text
stringlengths 512
504k
| summary
stringlengths 503
2k
|
|---|---|
PURCHASE, N.Y., Nov. 9, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- This holiday season, PepsiCo is offering more limited-time products than ever before to fill consumers' snack and beverage needs at any holiday moment. From entertaining family and friends to holiday grocery shopping, PepsiCo is delivering bold and cheerful holiday flavors that will satisfy everyone in the room.
New to store shelves for a limited time this holiday season are: Pepsi Salted Caramel, Cheetos Sweetos Holiday Cinnamon Sugar Puffs, Mtn Dew Holiday Brew and Quaker Life Cereal and Chewy Bars in Gingerbread Spice. Also returning this year are seasonal favorites, including Lay's Wavy Potato Chips Dipped in Chocolate, Cap'n Crunch's Christmas Crunch and Cheetos Snowflakes.
Whether you're snacking solo, hosting overnight guests or entertaining family, PepsiCo has a variety of products to serve and enjoy:
For a Breakfast That'll Sleigh
Finding the perfect gift for your friends and family can be tough; choosing what to have for breakfast shouldn't be.
Starbucks ® Peppermint Mocha Latte – Inspired by a Starbucks seasonal favorite, this limited-time at-home version combines bold, brewed espresso, chilled milk and natural holiday flavors like peppermint and chocolate. Size & SRP: 14 fl. oz.: $2.79
Inspired by a Starbucks seasonal favorite, this limited-time at-home version combines bold, brewed espresso, chilled milk and natural holiday flavors like peppermint and chocolate. Size & SRP: 14 fl. oz.: Quaker ® Life Cereal and Chewy Bars in Gingerbread Spice – Enjoy these family favorites in a new Gingerbread Spice flavor, perfect to enjoy for a limited time this winter season. Sizes & SRP: Cereal 13 oz.: $3.59 , 18 oz.: $4.49 ; Chewy 8 ct.: $3.29 , 12 ct.: $3.99
Enjoy these family favorites in a new Gingerbread Spice flavor, perfect to enjoy for a limited time this winter season. Sizes & SRP: Cereal 13 oz.: , 18 oz.: ; Chewy 8 ct.: , 12 ct.: Cap'n Crunch's Christmas Crunch ® – A special, limited-time edition holiday cereal featuring the signature Cap'n Crunch corn pieces, with red and green Crunch Berries in fun holiday-themed shapes. Sizes & SRP: 13 oz.: $3.49 , 18 oz.: $4.29
A special, limited-time edition holiday cereal featuring the signature Cap'n Crunch corn pieces, with red and green Crunch Berries in fun holiday-themed shapes. Sizes & SRP: 13 oz.: , 18 oz.: Quaker® Life Cereal in Pumpkin Spice – Enjoy family favorite Quaker Life Cereal in seasonal Pumpkin Spice for everyone to enjoy for a limited time this holiday season. Sizes & SRP: Cereal 13 oz.: $3.59 , 18 oz.: $4.49
For the Merriest Family of Them All
Mix up your family's holiday traditions by serving snacks and beverages so festive, they'll want to spend the whole night at the holiday dinner table.
