provide advance funding sufficient to complete a useful segment of a project. Another strategy used by some leading organizations is to use innovative financing techniques that provide new sources of funding or new methods of financial return. WMATA’s originally planned 103-mile Metrorail system was completed with useful segments or, as WMATA refers to them, operable segments. The last project to complete the system was designed to add 13.5 miles of heavy rail line, 9 rail stations, and 110 new heavy rail vehicles and spare parts. The project was broken down into four operable segments for which separate financial agreements were negotiated with FTA. This practice of providing separate funding for segments of Metrorail extensions was begun by WMATA’s predecessor, the National Capital Transportation Agency. According to WMATA officials, funding projects in operable segments has worked well and will continue to be used to expand the Metrorail system. WMATA has used innovative financing techniques to fund its Capital Improvement Program and operations activities. These techniques include obtaining a loan guarantee to fund its program for infrastructure renewal, sponsoring joint development projects with other organizations, establishing a Transit Infrastructure Investment Fund (TIIF), and creating special leasing programs to leverage some of its capital assets. The major innovative financing technique WMATA used has been to seek and receive a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Actloan guarantee from the Department of Transportation for $600 million to fund its program for infrastructure renewal. This guarantee allowed WMATA to show that it had funding available and thereby initiate and accelerate its most critical IRP projects. WMATA will soon have to seek a loan to pay for those projects, and that loan will have to be repaid with revenues from the local jurisdictions. Through its Joint Development Program, WMATA seeks partners to foster commercial and residential projects on WMATA-owned or controlled property or on private properties adjacent to Metrorail stations for the purpose of generating revenues for WMATA and the local jurisdictions it serves. WMATA currently has 26 joint development projects earning about $6 million each year. WMATA officials project that annual revenues from these projects will eventually reach $10-15 million as additional projects are completed. WMATA has also engaged in leasing programs that allow it to leverage some of its existing assets to generate additional revenue. For example, WMATA entered into tax-advantaged leases of its 680 rail cars in fiscal year 1999. Under this program, WMATA leased its rail cars to equity investors who obtained a tax benefit that they shared with WMATA. WMATA then simultaneously subleased the rail cars from the investors. WMATA raised $80 million in one-time proceeds from this program and is earning interest on those proceeds, resulting in additional income for the agency. In addition, WMATA has a Fiber Optic Leasing Program through which it leases its excess capacity of fiber optics to corporations, along with the right-of-way for installation of fiber optic cables. WMATA earns about $7 million annually from this program. Also, in August 2000, WMATA revised its ongoing TIIF program to allow the agency to retain income and proceeds from the sale or long-term lease of real estate transactions approved under its Joint Development Program. In August 2000, WMATA’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution addressing, among other matters, the use of funds deposited in TIIF. The first priority is to ensure the complete funding of IRP and the anticipated need for additional buses and rail cars to match ridership growth. The second priority is to promote transit-oriented projects, such as those that increase rail system access and ridership. As of February 2001, TIIF contained about $1.6 million. WMATA has estimated that over the 25-year period from fiscal year 2001 through 2025, it will need $9.8 billion to rehabilitate and replace its existing assets under IRP and $2.5 billion to improve access to and capacity of the existing bus and rail systems under SAP. However, the agency anticipates that it will be able to fund only 88 percent, or $8.6 billion, of the IRP requirements from federal and local funding sources, resulting in a $1.2 billion budgetary shortfall over the 25-year period, or an average annual shortfall of about $50 million. In addition, the agency had obtained no funding commitments as of April 2001 to address its $2.5 billion in estimated SAP needs. WMATA faces a number of uncertainties in obtaining the full level of funding that the agency believes it needs to meet IRP and SAP needs. First, although WMATA’s Board of Directors has approved a long-range vision of funding these programs at an amount “not to exceed” WMATA’s estimated amounts, the Board approves funding for only a 5-year period through an “Interjurisdictional Funding Agreement,” and it firmly commits to funding IRP projects only 1 year at a time through the budget process. WMATA’s current Interjurisdictional Funding Agreement expires in 2003, so local funding beyond that time is uncertain. Furthermore, WMATA’s estimate of SAP requirements could significantly increase when it completes its assessment of Metrorail’s core capacity in the fall of 2001. WMATA also faces the uncertainty regarding federal funding that every other transit agency faces in light of the need for reauthorization of federal legislationgoverning transit funding in 2003. WMATA has not developed any plans for addressing the potential budgetary shortfalls in IRP and SAP, nor has it developed alternate scenarios of how funding reductions would be absorbed by the various asset categories under IRP or by the projects identified under SAP. WMATA officials expressed concerns that such plans and alternate scenarios could undermine their efforts to obtain what they believe is the required funding amount for the two capital programs. In our view, however, prudent management requires that the agency identify the steps needed to address any anticipated shortfalls and develop alternate plans for carrying out its capital activities, depending on the level of funding obtained from local and federal sources. Our overall approach in reviewing WMATA’s capital investment, operations and maintenance, and safety and security activities was to determine (1) how WMATA is organized and what policies, procedures, and practices the agency uses to carry out the activities in each of the three areas; (2) the nature and extent of any problems WMATA faces in each area, the factors that have contributed to those problems, and the actions WMATA is taking to address them; and (3) the role of other organizations in influencing WMATA’s decision-making processes and providing oversight of WMATA actions in the three areas. To perform all of our work, we reviewed pertinent documentation, including laws and regulations, and interviewed knowledgeable officials throughout WMATA to document the agency’s policies, programs, and practices for performing its operations and maintenance, safety and security, and capital investment activities and to obtain views on the challenges the agency faces in each of those areas. We also met with officials from WMATA’s Board of Directors, the Transportation Planning Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, FTA, and the American Public Transportation Association to determine their respective roles in influencing WMATA’s decision-making processes and providing oversight of WMATA and to obtain their views on key challenges facing the agency. We conducted our work from September 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In reviewing Metrorail’s operations and maintenance activities, we interviewed WMATA’s Deputy General Manager of Operations, Chief Operating Officer of Rail Service, and other officials responsible for planning, directing, and assessing Metrorail’s operations. We also met with WMATA officials responsible for Metrorail’s fleet and facilities maintenance activities. We reviewed Metrorail’s fleet management plan and its operating budget, as well as other key documents related to its operating processes and procedures. In addition, we observed several meetings of the budget and operations committees of WMATA’s Board of Directors, in which issues pertaining to the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget and Metrorail’s ongoing and planned operations were addressed. In reviewing WMATA’s safety and security programs, we interviewed key safety and security staff in WMATA and its oversight agencies and reviewed plans and documents provided to us. In doing our work, we relied upon WMATA’s safety and security statistics. We did not attempt to compare the safety or security of WMATA with other transit systems. Currently, FTA’s National Transit Database is the only comprehensive source of domestic safety and security transit data. According to an FTA report issued in May 2000, however, the database is not adequately comprehensive, timely, or accurate to appropriately assess the state of industrywide or agency-level safety and security. FTA is in the process of redesigning its National Transit Database to enhance its reporting of safety and other data on transit agencies. In reviewing WMATA’s capital investment activities, we compared WMATA’s practices to those of leading public and private sector organizations. In doing so, we assessed the extent to which WMATA (1) integrates its organizational goals into the capital decision-making process, (2) uses an investment approach to evaluate and select capital assets, and (3) maintains budgetary control over its capital investments. Our criteria for established best practices was drawn from GAO’s 1998 Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making. The following are GAO’s comments on WMATA’s letter dated June 12, 2001. 1. WMATA did not agree with the subpart of our second recommendation that calls for developing alternative capital funding strategies and project outcomes, depending on the availability of funding from federal, state, and local sources. WMATA states that to develop such contingency plans would encourage its funding agencies to reduce WMATA’s resources, thereby becoming a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. We continue to believe, however, that prudent management requires WMATA to plan for budgetary shortfalls that the agency has publicly acknowledged are a major issue in protecting the public’s investment in WMATA’s transit system. We are particularly concerned about the near-term unfunded amounts for WMATA’s System Access and Capacity Program, which could significantly increase when WMATA completes its assessment of Metrorail’s core capacity in the fall of 2001. The TPB has also expressed concerns about the adequacy of WMATA’s capital funding, noting that the funding available from the state and local jurisdictions is less than that requested by WMATA. Therefore, we did not change the report’s recommendation. In addition to the individuals named above, John E. Bagnulo, Christine E. Bonham, Carlos E. Hazera, Michael E. Horton, Susan Michal Smith, Carol A. Ruchala, and Maria J. Santos made key contributions to this report. | In recent years, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) public transit system has experienced problems with the safety and reliability of its transit services, including equipment breakdowns, delays in scheduled service, unprecedented crowding on trains, and some accidents and tunnel fires. At the same time, WMATA's ridership is at an all time high and WMATA managers expect the number of passengers to double during the next 25 years. This report reviews (1) the challenges WMATA faces in operating and maintaining its Metrorail system; (2) efforts WMATA has made to establish and monitor safety and security within its transit system; and (3) the extent to which WMATA follows established best practices in planning, selecting, and budgeting for its capital investments. GAO found that WMATA is addressing significant challenges brought about by the agency's aging equipment and infrastructure and its ever-increasing ridership. WMATA has established programs to identify, evaluate, and minimize safety and security risks throughout its rail and bus systems. WMATA has also adopted several best capital practices used by leading public and private sector organizations, but it could benefit by establishing a more formal, disciplined framework for its capital decision-making process. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see Mass Transit: WMATA Is Addressing Many Challenges, but Capital Planning Could Be Improved, by JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform. GAO-01-1161T , Sept. 21 (17 pages). |
The adverse impact that dropping out of school has on both those who drop out and society itself has long been recognized. Multiple studies have shown that dropouts earn less money and are more frequently unemployed than graduates. Dropouts are about three times as likely as high school completers who do not go on to college to be welfare recipients, and about 30 percent of federal and 40 percent of state prison inmates are high school dropouts thus imposing a considerable cost on all levels of government. Given the multiple adverse consequences associated with dropping out, lowering the dropout rate has long been a goal of educators and legislators. The 1968 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 established local demonstration projects aimed at reducing the dropout rate. From 1969 through 1976, some 30 projects received $46 million in grants from the Department of Education (then the Office of Education) to develop and demonstrate educational practices that showed promise in reducing the numbers of youth who failed to complete their secondary education. The act was amended again in 1974, when funding for dropout prevention efforts was consolidated with funding for other programs, and states were given the discretion to decide what financial support dropout prevention projects would receive through state- administered consolidated grants. In 1988, the Congress created the SDDAP. The program consisted of competitive grants from Education to 89 school districts and community organizations. In fiscal years 1988-1995, SDDAP grantees received nearly $227 million in federal funds. Authorizations and appropriations for the program ended in fiscal year 1995. The School Dropout Assistance Act was passed in 1994 and authorized funding in fiscal years 1995 to 1999, but was never funded. Dropout prevention program funding was subsequently provided in fiscal year 2001 when Education’s Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program received appropriations of $5 million. Although federal funding for dropout prevention programs has been inconsistent, the National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) has existed for 15 years and is privately funded. Many of the program officials with whom we spoke said that NDPC was a resource on which they depended for information. This center is housed at Clemson University in South Carolina and offers various resources to those wishing to implement dropout prevention programs. For example, NDPC manages a database that provides program profiles, including contact information, for model programs located