LIFEWTR™ Holiday Gift Set – A limited-time gift set featuring art by LIFEWTR Series 1 artists Craig & Karl, including a specially designed bottle, embossed notebook and felt tip pens. Available online at Amazon.com and Walmart.com beginning later this month. Size & SRP: 1 ltr: $20.00
– A limited-time gift set featuring art by LIFEWTR Series 1 artists Craig & Karl, including a specially designed bottle, embossed notebook and felt tip pens. Available online at Amazon.com and Walmart.com beginning later this month. Size & SRP: 1 ltr: Mtn Dew ® Holiday Brew – Combining two of Mtn Dew's beloved, original flavors – green Mtn Dew and Mtn Dew Code Red – to get one bold taste of holiday spirit for a limited time only. Sizes & SRP: 20 fl. oz.: $1.89 , 12 pack/12 fl. oz.: $4.99
– Combining two of Mtn Dew's beloved, original flavors – green Mtn Dew and Mtn Dew Code Red – to get one bold taste of holiday spirit for a limited time only. Sizes & SRP: 20 fl. oz.: , 12 pack/12 fl. oz.: Cheetos ® Sweetos ® Holiday Cinnamon Sugar Puffs – The fan-favorite snack puff is now available in a limited-time holiday shape to satisfy the family's sweet tooth. Sizes & SRP: 2.625 oz.: $1.49 , 7 oz.: $3.49
– The fan-favorite snack puff is now available in a limited-time holiday shape to satisfy the family's sweet tooth. Sizes & SRP: 2.625 oz.: , 7 oz.: Cheetos ® Snowflakes – Delicious white cheddar taste in four festive snowflake shapes, perfect to bring a little cheese into your holidays for a limited time. Sizes & SRP: 2.625 oz.: $1.49 , 7 oz.: $3.49
Delicious white cheddar taste in four festive snowflake shapes, perfect to bring a little cheese into your holidays for a limited time. Sizes & SRP: 2.625 oz.: , 7 oz.: Stacy's® Cinnamon Sugar Flavored Pita Chips – A favorite flavor during the holidays, these cinnamon sugar pita chips are a delicious sweet treat to enjoy on their own, with a festive dip or a cup of coffee. Sizes & SRP: 7 oz.: $2.82 , 8 oz.: $5.84
Mix & Mingle Hosting Friends, Family or Colleagues
When you're entertaining, pick up limited-time holiday treats so you can spend more time with your guests.
Pepsi ® Salted Caramel – An indulgent new, limited-time flavor which blends the refreshing taste of cola with a delicious caramel finish. Size & SRP: 20 fl. oz.: $1.79
– An indulgent new, limited-time flavor which blends the refreshing taste of cola with a delicious caramel finish. Size & SRP: 20 fl. oz.: Pepsi ® and Mtn Dew Holiday Multi-Packs – Make your party prep easy with holiday-themed graphics and free coupons inside of specially marked multi-packs of Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Zero Sugar, Pepsi Wild Cherry, Mtn Dew and Diet Mtn Dew for a limited time only. Sizes & SRP: 24 pack/12 fl. oz.: $7.99 , 36 pack/12 fl. oz.: $10.49
– Make your party prep easy with holiday-themed graphics and free coupons inside of specially marked multi-packs of Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Zero Sugar, Pepsi Wild Cherry, Mtn Dew and Diet Mtn Dew for a limited time only. Sizes & SRP: 24 pack/12 fl. oz.: , 36 pack/12 fl. oz.: IZZE ® Cranberry Orange Spice – With the sweet, sparkly taste of limited-time IZZE Cranberry Orange Spice, every moment is worth celebrating this holiday season. Sizes & SRP: Costco Holiday Pack (Cranberry Orange Spice, Apple, Pomegranate) 4 pack/12 fl. oz.: $4.99 , 8 pack/12 fl. oz.: $10.99
– With the sweet, sparkly taste of limited-time IZZE Cranberry Orange Spice, every moment is worth celebrating this holiday season. Sizes & SRP: Costco Holiday Pack (Cranberry Orange Spice, Apple, Pomegranate) 4 pack/12 fl. oz.: , 8 pack/12 fl. oz.: Rold Gold ® Dipped Pretzels – Available for a limited time, Classic or Peppermint flavor options provide an indulgent and creative solution to spice up holiday entertaining and snacking. Size & SRP: 8.5 oz.: $3.99
– Available for a limited time, Classic or Peppermint flavor options provide an indulgent and creative solution to spice up holiday entertaining and snacking. Size & SRP: 8.5 oz.: Lay's® Wavy Dipped in Chocolate – Chocolate-dipped potato chips are an irresistibly perfect mix of salty and sweet to serve to family and friends for a limited time this holiday season. Size & SRP: 5 oz.: $3.99
About PepsiCo
PepsiCo products are enjoyed by consumers one billion times a day in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. PepsiCo generated approximately $63 billion in net revenue in 2016, driven by a complementary food and beverage portfolio that includes Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Pepsi-Cola, Quaker and Tropicana. PepsiCo's product portfolio includes a wide range of enjoyable foods and beverages, including 22 brands that generate more than $1 billion each in estimated annual retail sales.