throughout the country. In addition, NDPC provides an overview of the 15 strategies it has identified as being the most effective in preventing dropout. NDPC also contracts with school districts and communities to assess and review the dropout prevention programs in the school district and make recommendations for improvement. Much of this information and additional information on annual national conferences and professional development services are available on the center’s website: www.dropoutprevention.org. NCES, part of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement, is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on the condition of education in the United States. Since 1989, NCES has annually published data on high school dropout statistics. NCES’ most recent publication provides national level data for three measures—event and status dropout rates and high school completion rates. Periodically, NCES also reports on cohort dropout rates. NCES also reports dropout rates for groups with various characteristics (e.g., sex, ethnicity, age, and recency of immigration). Nationally, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. Rates varied considerably, however, depending on the geographic region and ethnic group. The highest dropout rates occurred in the South and West, while the Midwest and Northeast tended to have lower rates. Dropout rates were much higher for Hispanics than for other ethnic groups, affected primarily by the very high dropout rates for Hispanics born outside the United States. Dropout figures also vary depending on which dropout or school completion measure is used, primarily because calculations use different age groups, data, or definitions of dropout. No one measure is appropriate for all situations. Those using dropout or completion data must familiarize themselves with the various measures and select the one that best meets their needs. For the nation as a whole, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. Data compiled by NCES indicates that the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds who were dropouts ranged between 10.9 and 12.5 percent. While the year-to-year results went up in some years and down in others, the net result was a decline of 1.2 percentage points during this time period. Dropout rates show considerable variation when broken down by region or by ethnic group. The highest dropout rates occurred in the South and West, while the lowest rates occurred in the Northeast and Midwest. As figure 2 shows, while the national portion of 16- through 24-year-olds that were dropouts was 10.9 percent in October 2000, the regional average ranged from 12.9 percent in the South to 8.5 percent in the Northeast. Analyzed by ethnic group, dropout rates were higher for Hispanics than for other ethnic groups, as shown in figure 3. For example, in 2000, the Hispanic dropout rate was 27.8 percent compared with 6.9 percent and 13.1 percent for white non-Hispanics and black non-Hispanics, respectively. Asian/Pacific Islanders had the lowest dropout rate, 3.8 percent, in 2000. However, due to the relatively small sample sizes, reliable estimates for Asian/Pacific Islanders could not be calculated before 1998, so they are not shown separately in the trend lines in figure 3. In addition, sample sizes were too small for NCES to calculate dropout rates for American Indians/Alaskan Natives in any year. Further analysis offers additional insight into the high dropout rate for Hispanics. Compared to non-Hispanics in the United States, a much higher percent of Hispanic children were born outside the United States—43.6 percent versus 6.5 percent. The dropout rate for Hispanics born outside the United States was much higher than that for Hispanics born in the United States in 2000 (44.2 percent vs. 15.2 percent). As a result, although Hispanics born outside the country accounted for only 6.6 percent of all 16- through 24-year-olds, they accounted for more than a quarter of all dropouts in 2000 and thus significantly raised the overall Hispanic dropout rate and the national dropout rate. In addition, data from 1995 show that more than half (62.5 percent) of the foreign-born Hispanic youths who were dropouts had never enrolled in a U.S. school, and 79.8 percent of these young adults who had never enrolled in U.S. schools were reported as either speaking English “not well” or “not at all.” The high dropout rates for Hispanics also affect the state differences in high school completion rates. As table 2 shows, the states with the highest rates of high school completion among 18- through 24-year-olds (Alaska, Maine, and North Dakota) have very small percentages of Hispanics, while the states with the lowest rates of high school completion among 18- through 24-year-olds (Arizona, Nevada, and Texas) have very large percentages of Hispanics. Our analysis of the state-by-state information for all 50 states and the District of Columbia shows that two factors— Hispanics as a percent of 18- to 24-year-olds in 1999 and the percentage increase in Hispanics under 18-years-old in the 1990s—account for about 40 percent of the variation in the high school completion rates between states. Analyzing dropout rates is made more complicated by the fact that multiple ways exist to measure the extent of dropping out—and no one measure is ideal for all situations. For example, one way to measure dropouts is to determine the percentage of students that drop out in a single year. This measure is referred to as an event dropout rate. NCES’ event dropout rate measures the number of 15- through 24-year-olds that drop out of grades 10-12 in the past year without completing a high school program. While such a measure can be used to spot dropout trends on a year-to-year basis, it does not provide an overall picture of what portion of young adults are dropouts. If the concern is whether the total population of dropouts is growing, shrinking, or staying about the same, a different measure is needed. Several ways exist to measure the portion of young adults who are dropouts rather than the percentage who drop out in any given year. In one such approach, referred to as the status dropout rate, NCES measures the percentage of all persons from 16- through 24-years-old who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential, including those who never attended school in the United States. A similar but somewhat different measure is the high school completion rate. NCES’ completion rate measures the percentage of 18- through 24-year-olds who are no longer in school and have a high school diploma or an equivalent credential, including a General Education Development (GED) credential. The status dropout rate and the completion dropout rate differ because they are based on different populations. Only the status dropout rate calculation includes 16- and 17-year-olds and those 18- through 24- year olds who are still enrolled in a high school program. Because of these differences, the status dropout rate and the high school completion rate are not the simple inverse of each other. Another approach, called the cohort dropout rate, uses repeated measurements of a single group of students to periodically report on their dropout rate over time. Further complicating the picture, most of the types of dropout measures have at least two rates, which differ because they are based on different age groups, data, or definitions of dropouts. For example, some rates use data for a single year while others use a 3-year average, and some count GED recipients as graduates while others do not. (See app. II for descriptions of each of the published dropout and completion measures we identified.) Different measures can be used separately or together to examine various dropout trends. For example, figure 4 shows the event dropout rate, the status dropout rate and the high school noncompletion rate. The event dropout rate, which measures only those youth who drop out in a single year, is lower than the other two measures which deal with the percentage of dropout in an age group regardless of when they dropped out. The event dropout rate rose slightly—0.8 percentage point—between 1990 and 2000. However, this change was not statistically significant. The noncompletion rate and the status dropout rate showed similar patterns during the 10-year period, with the noncompletion rate declining 0.9 percentage point and the status rate declining 1.2 percentage points during the period. However, as mentioned earlier, these two rates differ, in part because they are based on different age groups. Another high school completion measure is the “regular” high school completion rate. This rate is the number of public high school seniors who earn a regular diploma in a given year stated as a percent of the number of entering freshman 4 years earlier. For example, in the 1998-1999 school year, public high schools awarded 2,488,605 regular high school diplomas. This number was 67.2 percent of the 3,704,455 students who began the ninth grade 4 years earlier in the fall of 1995. Like all the other dropout measures we identified, the regular graduation rate has its uses, but no one measure is appropriate for all situations. As a result, users of dropout and completion data must familiarize themselves with the many measures available and select the measure or measures which best meet their needs. Research has shown that multiple factors are associated with the likelihood of dropping out. Education and private research organizations have identified two main types of factors associated with the likelihood of dropping out—one type involving family characteristics and the other involving students’ experiences in school. For example, students from low-income, single-parent, and less-educated families drop out at a much higher rate than other students. Similarly, low grades, absenteeism, disciplinary problems, and retention for one or more grades are also found at much higher-than-average rates among students who drop out. However, identifying students likely to drop out is not just a matter of identifying students with high-risk characteristics, because research shows that dropping out is often the culmination of a long-term process of disengagement that begins in the earliest grades. Study of this long-term pattern may offer ways to better and earlier identify potential dropouts. Research indicates that a number of family background factors, such as socioeconomic status, race-ethnicity, single-parent families, siblings’ educational attainment, and family mobility are correlated with the likelihood of dropping out. Of these factors, socioeconomic status, most commonly measured by parental income and education, bears the strongest relation to dropping out, according to the results of a number of studies. For example, an NCES longitudinal study of eighth graders found that while data show that blacks, Hispanics, and Native American students were more likely to drop out than white students, this relationship is not statistically significant after controlling for a student’s socioeconomic status. Studies have also found that dropping out is more likely to occur among students from single-parent families and students with an older sibling who has already dropped out than among counterparts without these characteristics. Other aspects of a student’s home life such as level of parental involvement and support, parent’s educational expectations, parent’s attitudes about school, and stability of the family environment can also influence a youth’s decision to stay in school. For example, results from the NCES study found that students whose parents were not actively involved in the student’s school, whose parents infrequently talked to them about school-related matters, or whose parents held low expectations for their child’s future educational attainment were more likely to drop out. Students’ past school performance is also related to the likelihood of dropping out. For example, research shows that students with a history of poor academic achievement, evidenced by low grades and poor test scores, are more likely to drop out than students who have a history of academic success. In addition, students who are overage for their grade or have repeated a grade are more likely to drop out. For example, one study found that students who had repeated a grade as early as kindergarten through fourth grade were almost five times as likely to drop out of school than those who had not. The odds of students who had repeated a later grade—fifth through eighth grade—of dropping out were almost 11 times the odds of those students who had never repeated these grades. Other school experiences related to dropping out include students having a history of behavior problems and having higher rates of chronic truancy and tardiness. Research also indicates that dropout rates are associated with various characteristics of the schools themselves, such as the size of the school, level of resources, and degree of support for students with academic or behavior problems. For example, a summary of the research on school size and its effect on various aspects of schooling, found that in terms of dropout rates or graduation rates, small schools tended to have lower dropout rates than large schools. Of the 10 research documents that were summarized, 9 revealed differences favoring or greatly favoring small schools, while the other document reported mixed results. Various research studies have focused on dropping out is a long-term process of disengagement that occurs over time and begins in the earliest grades. Early school failure may act as the starting point in a cycle that causes children to question their competence, weakens their attachment to school, and eventually results in their dropping out. For example, a study examining the first- to ninth-grade records for a group of Baltimore school children found that low test scores and poor report cards from as early as first grade forecast dropout risk with considerable accuracy. This process of disengagement can be identified in measures of students’ attitudes as well as in measures of their academic performance. Studies have shown that early behavior problems—shown in absenteeism, skipping class, disruptive behavior, lack of participation in class, and delinquency—can lead to gradual disengagement and eventual dropping out. For example, a report summarizing a longitudinal study of 611 inner- city school children found significant relationships between behavior problems in kindergarten through grade 3 and misconduct in the classroom at ages 14 and 15, future school disciplinary problems, police contacts by age 17, and subsequently higher dropout rates. Study of such long-term patterns that often lead to dropping out may offer ways to better and earlier identify potential dropouts. Local entities have implemented a variety of initiatives to address the factors associated with dropping out, ranging from small-scale supplementary services to comprehensive school reorganizations. These initiatives are limited in the degree to which they address family-related factors associated with dropping out, such as income; they focus mainly on student-related factors, such as low grades and absenteeism. While dropout prevention programs can vary widely, they tend to cluster around three main approaches: (1) supplemental services for at-risk students; (2) different forms of alternative education for