At the heart of PepsiCo is Performance with Purpose – our goal to deliver top-tier financial performance while creating sustainable growth and shareholder value. In practice, Performance with Purpose means providing a wide range of foods and beverages from treats to healthy eats; finding innovative ways to minimize our impact on the environment and reduce our operating costs; providing a safe and inclusive workplace for our employees globally; and respecting, supporting and investing in the local communities where we operate. For more information, visit http://www.pepsico.com.
Follow PepsiCo:
Twitter (@PepsiCo)
Facebook
PepsiCo Press Releases
PepsiCo Multimedia
PepsiCo Videos
SOURCE PepsiCo ||||| In Japan, Christmas is typically celebrated with a cake. Pepsi is celebrating it with a limited edition release called “Christmas Cola.”
Japanese Christmas cakes are sponge cakes covered with whipped cream and filled with strawberries. They are good.
A few years back, Pepsi released a white Pepsi, but this latest one is cake flavored.
According to the drink’s official release, Pepsi Christmas Cola was created in the image of Japanese holiday cake. There’s a sweet and tart strawberry aroma in a white cola, evoking the creamy holiday sweets.
Pepsi Christmas Cola goes on sale November 21 in Japan. It’s the latest in a long list of Japan-exclusive Pepsi releases.
Advertisement ||||| Japan's Beloved Christmas Cake Isn't About Christmas At All
Enlarge this image toggle caption Buddhika Weerasinghe/Getty Images Buddhika Weerasinghe/Getty Images
About This Series This is the first in a series of stories exploring the rich diversity of Christmastime edibles around the world, and the stories behind the food. Explore All The Stories In This Series
Only about 1 percent of the Japanese population is Christian. But you might not realize that if you visited a major metropolitan area during Christmastime. Just as in America, you'll find heads topped with red Santa hats everywhere and elaborate seasonal displays: train sets, mountain scenes and snow-covered trees. Often, these are set inside bakeries hawking one of the highlights of the holiday season in Japan: Christmas cake.
"It's basically sold on practically every street corner," says anthropologist Michael Ashkenazi from the Bonn International Center for Conversion, who studied Japanese culture and tradition.
The dessert is a type of sponge cake, covered with snow-white whipped cream and topped with perfectly shaped, ruby red strawberries. It's a beloved December-time treat on the island nation — and not just because it's delicious. In fact, Christmas cake is now a symbol of commercialism and prosperity, its story intertwined with Japan's rise from ruins after its defeat in World War II.
To understand why, we need to take a little historical detour.
After World War II, American soldiers led the work of rebuilding an occupied Japan. The Japanese economy was in shambles and food shortages were common. Even rarer were sugary sweets. The sweet treats from the U.S. that the Americans handed out were a memorable luxury to a people still recovering from the ravages of war.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Buddhika Weerasinghe/Getty Images Buddhika Weerasinghe/Getty Images
"Sweet chocolates, above all, given by American soldiers epitomized the utmost wealth Japanese children saw in American lives," cultural anthropologist Hideyo Konagaya wrote in a 2001 paper on the history of the Christmas cake published in the Journal of Popular Culture. Sweets fed a longing for wealth and a desire to Americanize, he says.
But it wasn't just soldiers that came to Japan. Christian missionaries also made the journey, bringing gifts and the concept of Christmas to Japanese schools and families. Missionaries had actually introduced Christianity to Japan as early as the 16th century. But Christmas didn't catch on as a popular holiday until the postwar years, when the Japanese embraced a glitzy, commercial version of the holiday that was less about religion than about prosperity, explains Konagaya.
"The Christmas celebrations gave the Japanese the most tangible pictures that could convey images of prosperous modern lives in America," Konagaya writes.