students who do not do well in regular classrooms; and (3) school-wide restructuring efforts for all students. Several of the programs we reviewed have conducted rigorous evaluations, with others reporting positive outcome data on student progress and student behavior. States’ support of dropout prevention activities varies considerably with some states providing funds specifically for dropout prevention programs while others fund programs to serve at- risk youth, which may help prevent them from dropping out. Local entities have implemented a variety of initiatives to address the factors associated with dropping out of school. Our visits to 25 schools in six states—California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington—showed that initiatives in these schools cluster around three main approaches: (1) supplemental services for at-risk students; (2) different forms of alternative education, which are efforts to create different learning environments for students who do not do well in regular classrooms; and (3) school-wide restructuring efforts for all students. Individual programs may focus exclusively on one type of approach, or use a combination of approaches to address many of the student- and school-related factors associated with dropping out of school. Several of the programs we reviewed have conducted rigorous evaluations, and others are reporting positive outcome data on student academic progress and student behavior. Providing supplemental services to a targeted group of students who are at risk of dropping out is one approach used by many of the programs we visited. Some of the more common supplemental services include mentoring, tutoring, counseling, and social support services, which operate either during the school day or after school. These services aim to improve students’ academic performance, self-image, and sense of belonging. For example, Deepwater Junior High School in Pasadena, Texas, offers the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program, an internationally recognized cross-age tutoring program designed to increase the self- esteem and school success of at-risk middle and high school students by placing them in positions of responsibility as tutors of younger elementary school students. At Deepwater Junior High, officials told us that about 25 eighth graders tutor kindergartners through second graders at the local elementary school for 45 minutes a day, 4 days a week. Tutors are paid $5 a day for their work, reinforcing the worth of the students’ time and efforts. According to officials, the program has improved the tutors’ attendance in school, behavior, self-esteem, willingness to help, and sense of belonging. Another benefit of the program is its impact on students’ families, such as improved relationships between the tutor and his or her family and between families and the school. The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program is also the subject of a 1992 rigorous evaluation that compared 63 Valued Youth Program tutors with 70 students in a comparison group. This evaluation showed that 2 years after the program began, 12 percent of the comparison students had dropped out compared with only 1 percent of the Valued Youth Program students. Average reading grades, as provided by reading teachers of tutors and comparison group students, were significantly higher for the program group, as were scores on a self-esteem measure and on a measure of attitude towards school. The Valued Youth Program has been widely replicated throughout the Southwest and elsewhere. At another school we visited—Rolling Hills Elementary in Orlando, Florida—officials told us that 85 percent of the students are on free or reduced-price lunches (which are served to lower-income children), and that the school provides multiple supplemental academic programs and social services to address many of the academic, personal, and social problems that are often associated with students likely to drop out of school. These programs and services include pre-school and kindergarten classes to help at-risk children become successful learners, two “dropout prevention” classes for students who are behind their grade level, after school tutoring classes, and a variety of social and counseling services. Progress reports are sent to parents to keep them informed of their child’s progress. The school also works with three full-time therapists who help students with their social and emotional problems. Teachers and staff monitor students’ attendance and identify early on those with attendance problems. This monitoring effort has resulted in improved student attendance. School officials emphasized the importance of identifying at an early age children who are likely to become academic underachievers, truants, or likely to develop behavioral problems, and the need to develop programs to address the academic and behavior needs of these children. Although longitudinal studies looking at the effects of these services over time would be needed to determine the effectiveness of Rolling Hills’ early intervention program at preventing students from dropping out, research suggests that early identification and intervention can help counteract the process of disengagement and withdrawal from school. Another form of supplemental services provided by schools we visited is school-community partnerships. While a variety of approaches are used by school officials to create school-community partnerships, the partnerships we reviewed focused on providing an array of supportive services to students and their families, including mental health counseling, health care, adult education, and recreation programs. For example, the Tukwila School District in Tukwila, Washington, aims to improve student achievement in school by focusing on school, family, and community collaborations. According to officials, the District offers mentoring and tutoring programs, internships, and an array of health and social services. By building partnerships with state and federal agencies, nonprofits, and other organizations, the District hopes to maximize resources in ways that would strengthen young people and their families. A longitudinal study of the District’s program during the 1994-1996 school years found that 58 percent of the elementary students who received human services from district service providers and/or community agencies had higher grades than a control group of students who did not receive services, and 74 percent of secondary school students receiving services had improved their course completion rates after two semesters of service. The second approach commonly used by localities we visited is to provide alternative educational environments for students who do not do well in the regular classroom. These alternative learning environments attempt to create a more supportive and personalized learning environment for students to help them overcome some of the risk factors associated with dropping out, such as school disengagement and low attachment to school. Alternative learning environments can either operate within existing schools or as separate, alternative schools at an off site location. Alternative environments operating within regular schools can include small groups of students meeting each day to work on academic skills in a more personal setting, or smaller schools housed within the regular school, such as ninth grade or career academies which focus on a specific group of students or offer a curriculum organized around an industry or occupational theme. Alternative schools located off site are generally smaller schools than those the students otherwise would have attended. These smaller schools usually have smaller classes, have more teachers per student, and offer a more personalized learning environment for students. For example, the Seahawks Academy in Seattle, Washington, is a small alternative school for seventh, eighth, and ninth graders who have been unsuccessful in the traditional middle and high schools. According to officials, the academy is a partnership between Seattle Public Schools, Communities in Schools (CIS), the Seattle Seahawks football team, and corporate partners and strives to provide a safe, nurturing, and supportive learning environment for about 110 students. The school offers smaller class sizes, tutors, mentors, no cost health care, and social services. Students wear Seahawks Academy uniforms and must commit to strict behavior contracts signed by the student and parent. Officials told us that the Academy’s policies foster positive expectations and “Seahawks Academy culture,” teaching students to respect each other, teachers, and themselves. The Academy emphasizes attendance, academic achievement, and appropriate behavior. Evidence of program effectiveness includes improved test scores, fewer discipline problems, and no suspensions or expulsions for the last 2 school years compared with suspensions of about 7 percent and expulsions of about 0.5 percent at other schools in the district. Another example of an alternative learning environment is the Partnership at Las Vegas (PAL) Program at the Las Vegas High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. The PAL program is a school operating within the existing school with a school-to-careers curriculum that is designed to provide students with both academic and career-related skills to prepare them for entry into an occupation or enrollment in higher education. Officials said that by linking academic coursework to career-related courses and workplace experience, the PAL program aims to motivate students to stay in school and promote an awareness of career and educational opportunities after high school. According to officials, the program is made up of a team of 6 teachers and about 150 at-risk 11th and 12th grade students. Program participants attend classes 4 days a week and report to a work site for a nonpaid internship 1 day a week. The program features academic courses that stress the connection between school and work and include language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and computer applications. Essential program aspects include business etiquette lessons, career speakers, field trips, business internships, developing peer and team affiliations, and constant monitoring and evaluation of student progress. According to officials, evidence of program effectiveness includes improved attendance and fewer discipline problems than non-PAL participants. In addition, the PAL program reports a dropout rate of about 2 percent for PAL participants, compared with a rate of 13.5 percent for non-PAL participants. While only one of the alternative programs we visited has been rigorously evaluated, the others are reporting positive outcomes in areas such as test scores and students’ behavior. For example, the Excel program at the Middle School Professional Academy in Orlando, Florida, an alternative school designed to meet the special needs of disruptive, expelled, and disinterested youth, reported substantial gains in mean grade point averages for students in the program. Officials also reported fewer discipline problems and a retention rate of 95 percent for the 2000-2001 school year. The Ranger Corps, at Howard Middle School in Orlando, Florida, a Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) program for about 50 seventh graders, also reported gains of about 15 percentage points in reading test scores as well as increased attendance and fewer disciplinary problems. The third type of approach used by local entities is school-wide restructuring efforts that focus on changing a school or all schools in the school district in an effort to reduce the dropout rate. School-wide restructuring efforts are generally implemented in schools that have many students who are dropout prone. The general intent of this approach is to move beyond traditional modes of school organization to make schools more interesting and responsive places where students learn more and are able to meet higher standards. Some researchers have suggested that these restructuring efforts have the potential to reduce dropping out in a much larger number of students by simultaneously addressing many of the factors associated with dropping out. An example of a school-wide restructuring effort is Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams) in Houston, Texas—a 12-year-old scholarship program that reports a track record of improving student academic performance and increasing graduation rates. The program was initially established in 1989 as a scholarship program, but in 1993, the program began implementing math, reading, classroom management, and social support curriculum models in a feeder system of schools (all the elementary and middle schools that feed students into a high school). According to officials, the program expanded its services to the elementary grades after program supporters recognized the need to begin intervention in the earliest grades for it to be more successful. Project GRAD emphasizes a solid foundation of skills in reading and math, building self-discipline, providing resources for at-risk children, and offering college scholarship support. Project GRAD has reported demonstrating its effectiveness with higher test scores, higher graduation rates, greater numbers of scholarship recipients, and fewer disciplinary problems in the schools. For example, a 1999-2000 rigorous evaluation of the program showed that Project GRAD students outperformed students in corresponding comparison groups in math and reading achievement tests and made substantial gains in college attendance. The success of Project GRAD has led to its expansion into three additional feeder systems in Houston, with a 5-year plan to expand into two more feeder systems. The model is being replicated in feeder systems in Newark, Los Angeles, Nashville, Columbus, and Atlanta. Another example of a school-wide restructuring effort is the Talent Development program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—a comprehensive high school reform model that aims to improve large high schools that face serious problems with student attendance, discipline, achievement scores, and dropout rates. This model has been implemented in four Philadelphia high schools and approved for implementation in two others. We visited three high schools in Philadelphia that use this approach. According to officials, these schools provide or are in the process of implementing a separate academy for all ninth graders, career academies for 10th through 12th graders, and an alternative after-hours twilight school for students who have serious attendance or discipline problems. Block scheduling, whereby students take only four courses a semester, each 80 to 90 minutes long, and stay together all day as a class, is used in each school. The longer class periods enable teachers to get to know their students better and to provide times for individual assistance. A report on the outcomes of this model at two schools showed that the percentage of students promoted to the tenth grade has increased substantially, and the number of suspensions has dropped dramatically. The report also indicated that students had significant gains on standardized achievement tests in math and improved student attendance. The career academy model implemented at Talent Development schools and other high schools we visited has been the subject of in-depth evaluations. Career academies represent the high school reform movement that is focused on smaller learning communities. Academy components include rigorous academics with a career focus, a team of teachers, and active business involvement. Extensive evaluations on the academies indicate a positive impact on school performance. For example, in a 10-year, ongoing national evaluation of nine career academies,evaluators compared the performance of 959 students who participated in career academies and 805 similar students who applied to but did not attend an academy. The evaluation also has a long follow-up period, which extends 4 years beyond the students’ scheduled graduation from high school. One report from the evaluation found that among students at high risk of school failure, career academies significantly cut dropout rates and increased attendance rates, number of credits earned toward graduation, and preparation for postsecondary education. A follow-up report issued in December 2001 stated that although the career academies enhanced the high school experiences of their students, these positive effects did not translate into changes in high school graduation rates or initial transitions to post-secondary education and jobs. For example, some of the students at high risk of school failure obtained a GED instead of graduating. The report also notes that the full story of career academy effectiveness is still unfolding and that longer-term results should be examined prior to making definitive judgments about the effectiveness of the approach. Many states have dropout prevention programs or programs that serve at- risk youth that may help prevent them from dropping out of school. Specifically, our calls to 50 states and the District of Columbia found that 14 states have statewide dropout prevention programs, and 29 other states and the District of Columbia have programs to serve at-risk youth that may help prevent them from dropping out of school. Seven states have no statewide programs identified to prevent dropout or serve at-risk youth. Services provided by dropout prevention programs and programs that serve at-risk youth may be similar. However, the number of school districts served and the scope of services offered by either type of program varies greatly by state. Some states provide dropout prevention services in each of the states’ districts, while others have dropout prevention programs that serve only a limited number of school districts. For example, Tennessee awards $6,000 dropout prevention grants to only 10 of its 138 school districts annually. The following examples illustrate how states implement their dropout prevention and at-risk programs: The official dropout prevention programs implemented in California, Texas, and Washington vary in their form and funding. One of California’s four dropout prevention programs, the School-Based Pupil Motivation and Maintenance Program, provides $50,000 per school to fund a school dropout prevention specialist (outreach consultant) at 300 schools in about 50 school districts each year. The outreach consultants work to provide early identification of students at risk of failing or dropping out and then coordinate the resources and services of the whole school and surrounding community to identify and meet the needs of these children so they can succeed and stay in school. Texas’ dropout prevention program, the State Compensatory Education (SCE) Program, provides state funds to schools that have a large percentage of at-risk students (i.e., students with many of the characteristics associated with dropping out). The SCE program funds services such as supplemental instruction or alternative education with the goal of enabling students not performing at grade level to perform at grade level at the conclusion of the next regular school term. In addition, each district is responsible for developing a strategic plan for dropout prevention. Washington changed its dropout prevention program’s focus in 1992 from targeted dropout prevention services to a comprehensive, integrated approach to address many of the factors associated with the long-term process of disengagement from school that often begins in the earliest grades. Washington uses about 15 state programs to help prevent students from dropping out, including programs emphasizing early intervention, schools-within-schools, and community partnerships. How state funds are used to meet state education objectives is largely left up to the school districts. Georgia, the District of Columbia, and Utah have no statewide dropout prevention programs, but instead offer comprehensive programs to serve at-risk students. Georgia’s comprehensive approach to serving at-risk students provides different services to students of different ages. For example, Georgia has an Early Intervention program for students in kindergarten through third grade, a reading program for students in kindergarten through second grade, and Alternative Education for students who are academically behind and disruptive. State funds are allocated to alternative schools based on a formula grant process. The District of Columbia also takes a comprehensive approach to preventing students from dropping out through a variety of services targeted to at-risk students. Programs include Head Start; after school programs; school counseling; community service; alternative schools that offer small classes, career readiness, testing, and counseling; and a program to apprehend truant students and provide them with counseling and referral services. Federal and District dollars are used to fund these programs. Utah offers a number of programs to serve at-risk students. Programs include alternative middle schools, gang intervention, and homeless/disadvantaged minorities programs. These programs provide mentoring, counseling, and health services to students, and state funds are awarded to school districts through both competitive and formula grants. The Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program (DPDP)—funded at $5 million for fiscal year 2001—is the only federal program that has dropout prevention as its sole objective; because the program is new, the Department of Education has not yet evaluated its effectiveness.However, other federal programs are also used by local entities to provide dropout prevention services. For example, five federal programs have dropout prevention as one of their multiple objectives and several more programs—such as Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 21st Century Community Learning Centers—serve at-risk youth even though dropout prevention is not the programs’ stated goal. Reducing the dropout rate is not a stated program goal of most current programs, and thus assessing how effective the current federal programs have been in reducing the dropout rate is very difficult given that very few programs have been evaluated in terms of their effects on the dropout rate. Prior evaluations of the SDDAP—which have measured program effect on dropout rates—showed mixed results. Although some experts and state and local officials did not believe the creation of additional federal dropout programs was warranted, some of these officials suggested a central source of information on the best dropout prevention practices could be useful to states, school districts, and schools. Currently, the only federal program that has dropout prevention as its sole objective is the DPDP. In fiscal year 2001, the Congress appropriated $5 million for the program. The program, in turn, awarded 13 grants of between $180,000 and $492,857 to 12 local education agencies (LEAs) and one state education agency (SEA) with dropout rates of at least 10 percent. These grant recipients are to work in collaboration with institutions of higher education or other public or private organizations to build or expand upon existing strategies that have been proven effective in reducing the number of students who drop out of school. The Stephens County Dropout Prevention Project in Toccoa, Georgia, for example, was awarded $441,156 to screen all 2,400 students in Stephens County in grades 6 to 12 to determine specific needs based on at-risk traits. The project seeks to significantly reduce suspension, grade retention, and repeat offenses leading to expulsion and referrals to the court system through partnerships with the Communities in Schools of Georgia, the National Dropout Prevention Center, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. Another grant recipient, a tribal school located in Nixon, Nevada, was awarded $180,000 to assist approximately 200 Native American students in grades 7 to 12 who have not succeeded in a traditional public school setting to remain or return to high school and graduate by developing individualized education plans. In addition to DPDP, we identified five programs that have dropout prevention as one of their multiple objectives, with total funding of over $266 million from three federal agencies. In fiscal year 2000, Education received appropriations of $197.5 million to fund three of these programs, and the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor received total appropriations of $69.2 million to fund their programs. Two programs account for most of these funds: Talent Search and School-to-Work. Education’s Talent Search program, funded at $100.5 million in fiscal year 2000, provides academic, career, and financial counseling to its participants and encourages them to graduate from high school and continue on to the postsecondary institution of their choice. Education and Labor, who jointly administer the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, each contributed $55 million in fiscal year 2000. This program’s goal is to provide students with knowledge and skills that will allow them to opt for college, additional training, or a well-paying job directly out of high school. Education’s Title I, part D program, funded at $42 million in fiscal year 2000, provides grants to SEAs for supplementary education services to help youth in correctional and state-run juvenile facilities make successful transitions to school or employment upon release. Two smaller programs that also have dropout prevention as one of their goals are Justice’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Labor’s Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP). JUMP was funded at $13.5 million in fiscal year 2000 and aims to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improve academic performance, and reduce the dropout rate through the use of mentors. Labor allocated $650,000 to QOP in fiscal year 2000 and states that its program goals include encouraging students to get a high school diploma, providing post-secondary education and training, and providing personal development courses. Twenty-three other federal programs serve at-risk youth, although dropout prevention is not the programs’ stated goal. (See app. III for a complete list of these programs.) Safe and Drug Free Schools and 21st Century Community Learning Centers are examples of such programs. Education’s Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, funded at $428.6 million in fiscal year 2000, works to prevent violence in and around schools and to strengthen programs that prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, funded at $453 million in fiscal year 2000, enables schools to stay open longer and provide a safe, drug-free, and supervised environment for homework centers, mentoring programs, drug and violence prevention counseling, and recreational activities. None of the five programs for which dropout prevention is an objective track the portion of funds used for dropout prevention. However, many state and local officials informed us that they use one or more of these and the other 23 federal programs that serve at-risk youth to address the factors that may lead to students dropping out. The use of programs such as these for dropout prevention is consistent with a recent NDPC recommendation that dropout prevention proponents should look beyond traditional dropout prevention program funding and seek funds from programs in related risk areas, such as teenage pregnancy prevention, juvenile crime prevention, and alcohol and drug abuse prevention to identify and secure grant funding sources. Since DPDP grants were just awarded in September 2001, Education has not been able to evaluate the program’s effect on the dropout rate. In addition, most federal programs that address dropout prevention have other goals, and the measurement of these goals takes precedence over measuring the program’s effect on the high school dropout rate. For example, programs that promote post-secondary education as their major goal, such as Talent Search, measure the program’s effect in assisting program participants enroll in college rather than what portion of participants complete high school. Also, because many federal programs provide funds for states and localities to administer programs, responsibility for evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of programs is also devolved to the state and local level. For example, Education’s Title I Neglected and Delinquent Program mostly administers the distribution and allocation of funds to states. While many of the programs it funds list dropout prevention as one of their intended goals, states are not required to report on their program’s effect on dropout rates. The three major evaluations of the former dropout prevention program— Education’s SDDAP which funded demonstrations from 1988-1995—have shown mixed results. A study of 16 targeted programs showed programs that were intensive in nature and that were operating in middle school could improve grade promotion and reduce school dropout rates. However, the same study showed that programs implemented in high school did not affect personal or social outcomes that are often correlated with dropping out (e.g., student’s self-esteem, pregnancy, drug use, and arrest rates). The study’s authors concluded that dropout prevention programs are more effective when implemented in earlier grades. A second study of SDDAP programs, which focused on the impacts of school restructuring initiatives, concluded that restructuring would not, in the short term, reduce dropout rates. This study explained that school restructuring was often a lengthy process, and finding the true effect of such efforts on dropout rates could take longer than the 3- to 4-year period of most demonstration programs. This study also explained that although dropout rates were not reduced in schools that restructured, other outcomes such as school climate—the environment of the school and how teachers and students interact— and test scores often improved and that these improved outcomes could ultimately affect the dropout rate. Finally, the third study evaluated 16 programs and found promising strategies for reducing dropout rates at all levels of elementary and secondary education. The study found that at the elementary school level, in-class adult friends (trained volunteers or helpers), after-school tutoring, and enrichment exercises that are directly related to in-class assignments appeared to be effective approaches. At the middle school level, coordinated teaching strategies, flexible scheduling, heterogeneous grouping of students, and counseling services were found to be useful. At the secondary school level, the study