And so Japan embraced the trappings of a picture-perfect, American-style Christmas — including Santa Claus, an ornament-bedecked tree and a sugar-filled cake. As David Plath, a renowned Japan scholar, writes in a paper on the popularity of Christmas festivities in Japan, "Family Christmas gatherings do not center around dinner, as in the American ideal, but rather upon mutual partaking of a Christmas cake."
So why cake?
Well, sponge cake had been available in Japan since the 17th century, but several of the items needed to make this version of it — sugar, milk and butter — were rarities on the island nation, so the cake was a luxury reserved for the elite. After World War II, Japan's economy rebounded, the ingredients became more widely available, and Japan's newly formed middle class adopted this once-exclusive dessert as a symbol that it had finally made it.
Enlarge this image toggle caption NPR NPR
And so, inspired by America, a wholly Japanese tradition was born. "The Christmas cake became a center of attention in the whole festival [of Christmas]," writes Konagaya.
Even the cake's shape and colors are symbolic: It's red and white, echoing the Japanese flag. And traditionally it's round. "Anything that's white and round would normally be associated with shrines," says Ashkenazi.
These days, Christmas cake has become so ingrained in Japanese culture that you can even find some in your smartphone: There are two versions of the cake on the emoji keyboard. (Emoji, as the name suggests, originated in Japan.) The cakes go on discount once Dec. 25 rolls around — a fact that gave birth to an unfortunate bit of old Japanese slang: "Christmas cake" was used to refer to an unmarried woman who was over 25 and thus, considered past her prime. (Sigh. We know.)
However, while the cake has become firmly entrenched in Japanese culture, Christmas itself hasn't — it's not a national holiday in Japan. In fact, it's celebrated more like Valentine's Day is in America, and it's often thought of as a day for romantic couples to share. (It's also a big day for chowing down on KFC, but that's an entirely different story.)
Says Ashkenazi: "This [cake] is part of a whole complex of things that the Japanese adopted from the West, modified to their own needs, and have completely different meaning and different implications for Japanese society than from whatever host society they borrowed it from."
We haven't tried whipping up a Christmas cake ourselves, but if you're curious, this video from a Japanese cooking show called Cooking With Dog has a recipe. Because nothing says Christmas like a dog sous chef in a Santa hat.
YouTube
Alison Bruzek is a former intern with NPR. ||||| Lately, soda companies have been more and more interested in reducing sugar in their drinks. Coca-Cola, for instance, is willing to pay $1 million for a sugar substitute. Americans, as they become more obsessed with healthy eating, have finally started drinking more bottled water than soda. But what if a soda company decided to forget all that, and go in the exact opposite direction. Enter Pepsi, which has released two new dessert-themed flavors that actually embrace the sugar instead of spurning it.
The first, available in Japan is a limited-edition flavor called Christmas Cola, and it’s cake-flavored. In Japan, Christmas is often celebrated with a cake covered in whipped cream and strawberries, and this white soda is meant to evoke that dessert, with a “sweet and tart strawberry aroma,” according to Kotaku. Yes, Halloween just ended, but Christmas treats are already upon us.
Halloween is barely a week old and Christmas stuff is out. Tastes like cream soda. #pepsichristmascola #japan #nosnowhere❄️ A post shared by @cmchai13 on Nov 4, 2017 at 1:04am PDT
The second flavor, which you can get here in America, is Salted Caramel Pepsi. It’s also a limited-edition flavor and really leans into its dessert theme, by making an already unhealthy drink even sweeter by adding caramel flavor (however, in a statement from the company, Pepsi informed me that Salted Caramel Pepsi contains less sugar than the regular version). Savory desserts that use a mix of sugar and salt flavors are certainly in vogue right now, but even imagining drinking caramel—which belongs on brownies and cookies, not in a bottle—makes this Pepsi iteration seem, perhaps, a little less appealing.
Not too bad.. 🤷🏼♀️🤔 #saltedcaramelpepsi A post shared by Kasey Parker (@kasey__parker) on Nov 7, 2017 at 12:24pm PST
A cake-flavored soda, on the other hand, is intriguing. Whipped cream and strawberry flavors aren’t exactly intuitive soda ingredients, but they’re at least interesting ones. We can imagine a lighter, fruitier soda emerging from that combination, instead of a possibly denser, super-sweet flavor in the salted caramel version.