found that paid-work incentives monitored by the school and tied to classroom activities were very successful for promoting school engagement. While all three studies of SDDAP programs identified some promising practices or strategies for preventing dropouts or addressing the factors associated with dropping out, none of the programs studied were consistently effective in significantly reducing dropout rates. State and local officials also had numerous suggestions for reducing the dropout rate. Several of them suggested that Education develop a central source of information on the best dropout prevention strategies. For example, an administrator at Independence High School in San Jose, California, asked that the federal government act as a clearinghouse for information about effective dropout prevention programs, provide a list of people that could be contacted to find out about these programs, and identify programs that could be visited to observe best practices for preventing dropouts. A consultant for the California Department of Education suggested that the federal government could develop model dropout prevention programs and publish information on programs that were successful. The At-Risk Coordinators in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, and New York made similar suggestions for a national clearinghouse or information on best practices for preventing students from dropping out. As mentioned earlier, NDPC is an organization that provides an NDPC-developed list of effective strategies and information on self- reported model programs on its website. However, the NDPC is completely self-funded through memberships, grants, and contracts and does not have sufficient resources to (1) disseminate information that is available on its database of promising dropout prevention programs and practices, or (2) thoroughly review programs included in its model program listing. Instead NDPC relies on its website to communicate about effective dropout prevention practices and its data are based on voluntary submissions of program descriptions and promising practices by its members and other experts in the dropout prevention field. While some dropout prevention program officials mentioned NDPC as a useful resource, they believe a more complete and current database of program descriptions and promising practices would better serve their needs. Although there have been many federal, state, and local dropout prevention programs over the last 2 decades, few have been rigorously evaluated. Those federally funded programs that have been evaluated have shown mixed results. Several rigorously evaluated local programs have been shown to reduce dropout rates, raise test scores, and increase college attendance. In addition, some state and local officials believe that they are implementing promising practices that are yielding positive outcomes for students, such as improved attendance and grades and reduced discipline problems, although their programs have not been thoroughly evaluated. Education could play an important role in reviewing and evaluating existing research and in encouraging or sponsoring additional research to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of state and local programs. Subsequently, Education could disseminate the results of such research and information on the identified best practices for state and local use. Opportunities exist for Education to identify ways to collaborate with existing organizations, such as the NDPC, that are already providing some information on existing programs. As schools continue to look for ways to ensure all students succeed, such research and information could play a vital role in developing and implementing effective programs. We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) evaluate the quality of existing dropout prevention research, (2) determine how best to encourage or sponsor the rigorous evaluation of the most promising state and local dropout prevention programs and practices, and (3) determine the most effective means of disseminating the results of these and other available studies to state and local entities interested in reducing dropout rates. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Education. HHS had no comments. Education provided a response, which is included as appendix V of this report, and technical comments, which we incorporated when appropriate. Education agreed that dropping out is a serious issue for American schools, emphasized the importance of school improvement efforts in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and provided additional information about relevant Education programs and activities. In response to our recommendations that Education evaluate the quality of existing dropout prevention research and determine how best to encourage or sponsor rigorous evaluation of the most promising state and local dropout prevention programs and practices, Education agreed that rigorous evidence is needed and said that it will consider commissioning a systematic review of the literature on this topic. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 3 days after the date of this letter. At that time we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this material further, please call me or Diana Pietrowiak at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. To determine dropout rate trends and identify factors associated with dropping out, we obtained and reviewed reports, statistics, and studies developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC). We also obtained the papers presented at the Harvard University Dropouts in America symposium in January 2001 and subsequently made available on the Internet. In addition to interviewing officials at each of the entities listed above, we interviewed dropout prevention experts at universities, federal agencies, and private research organizations and obtained and reviewed their publications. To obtain information on the services offered by state, local, and private agencies to students who are at-risk of dropping out, we conducted site visits in six states—California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. We selected these states because our analysis of the literature and discussions with key dropout prevention experts identified a variety of promising dropout prevention programs within these states in each of the major types of dropout prevention approaches—supplemental services for at-risk students, different forms of alternative education, and school- wide restructuring efforts. Between February and August 2001, we also conducted telephone interviews with state at-risk coordinators in all 50 states and the District of Columbia who were either identified by the NDPC or who were referred to us by state program administrators. From the telephone interviews, we determined, among other things, (1) whether the state had a dropout prevention program, (2) if the state had other programs for at-risk youths, and (3) if any evaluations had been made of the effectiveness of the state programs’ impact on reducing dropouts. Our review focused only on dropout prevention programs and efforts. We did not obtain information on dropout recovery programs that try to get dropouts to return to school or on programs designed to help dropouts get a General Education Development (GED) credential or other type of high school credential. As a result, our list of programs whose funding could be used to prevent dropouts in appendix III does not include programs aimed only at dropout recovery or helping dropouts to get a GED or other type of high school credential. To identify what federal efforts exist to address dropout prevention and if they have been proven effective, we interviewed officials from the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, Justice, and Health and Human Services who manage programs that aid in reducing the dropout rate. We developed our initial list of federal dropout prevention programs through our literature review and updated the list with references made by the various federal program officials. We obtained information on how the programs operated, how funds were dispersed, how dropout prevention was prioritized, and whether or not the programs had been evaluated. We also reviewed evaluations of the federal School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP), which funded local dropout prevention programs in fiscal years 1988-1995. Table 3 provides a description of each of the types of dropout and completion measures and the individual measures developed by each of three different organizations. Since 1989, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has annually published a report on dropout rates, Dropout Rates in the United States. The most recent report includes status and event dropout rates and high school completion rates. Occasionally, the report includes cohort rates. Both a national and state status dropout rates are developed annually by the Annie E. Casey Foundation for its Kids Count Data Book. A second measure of school completion, the “regular” graduation rate, is occasionally published by the Center for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Postsecondary Education Opportunity. Table 4 lists 23 federal programs that federal, state, and local officials identified as programs from which funds are used to serve at-risk youth, which in turn could help to prevent their dropping out. Thus, these programs provide funds that can be used for dropout prevention activities. Completion rate (percent) State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina 81.6 93.3 73.5 84.1 82.5 81.6 91.7 91.0 88.0 84.6 83.5 91.8 86.4 87.1 89.4 90.8 90.4 86.2 82.1 94.5 87.4 90.9 89.2 91.9 82.3 92.6 91.1 91.3 77.9 85.1 90.1 83.0 86.3 86.1 94.4 87.7 85.7 82.3 89.0 87.9 85.1 Completion rate (percent) In addition to those named above, Susan Chin, Amy Gleason Carroll, Jeffrey Rueckhaus, Charles Shervey, and Anjali Tekchandani made key contributions to this report. Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle and Nader Kabbani, The Dropout Process in Life Course Perspective: Part I, Profiling Risk Factors at Home and School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 2000. Cardenas, Jose A., Maria Robledo Montecel, Josie D. Supik, and Richard J. Harris, The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout Prevention Strategies for At-Risk Students, Texas Researcher, Volume 3, Winter 1992. Cotton, Kathleen, School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance, School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #20, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1997. Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert, Wood, Impacts of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998. _____, Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998. Finn, Jeremy D., Withdrawing From School, Review of Educational Research, Summer 1989, Volume 59, Number 2. Gleason, Philip, Mark Dynarski, Do We Know Whom To Serve?, Issues in Using Risk Factors to Identify Dropouts, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, June 1998. Greene, Jay P., High School Graduation Rates in the United States, Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, November 2001. Kemple, James J., Career Academies: Impact on Students’ Initial Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment, New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001. Kemple, James J., Jason C. Snipes, Career Academies: Impact on Students’ Engagement and Performance in High School, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York, 2000. Kaufman, Philip, Denise Bradby, Characteristics of At-Risk Students in NELS:88, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 92-042,Washington, D.C., 1992. Kaufman, Phillip, Jin Y. Kwon, Steve Klein, Christopher D. Chapman, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1998, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2000-022,Washington, D.C., November 1999. Kaufman, Phillip, Martha Naomi Alt, Christopher D. Chapman, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-114,Washington, D.C., November 2001. McMillen, Marilyn, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 97-473, Washington, D.C., July 1997. Mortenson, Thomas G., High School Graduation Trends and Patterns 1981 to 2000, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, June 2001 Rossi, Robert J, Evaluation of Projects Funded by the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program, Final Evaluation Report, American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California, 1993. Slavin, Robert E., Olatokumbo S. Fashola, Show Me the Evidence! Proven and Promising Programs for America’s Schools, Corwin Press, Inc., 1998. U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions (GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6, 1996). _____, At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student Outcomes (GAO-01-66, Oct. 10, 2000). _____, Hispanics’ Schooling: Risk Factors for Dropping Out and Barriers to Resuming Education (GAO/PEMD-94-24, July 27, 1994). _____, School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs (GAO/HRD-87-108, July 20, 1987). Wirt, John, Thomas Snyder, Jennifer Sable, Susan P. Choy, Yupin Bae, Janis Stennett, Allison Gruner, Marianne Perie, The Condition of Education 1998, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 98-013, Washington, D.C., October 1998. | The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that the national status dropout rate--the percentage of 16- through 24-year olds who are not enrolled in school and who lack a high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate--fluctuated between 10.9 and 12.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. However, dropout rates have varied considerably between regions of the country and among ethnic groups. Research has shown that dropping out it is a long-term process of disengagement that begins in the earliest grades. NCES and private research organizations have identified two factors--an individual's family and his or her experience in school--that are related to dropping out. Various state, local, and private programs are available to assist youth at risk of dropping out of school. These programs range in scope from small-scale supplementary services that target a small group of students, such as mentoring or counseling services, to comprehensive school-wide restructuring efforts that involve changing the entire school to improve educational opportunities for all students. One federal program, the Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program, is specifically targeted to dropouts, but the program is new and the Department of Education has yet to evaluate its effectiveness. In September 2001, the program awarded grants to state and local education agencies working to reduce the number of school dropouts. Other federal programs have dropout prevention as one of their multiple objectives, and many more federal programs serve at-risk youth but do not have dropout prevention as a stated program goal. |
John Lajara peers under a slab of crumbled concrete, lifts a sodden white teddy bear then drops it back into the filth. He reaches again into the rubble and pulls out a boot, a treasured find in this typhoon-flattened village. But he's searching for something far more precious _ the body of his brother, Winston.
An elderly survivor of Typhoon Haiyan waits to be treated at a hospital, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013 in Tanauan town, Leyte province, central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms on... (Associated Press)
A medic treats a villager who was isolated by last week's super typhoon Haiyan Saturday Nov. 16, 2013 in Manicani Island, Eastern Samar province, central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful... (Associated Press)
Survivors of Typhoon Haiyan stand along the debri strewn streets, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013 in Tacloban city, Leyte province, central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms on record,... (Associated Press)
A survivor lights candles on a makeshift grave site of his father and uncle, left, on a field in Palo town, Leyte province, central Philippines on Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013. Residents decided to bury bodies... (Associated Press)
A body of a victim of Typhoon Haiyan is laid on a bus stop, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013 in Tacloban city, Leyte province, central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms on record, hit... (Associated Press)
Trapped residents carry relief supplies unloaded by a U.S. Navy helicopter for villagers isolated by last week's super typhoon Haiyan Saturday Nov. 16, 2013 on Manicani island, Eastern Samar province... (Associated Press)
An old woman survivor walks past toppled cars outside a church at typhoon-hit Tacloban city, Leyte province, central Philippines on Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms... (Associated Press)
U.S. military personnel load relief goods onto a U.S. Navy Sea Hawk helicopter at the airport in Tacloban, Leyte province, central Philippines, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013. One week after Typhoon Haiyan razed... (Associated Press)
A trapped resident braves the dust created by a U.S. Navy helicopter taking off, Saturday Nov. 16, 2013 on Manicani island, Eastern Samar province in central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most... (Associated Press)
Survivors of Typhoon Haiyan stand in queues in the rain to buy fuel, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013 in Tacloban, central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms on record, hit the country's... (Associated Press)
Trapped residents unload relief supplies from a U.S. Navy helicopter for villagers isolated by last week's super typhoon Haiyan Saturday Nov. 16, 2013 on Manicani island, Eastern Samar province in central... (Associated Press)
Survivors of Typhoon Haiyan walk over a "Help" message painted on a concrete floor, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013 in Burauen town, Leyte province, central Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful... (Associated Press)
A devastated landscape caused by Typhoon Haiyan is seen from a U.S. Osprey plane delivering aid to isolated areas while passing over Guiuan, central Philippines, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013. Typhoon Haiyan,... (Associated Press)
Typhoon Haiyan survivors wait for their turn to receive medical treatment in a field hospital in Tacloban, Philippines, Saturday, Nov. 16, 2013. Typhoon Haiyan, one of the most powerful storms on record,... (Associated Press)
For those still looking for loved ones missing since last week's storm, their already torn-apart lives are shot through with a difficult question _ How do you move on when there is no body to bury?
The search for the missing _ 1,179 by official count _ has become a hellish daily activity for some. In Lajara's seaside village, residents estimate that about 50 of the 400 people who lived there were killed. About half of the dead are still missing: mothers, fathers, children and friends.
"Somehow, part of me is gone," Lajara said as another fruitless expedition in the rubble ended Saturday.
Lajara has carried out the routine since both he and his brother were swept from their house by Typhoon Haiyan on Nov. 8. And every day has ended so far with no answers on Winston's fate.
According to the latest figures by the Philippines' main disaster agency, 3,633 people died and 12,487 were injured. Many of the bodies remain tangled in piles of debris, or are lining the road in body bags that seep fetid liquid. Some are believed to have been swept out to sea.
After the initial days of chaos, when no aid reached the more than 600,000 people rendered homeless, an international aid effort was gathering steam.
"We're starting to see the turning of the corner," said John Ging, a top U.N. humanitarian official in New York. He said 107,500 people have received food assistance so far and 11 foreign and 22 domestic medical teams are in operation.
U.S. Navy helicopters flew sorties from the aircraft carrier USS George Washington off the coast, dropping water and food to isolated communities. The U.S. military said it will send about 1,000 more troops along with additional ships and aircraft to join the aid effort.
So far, the U.S. military has moved 174,000 kilograms (190 tons) of supplies and flown nearly 200 sorties.
The focus of the aid effort is on providing life-saving aid for those who survived, while the search for missing people is lower in the government's priorities.
The head of the country's disaster management agency, Eduardo del Rosario, said the coast guard, the navy and civilian volunteers are searching the sea for the dead and the missing.
Still, he said, the most urgent need is "ensuring that nobody starves and that food and water are delivered to them."
Lajara's neighbor, Neil Engracial, cannot find his mother or nephew, but he has found many other bodies. He points at a bloated corpse lying face down in the muddy debris. "Dante Cababa _ he's my best friend," Engracial says. He points to another corpse rotting in the sun. "My cousin, Charana." She was a student, just 22.
Lajara remembers the moment his brother vanished.
They were standing alongside each other side by side with relatives and friends before the surge hit. They stared at the rising sea, then turned to survey the neighborhood behind them, trying to figure out where or if they could run. Then the wave rushed in.
Lajara, Winston and the others dived into the water, and were swept away from each other. After Lajara's face hit the water, he never saw Winston again.
Lajara has trudged through the corpse-strewn piles of rubble and mud, searching for two things: wood to rebuild his home, and Winston. So far he has found only wood.
On Saturday, he set out again. The rat-a-tat-tat of a snare drum echoed across the landscape, as a young boy played the instrument from the roof of a gutted building. It was a grim accompaniment to what has become Lajara's daily march into the corpse-strewn wasteland that was his home, where the sickly sweet stench of death mixes with the salty sea air.
Reminders of the people who once lived here are wedged everywhere among the warped piles of wood, glass and mud: a smiling, bowtie-clad stuffed bumblebee. A woman's white platform shoe. A wood-framed photograph of a young boy.
Suddenly, a neighbor, Pokong Magdue, approached.
"Have you seen Winston?"
Magdue replies: "We saw him in the library."
Lajara shakes his head. It can't be Winston. He's already searched the library.
Sometimes people come to him and inform him that Winston's body has been found. Lajara must walk to the corpse, steel himself, and roll it over to examine the face.
He then must deal with conflicting emotions: relief that the body is not his brother's. Hope that Winston might still be alive. And grief that he still has no body to bury. Because at least then, he says, he could stop searching.
Winston was his only brother. He had a wife and two teenage children. He was a joker who made everyone laugh. He drove a van for a living and was generous to everyone. He was a loving father.
"It's hard to lose somebody like him," Lajara says.
Now, the only trace of his brother that remains is his driver's license: Winston Dave Argate, born Dec. 13, 1971. 177 centimeters tall, 56 kilograms. The upper left-hand corner of the license is gone, and the picture is faded. Lajara leaves it with a friend for safekeeping when he is out hunting for wood and Winston.
He gazes at the card in his hand. "When I want to see him, I just stare at his picture." ||||| TACLOBAN, Philippines (CNN) — More than a week after Typhoon Haiyan laid waste to much of the central Philippines, a health official said Friday that some victims are living off the land.
“One of the impressions is that there was total absence of food and water,” Health Undersecretary Janette Garin said in a television interview, according to the state-run Philippine News Agency (PNA). “Some victims survived on coconut juice.”
That assessment came as crews were continuing to collect bodies from streets and rubble, raising to 3,621 the national disaster agency’s official death count.
The number of injured stood at 12,165, PNA reported. At least 1,140 were missing.