Don’t take our word for it, though. Get out there and grab a Salted Caramel Pepsi and try it yourself, before its run on grocery store shelves ends. As for the Christmas Cola, we Americans will just have to keep fantasizing about what it must be like to drink a slice of cake.
Update 11/8: A statement from Pepsi clarified that Salted Caramel Pepsi contains less sugar than it's original counterpart. | You can now have your cake and drink it, too. Food & Wine reports on a new limited-edition dessert-flavored drink from Pepsi, though you'll have to travel to Japan to sample it. Christmas Cola, which goes on sale there Nov. 21, is a white soda that Kotaku describes as having a "sweet and tart strawberry aroma" and that's modeled after Japan's seasonal Christmas cakes, which are sponge cakes covered with white whipped cream and strawberries. If Tokyo isn't in your immediate travel plans, Pepsi is also pushing another limited-run soda here in the US: Salted Caramel Pepsi, which, despite its apparently cloyingly sweet taste, is said to have less sugar than original Pepsi. Food & Wine is already playing favorites, deeming the cake-flavored pop "intriguing" but noting that caramel "belongs on brownies and cookies, not in a bottle." Ad Age notes that, as pumpkin spice season comes to a close, holiday-themed food and beverage items are taking over the shelves, and PepsiCo isn't hesitating from embracing that holiday spirit: The company is also offering a red-and-green version of Cap'n Crunch cereal, chocolate-dipped Lay's potato chips, and snowflake-shaped Cheetos, per a release. |
In Johnny Carson, the late-night legend’s lawyer Henry Bushkin writes of his decades with the comedian: Tonight Show secrets, partying in Vegas, and helping Carson break into his second wife’s apartment. Below, a complete excerpt from Bushkin’s upcoming book, out Oct 15, 2013.
Johnny Carson, his famously puckish face obscured by sunglasses and disguised by distress, led a squad of men with downturned mouths and upturned collars through a rain-swept Manhattan evening. Carson strode purposefully, and his four followers hurried behind, dodging taxis and jumping puddles to keep pace. Their destination: a modest high-rise in the East Forties near First Avenue. Their mission: a dubious if not downright illegal cloak-and-dagger caper to enter an apartment to which they had no title, let alone keys. Their identities: Joe Mullen, a licensed New York private eye, straight out of Mickey Spillane, serious and capable; Mario Irizarry, his tall, gaunt aide-de-camp, adept at lock-picking and conversational as a clam; and Arthur Kassel, a security expert/crime photographer/police groupie.
And then there was me, the last in line. The one hustling hardest to keep up. Sucking wind, I was glad when we finally reached our destination, although as we stood in the lobby, shaking the rain off our London Fogs, I began to feel a sense of panic taking hold. What was I doing here? I was a graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School! I had sworn an oath to uphold the law, not violate it, and breaking and entering in New York is a felony. As if sensing my panic, Johnny looked over at me. “Don’t worry, kid,” he said reassuringly. “Nothing’s going to happen to you. Trust me.”
“Henry,” Carson had said when we’d first met the day before, “I have reason to believe my wife is cheating on me. I also have an idea who the son of a bitch is that she’s shacking up with.”
Joanne—née Joanne Copeland—was Johnny’s second wife. His first wife, Jody, was his college sweetheart. It was, as I was to learn, a fairly typical first marriage between young people. It produced three sons—Chris, Ricky, and Cory—but it did not withstand the demands or the sexual temptations of Johnny’s increasingly successful career. Their divorce became final in 1963, and within months he married Joanne, a cute, vivacious former stewardess who had briefly worked as the hostess on a TV game show called Video Village. Now, seven years later, Johnny had substantial evidence that Joanne had secretly leased an apartment within blocks of their UN Plaza home, which she used for clandestine rendezvous with her lover.