Sickness, hunger and thirst have settled in here with the sticky, humid heat and stench of rancid flesh hanging over the apocalyptic scene.
Survivors in improvised shelters have kept watch over the bodies of their dead relatives.
Juvelyn Taniega tried to keep busy. She collected old dishes and cleaned them, crouching near where her home once stood and the place where she last saw her husband and six children alive.
She’s found the bodies of three of her children. “My children are decomposing,” she said. In days, she said, no one has come to help and she is still looking for the three still missing.
There are many like her, looking over miles of fields containing the crushed wood and stone that once were their houses.
Cadaver collectors in debris-removal crews uncover some of the dead, while heaving away wreckage from the roads.
But the bodies that initially seemed ubiquitous are becoming a rarer sight, as they are collected.
PNA reported Friday that five-person teams that include a forensic expert and photographer would begin Saturday using a “quick system” for the bodies.
“Under the system, the public will not be allowed to view the identification process but relatives will be asked to participate in the final identification of corpses at an appointed time,” it reported, citing the Department of Health.
Each team will be required to handle 40 corpses per day, it said.
Health Secretary Enrique Ona said that photos will be taken, identifying marks will be documented, and belongings and tissue samples for possible use in DNA testing will be collected, when practical.
Officially, 801 bodies were counted in Tacloban by Friday, but thousands are feared dead in this city, where entire neighborhoods were swept out to sea.
Wandering children
On Friday, children could be seen wandering unattended through the city’s streets.
The young are the most vulnerable and the most needy, UNICEF spokesman Kent Page told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
“Health, nutrition, getting them clean water, good sanitation, protection, and we have to consider education also,” Page said.
“Schools have been wiped out and getting kids into child-friendly spaces — where they can feel protected, where they can get a chance to play, where they can get a sense of normalcy back in their life after going through such a devastating experience — is very important.”
Many parents were simply trying to get their children to safety. In some cases, mothers accompanied them out of town to places where food, water and shelter were available, while fathers stayed behind to sort through the remains of their lives, Tacloban Mayor Alfred Romualdez said.
He advised other families to follow their example.
Turning a corner?
By Friday, crews had cleared the major streets of Tacloban, which was once home to 220,000 people and is now largely a ghost town populated by fields of rubble.
Many survivors have converged on the city’s airport, where they were waiting in line for seats on flights out.
Others took to the sea. As naval ships pushed up on beaches like gray whales and dropped their loading bay gates, people laden with possessions entered the bellies of the arks en route to new lives elsewhere.
At the convention center, many stood for hours in long lines under the sun awaiting the next load of food and bottled water to arrive in bulk pallets from donors around the world.
Some were there because they had nowhere else to go.
“We really don’t know what we’re going to do next,” said 30-year-old May May Gula, who was among nine families sharing a room on the convention center’s ground floor.
Reaching and helping the survivors — more than 2 million of whom need food, according to the government — are priorities.
Mayor Romualdez likened Tacloban to a boxer struggling to stand up after getting knocked out.
Recovery efforts were helped on Thursday, when the USS George Washington, an aircraft carrier with 5,500 crew, sailed into Philippine waters.
It was accompanied by eight more ships that, together, carry 80 aircraft, including 21 helicopters that can deliver supplies to villages, where many roads have been obliterated, and identify people still cut off from help.
Irony
Some who would typically have provided aid found themselves needing help.
Ryan Cardenas, with the Philippine Navy, had helped with recovery efforts in each of the past two years after cyclones that left hundreds dead.
But when Haiyan slammed into the Tacloban naval station where he’s based, he and other sailors were in no position to help others immediately — they stayed alive by clinging to rafters in their barracks.
Their commanding officer, who was in a building badly damaged by the storm, clutched a palm tree’s trunk for survival.
Afterward, the sailors helped retrieve bodies, according to Cardenas. One found his mother sitting dead against a wall.
Later, they sorted through the wreckage of the naval station and awaited orders.
“This is the worst,” Cardenas said, taking a break from fixing a piece of damaged furniture. “We’re both victims and rescuers.”
Concerns of violence
The violence was not all attributable to the weather. A Philippines senator cited reports of rapes and other crimes against women, some allegedly by prison escapees, PNA reported.
Sen. Nancy Binay expressed alarm after hearing TV reports of assailants breaking into homes.
But the U.S. military has said that violent crime is less of an obstacle to providing aid than is the debris that still blocks some roads.
Someone to live for
A man whose wife and child drowned said he can’t get the images out of his mind.
“The first one that I saw was my youngest,” he said. “She fainted, and then she drowned. The water was so fast. And then my wife, when I tried to grab her, I missed her. Then she drowned, and then I never saw her again.”
Over the past week, he said, he has been thinking of killing himself but hasn’t, because he still has one child who needs him.
By Jethro Mullen. Ben Brumfield and Tom Watkins, CNN | The Typhoon Haiyan death toll in the Philippines is up to 3,633, with 12,487 injured and at least 1,179 still missing. The AP describes the "hellish daily routine" undertaken by survivors, who dig through the debris and filth in the hope of finding the bodies of their loved ones. Many bodies pulled from the rubble are in body bags lining the road; others were likely swept out to sea and may never be found. And in some areas, there is a "total absence of food and water," an official said yesterday, according to the Philippine News Agency (as cited by Fox News). "Some victims survived on coconut juice." But now a top UN humanitarian official says things are turning around, with 107,500 people having received food assistance and others receiving medical assistance as part of an international aid effort. |
Medicare falls within the administrative jurisdiction of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HCFA establishes regulations and guidance for the program and contracts with about 72 private companies—such as Blue Cross and Aetna—to handle claims screening and processing and to audit providers. Each of these commercial contractors works with its local medical community to set coverage policies and payment controls. As a result, billing problems are handled, for the most part, by contractors, and they are the primary referral parties to law enforcement agencies for suspected fraud. Medicare’s basic nursing home benefit covers up to 100 days of certain posthospital stays in a skilled nursing facility. Skilled nursing facilities submit bills for which they receive interim payment; final payments are based on costs within a cost-limit cap. This benefit is paid under part A, Hospital Insurance, which also pays for hospital stays and care provided by home health agencies and hospices. Even if Medicare beneficiaries do not meet the conditions for Medicare coverage of a skilled nursing facility stay, they are still eligible for the full range of part B benefits. Although Medicaid or the resident may be paying for the nursing home, Medicare will pay for ancillary services and items such as physical and other types of therapy, prosthetics, and surgical dressings. Part B is voluntary part of the Medicare program that beneficiaries may elect and for which they pay monthly premiums. Part B also pays for physician care and diagnostic testing. About 6 million people have both Medicare and Medicaid coverage, and, of these, over 4.8 million represent state “buy-ins” for Medicare coverage.Dually eligible beneficiaries are among the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. They are generally poor, have a greater incidence of serious and chronic conditions, and are much more likely to be institutionalized. As a matter of fact, about 1.4 million reside in institutions, while only 600,000 of the approximately 31 million Medicare beneficiaries without Medicaid coverage are in institutions. Over half of all dually eligible patients over 85 reside in nursing facilities. When a copayment is required, a Medicare beneficiary or a representative designated by the beneficiary, receives an “Explanation of Medicare Benefits” (EOMB), which specifies the services billed on behalf of the individual. The EOMB is an important document because beneficiaries and their families can use it to verify that the services were actually performed. The dually eligible population, however, often does not have a representative in the community to receive and review this document. In fact, many nursing home patients actually have the nursing home itself receive the EOMBs on their behalf. In 1996, Medicare spent $11.3 billion on skilled nursing facility benefits and an undetermined amount on part B ancillary services and items. The providers of these services and items can bill Medicare in a variety of ways. With this variety comes the opportunity to blur the transactions that actually took place and inflate charges for services rendered. Ancillary services and items for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing facilities can be provided by the nursing facility itself, a company wholly or partially owned by the nursing facility, or an independent supplier or practitioner. Our work has shown that independent providers and suppliers can bill Medicare directly for services or supplies without the knowledge of the beneficiary or the facility and companies that provide therapy are able to inflate their billings. Nursing facilities often do not have the in-house capability to provide all the services and supplies that patients need. Accordingly, outside providers market their services and supplies to nursing facilities to meet the needs of the facilities’ patients. HCFA’s reimbursement system allows these providers to bill Medicare directly without confirmation from the nursing facility or a physician that the care or items were necessary or delivered as claimed. As a result, the program is vulnerable to exploitation. representatives gain access to records not because they have any responsibility for the direct care of these patients, but solely to market their services or supplies. From these records, unscrupulous providers can obtain all the information necessary to order, bill, and be reimbursed by Medicare for services and supplies that are in many instances not necessary or even provided. In 1996, we reported the following examples: A group optometric practice performed routine eye examinations on nursing facility patients, a service not covered by Medicare. The optometrist was always preceded by a sales person who targeted the nursing facility’s director of nursing or its social worker and claimed the group was offering eye examinations at no cost to the facility or the patient. The nursing facility gave the sales person access to patients’ records, and this person then obtained the information necessary to file claims. Nursing staff would obtain physicians’ orders for the “free” examinations, and an optometrist would later arrive to conduct the examinations. The billings to Medicare, however, were for services other than eye examinations—services that were never furnished or were unnecessary. The owner of a medical supply company approached nursing facility administrators in several states and offered to provide supplies for Medicare patients at no cost to the facility. After reviewing nursing facility records, this company identified Medicare beneficiaries, obtained their Medicare numbers, developed lists of supplies on the basis of diagnoses, identified attending physicians, and made copies of signed physician orders in the files. The supplier then billed Medicare for items it actually delivered but also submitted 4,000 fraudulent claims for items never delivered. As part of the 1994 judgment, the owner forfeited $328,000 and was imprisoned and ordered to make restitution of $971,000 to Medicare and $60,000 to Medicaid. A supplier obtained a list of Medicare patients and their Medicare numbers from another supplier who had access to this information. The first supplier billed Medicare for large quantities of supplies that were never provided to these patients, and both suppliers shared in the approximately $814,000 in reimbursements. We found that nursing home staff’s giving providers or their representatives inappropriate