“Well, I’ll be happy to file for divorce, if you want…”
“No, I don’t want you to file for divorce,” he interrupted. “I want you to go with Arthur and me and some other guys when we break into the apartment to find evidence to prove the bitch is cheating on me.”
My first reaction was to be appalled. No way, I thought. Members of the bar do not break and enter apartments. I am an officer of the court. I am the heir to a great legal tradition. I thought of Clarence Darrow. I thought of Learned Hand. And yet…this was an immense opportunity at the beginning of my professional life to land a very major client and launch my career into the stratosphere. I hesitated.
Carson continued. “I need a lawyer to accompany the team tomorrow night in case s- - - happens. I have very experienced people who have assured me that there won’t be any problems, and Kassel has already cleared things with the cops. But somebody needs to be there in case something goes wrong…”
“Let me ask you,” I said, “does Mrs. Carson have any money of her own?”
“No, not really,” Johnny replied.
“Then let me suggest that you have been the person who has been paying for this apartment. So arguably it’s your apartment.”
Johnny laughed. “Arthur said you were smart.” Frankly, I had no idea if this argument had any legitimacy, but it was a reasonable line and might well provide enough cover for a fast-talking lawyer to get his coconspirators out of trouble if some nosy cop started being fastidious about the law. “Good,” said Johnny. “You’re part of the team.”
In the bright light of the lobby, the sunglasses Johnny had been counting on to cover his identity proved useless.
“Hey, Johnny Carson!” the burly doorman bellowed. “Hey-ohhh!” But his delight at the sudden apparition of a celebrity in his lobby did not translate into a willingness to admit strangers into a resident’s apartment. Joanne must have used her husband’s money to tip generously.
“Oh no, can’t do that,” the doorman shook his head. “You wait here. I have to go get the building manager.”
Fortunately the building manager turned out to be less committed to the sanctity of his tenant’s domain. When I gave him my spiel about Mrs. Carson being the tenant but Mr. Carson actually paying the bills, the manager made like Earl Warren and actually appeared to be pondering the merits of my argument, which he did right up to the moment the thick-necked Mullen grabbed his hand and slipped several hundred dollars in cash into his palm. “Yeah, okay,” the manager nodded. “Come on up, I’ll let you in.”
With Irizarry left to stand guard in the hallway, the four of us entered Joanne’s snuggery. Almost instantly, Carson discovered evidence of his cuckoldry: the whole living room—in fact, almost the entire pad—was furnished with discards from the couple’s UN Plaza apartment. There were even some pieces that Johnny hadn’t realized were gone.
“Look, it’s him,” said Arthur. He was pointing to a table in front of the window, on which sat about six or seven framed photographs of Joanne’s playmate. For the first time I realized her noontime buddy was Frank Gifford, the former New York Giants football great. One of the pictures showed Frank and Joanne at a restaurant table against some tropical resort-like background.
“Bingo,” said Arthur, just as Joe Mullen emerged from the bedroom. “I got men’s and women’s clothing hanging together.” Then he held up a robe of sorts, although it seemed awfully sheer to be the kind of thing a girl would wear to sit around and watch Bonanza in while she put curlers in her hair. “Recognize it?”
Johnny nodded. Crushed by the overwhelming amount of evidence, Carson leaned against the living room wall and began to weep. It was a painfully uncomfortable moment. Arthur busied himself taking photos of the premises, while the rest of us tried to look away and give Johnny his privacy. It was, however, a small space, and I couldn’t always keep my eyes away. During one of those glances, I could see that Carson’s raincoat had fallen open. I was shocked to see that Johnny was carrying a .38 revolver in a holster on his hip. Mullen, seeing what I saw, shot me a look that warned, Don’t say a f—ing word, and then he quietly flipped the framed pictures of Gifford on the windowsill so that their backs faced the room. Across the room, the silent Joe Mullen deftly swept some lingerie under the sofa with the toe of his shoe. He wanted to spare Johnny the sight. There was little else that could be done.