access to patient medical records was a major contributing cause to the fraud and abuse cases we reviewed. Many nursing facilities rely on specialized rehabilitation agencies—also termed outpatient therapy agencies—to provide therapy services. These agencies can be multilayered, interconnected organizations—each layer adding costs to the basic therapy charge—that use outside billing services, which can also add to the cost. In those situations in which the nursing facility contracts and pays for occupational and speech therapy services for a Medicare-eligible stay, Medicare might pay the nursing facility what it was charged because of the limited amount of review conducted by claims processing contractors. In practice, however, because of the difficulty in determining what are reasonable costs and the limited resources available for auditing provider cost reports, there is little assurance that inflated charges are not actually being billed and paid. Until recently, HCFA had not established salary guidelines, which are needed to define reasonable costs for occupational or speech therapy. Without such benchmarks, it is difficult for Medicare contractors to judge whether therapy providers overstate their costs. Even for physical therapy, for which salary guidelines do exist, the Medicare-established limits do not apply if the therapy company bills Medicare directly. This is why Medicare has been charged $150 for 15 minutes of therapy when surveys show that average statewide salaries for therapists employed by hospitals and nursing facilities range from $12 to $25 per hour. Our analysis of a sample drawn from a survey of five contractors found that over half of the claims they received for occupational and speech therapy from 1988 to 1993 exceeded $172 in charges per service. Assuming this was the charge for 15 minutes of treatment—which industry representatives described as the standard billing unit—the hourly rate charged for these claims would have been more than $688. It should be noted that neither HCFA nor its contractors could accurately tell us what Medicare actually paid the providers in response to these claims. The amount Medicare actually pays is not known until long after the service is rendered and the claim processed. Although aggregate payments are eventually determinable, existing databases do not provide actual payment data for any individual claim. HCFA pays contractors to process claims and to identify and investigate potentially fraudulent or abusive claims. We have long been critical of the unstable funding support HCFA’s contractors have to carry out these program integrity activities. We recently reported that funding for Medicare contractor program safeguard activities declined from 74 cents to 48 cents per claim between 1989 and 1996. During that same period, the number of Medicare claims climbed 70 percent to 822 million. Such budgetary constraints have placed HCFA and its contractors in the untenable position of needing to review more claims with fewer resources. While Medicare contractors do employ a number of effective automated controls to prevent some inappropriate payments, such as suspending claims that do not meet certain conditions for payment for further review, our 1996 report on 70 fraud and abuse cases showed that atypical charges or very large reimbursements routinely escaped those controls and typically went unquestioned. The contractors we reviewed had not put any “triggers” in place that would halt payments when cumulative claims exceeded reasonable thresholds. Consequently, Medicare reimbursed providers, who were subsequently found guilty of fraud or billing abuses, large sums of money over a short period without the contractor’s becoming suspicious. The following examples highlight the problem: A supplier submitted claims to a Medicare contractor for surgical dressings furnished to nursing facility patients. In the fourth quarter of 1992, the contractor paid the supplier $211,900 for surgical dressing claims. For the same quarter a year later, the contractor paid this same supplier more than $6 million without becoming suspicious, despite the 2,800-percent increase in the amount paid. A contractor paid claims for a supplier’s body jackets that averaged about $2,300 per quarter for five consecutive quarters and then jumped to $32,000, $95,000, $235,000, and $889,000 over the next four quarters, with no questions asked. A contractor reimbursed a clinical psychology group practice for individual psychotherapy visits lasting 45 to 50 minutes when the top three billing psychologists in the group were allegedly seeing from 17 to 42 nursing facility patients per day. On many days, the leading biller of this group would have had to work more than 24 uninterrupted hours to provide the services he claimed. A contractor paid a podiatrist $143,580 for performing surgical procedures on at least 4,400 nursing facility patients during a 6-month period. For these services to be legitimate, the podiatrist would have had to serve at least 34 patients a day, 5 days a week. The Medicare contractors in these two cases did not become suspicious until they received complaints from family members, beneficiaries, or competing providers. The EOMB was critical in identifying the specific items and services being billed to Medicare. Although EOMBs have in the past only been required when the beneficiary had a deductible or copayment, HIPAA now requires HCFA to provide an explanation of Medicare benefits for each item or service for which payment may be made, without regard to whether a deductible or coinsurance may be imposed. This provision is still of limited value, however, for nursing home residents who designate the nursing home to receive the EOMBs—which is more common for the dually eligible population. In other cases, contractors initiated their investigations because of their analyses of paid claims (a practice referred to as “postpayment medical review”), which focused on those providers that appeared to be billing more than their peers for specific procedures. One contractor, for instance, reimbursed a laboratory $2.7 million in 1991 and $8.2 million in 1992 for heart monitoring services allegedly provided to nursing facility patients . The contractor was first alerted in January 1993 through its postpayment review efforts when it noted that this laboratory’s claims for monitoring services exceeded the norm for its peers. In all these cases, we believe the large increases in reimbursements over a short period or the improbable cumulative services claimed for a single day should have alerted the contractors to the possibility that something unusual was happening and prompted an earlier review. People do not usually work 20-hour days, and billings by a provider for a single procedure do not typically jump 13-fold from one quarter to the next or progressively double every quarter. Initiatives on various fronts are now under way to address fraud and abuse issues we have discussed here today. Several of these initiatives, however, are in their early stages, and it is too soon to assess whether they will, in fact, prevent fraud and abuse in the nursing facilities environment. Last year, we recommended that HCFA establish computerized prepayment controls that would suspend the most aberrant claims. HCFA has since strengthened its instructions to its contractors, directing them to implement prepayment screens to prevent payment of billings for egregious amounts or patterns of medically unnecessary services or items. HCFA also authorized its contractors to deny automatically the entire line item for any services that exceed the egregious service limits. In regard to therapy services, after a lengthy administrative process, HCFA proposed salary guidelines last month for physical, occupational, speech, and respiratory therapists who furnish care to beneficiaries under a contractual arrangement with a skilled nursing facility. The administration estimates these changes will result in savings to Medicare of $1.7 billion between now and the year 2001, and $3.9 billion between now and the year 2006. The proposed rule would revise the current guideline amounts for physical and respiratory therapies and introduce, for the first time, guideline amounts for occupational therapy and speech/language pathology services. In March 1995, the Secretary of HHS launched Operation Restore Trust (ORT), a 2-year interagency, intergovernmental initiative to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. ORT targeted its resources on three health care areas susceptible to exploitation, including nursing facility care in five states (California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas) with high Medicare and Medicaid enrollment and rapid growth in billed services. overutilization of supplies, that can arise when suppliers bill separately for services for nursing home residents. A consolidated billing requirement would make it easier to control payments for these services and give nursing facilities the incentive to monitor them. The requirement would also help prevent duplicate billings and billings for services and items not actually provided. In effect, outside suppliers would have to make arrangements with skilled nursing facilities so that they would bill for suppliers’ services and would be financially liable and medically responsible for the care. HIPAA established the Medicare Integrity Program, which ensures that the program safeguard activities function is funded separately from other claims processing activities. HIPAA also included provisions on “administrative simplification.” A lack of uniformity in data among the Medicare program, Medicaid state plans, and private health entities often makes it difficult to compare programs, measure the true effect of changes in health care financing, and coordinate payments for dually eligible patients. For example, HIPAA requires, for the first time, that each provider be given a unique provider number to be used in billing all insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid. The new provisions also require the Secretary of HHS to promulgate standards for all electronic health care transactions; the data sets used in those transactions; and unique identifiers for patients, employers, providers, insurers, and plans. These standards will be binding on all health care providers, insurers, plans, and clearinghouses. The multiple ways that providers and suppliers can bill for services to nursing home patients and the lax oversight of this process contribute to the vulnerability of payments for the health care of this population. As a result, excessive or fraudulent billings may go undetected. We are encouraged, however, by the administration’s recent proposal for consolidated billing, which we believe will put more responsibility on nursing home staff to oversee the services and items being billed on behalf of residents. As more details concerning these or other proposals become available, we will be glad to work with the Subcommittee and others to help sort out their potential implications. This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions. For more information on this testimony, please call Leslie G. Aronovitz on (312) 220-7600 or Donald B. Hunter on (617) 565-7464. Lisanne Bradley also contributed to this statement. Medicare Post-Acute Care: Facility Health and Skilled Nursing Facility Cost Growth and Proposals for Prospective Payment (GAO/T-HEHS-97-90, Mar. 4, 1997). Skilled Nursing Facilities: Approval Process for Certain Services May Result in Higher Medical Costs (GAO/HEHS-97-18, Dec. 20, 1996). Medicare: Early Resolution of Overcharges for Therapy in Nursing Facilities Is Unlikely (GAO/HEHS-96-145, Aug. 16, 1996). Fraud and Abuse: Providers Target Medicare Patients in Nursing Facilities (GAO/HEHS-96-18, Jan. 24, 1996). Fraud and Abuse: Medicare Continues to Be Vulnerable to Exploitation by Unscrupulous Providers (GAO/T-HEHS-96-7, Nov. 2, 1995). Medicare: Excessive Payments for Medical Supplies Continue Despite Improvements (GAO/HEHS-95-171, Aug. 8, 1995). Medicare: Reducing Fraud and Abuse Can Save Billions (GAO/T-HEHS-95-157, May 16, 1995). Medicare: Tighter Rules Needed to Curtail Overcharges for Therapy in Nursing Facilities (GAO/HEHS-95-23, Mar. 30, 1995). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO discussed the challenges that exist in combatting fraud and abuse in the nursing facility environment. GAO noted that: (1) while most providers abide by the rules, some unscrupulous providers of supplies and services have used the nursing facility setting as a target of opportunity; (2) this has occurred for several reasons: (a) the complexities of the reimbursement process invite exploitation; and (b) insufficient control over Medicare claims has reduced the likelihood that inappropriate claims will be denied; (3) GAO is encouraged by a number of recent efforts to combat fraud and abuse, the pending implementation of provisions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and a legislative proposal made by the administration; and (4) while these efforts should make a difference in controlling fraud and abuse in nursing homes, it is too early to tell whether these efforts will be sufficient. |
Subsets and Splits