Very little was said on the walk back to Johnny’s apartment. The rain had subsided, but no one felt like recapping the raid. When we reached Johnny’s apartment, he thanked us and said he was tired and wanted to be alone. He asked his houseman to give me a ride back home. As the car headed over the Queensboro Bridge, I realized that I was probably one of the very few people who had ever seen Johnny Carson cry.
That evening, I hit the sack shortly after nine p.m. and soon fell deeply asleep. But at two a.m. the phone rang. It was Carson, and he was obviously tanked.
“I’m sitting here with Ed at Jilly’s,” he slurred. “Can you please come down here right away.” I considered putting him off, but knowing how s—ty he must have been feeling, and realizing that he might still have a gun, I told him I’d be there shortly. I dragged myself out of bed, put on a suit, and grabbed my briefcase. I managed to hail a cab (no easy feat at that hour in Queens) and arrived at Jilly’s around three a.m.
A dark-leathered tomb of a place, Jilly’s was frequented not only by celebrities but also by a criminal element that gave the setting a dangerous allure. It was said that when he walked in one night, Sinatra had quipped, “Jesus, there must be forty-two indictments sitting at the bar.” He loved the place so much that he set a scene from The Manchurian Candidate there.
At the wee small hour I arrived, the club was dark, lit only by lamps above the smoked-glass mirrors that cast a light so frail that it quit before it reached the banquettes. All the regulars were long gone; even the hatcheck girl had checked out. Behind the bar was a barkeep in a bow tie, and at the bar was one patron, Johnny Carson, his head in a cumulous cloud of cigarette smoke, nursing a drink; all that was missing was Ol’ Blue Eyes singing “One for My Baby and One More for the Road.”
As I approached him, Ed McMahon wobbled out of the men’s room, steadying himself on bar stools as he moved. He still had a few feet to negotiate, but then Johnny straightened up and said, “Ed? We’re done here, right?”
“Yes, sir,” Ed replied, and with a slight recalculation of his course and direction, Johnny’s sidekick was gone in thirty seconds. I took the empty stool to form a new trio: me, Carson, and the bartender, who brought me a Heineken and then slipped discreetly away. The silence was oppressive, and the pressure to make small talk was overwhelming. Johnny, sighing heavily, finally spoke. “I’m not surprised that Joanne did this to me,” he said, “but it hurts. Hurts like hell.”
That he was devastated was obvious. “Maybe I drove her to it. I wasn’t the best husband in the world.” He stared at the ceiling as though reflecting on the accuracy of this statement and then pounded the bar for emphasis when he apparently reached a judgment.
“I shoulda been home more,” he said with a drunk’s certainty. “Not out running around.”
I didn’t try to respond. There was nothing to say. Johnny was lost in regret and self-loathing. “I’m a s—. I have three kids with my first wife and I don’t see any of them.”
Carson lit another cigarette then looked me straight in the eye. “I can’t quit smoking and I get drunk every night and I chase all the p- - -y I can get. I’m s- - -ty in the marriage department. Make sure you understand this.”
Understand what? What was he saying? And why was he saying all this to me? I don’t know what he saw in me in our initial meetings; I don’t know what I had done, but I suddenly realized that he was going to let me stick around. He was telling me all these things so I would realize what he expected of me. Carson’s mood then turned on a dime. He shot me a smile and said, “Henry, did you know that it’s a proven fact that married men live longer than single guys? It’s also a proven fact that married men are far more willing to die.” I burst into laughter, and he did too. And suddenly the dark cloud lifted.
“Why Frank Gifford?” he asked. “What’s that a–hole got that I don’t have?” I wasn’t sure where he was going with this but maybe nowhere good. The mood appeared to be swinging back. “That guy plays three positions on the field,” he said. “I could never get Joanne to go for more than two.” His deadpan timing was perfect. I nearly fell off my stool laughing. He was smiling appreciatively. “I think I’ll use that line in tomorrow’s monologue.”
From the front of the bar, the creak of the door opening and the thrum of a passing car broke the silence of the room. We turned to see a woman enter. As she drew closer in the dim light, one could gradually see that she was a young woman—tall—with long brunette hair—and even longer legs, in a short skirt and thigh-high boots—and nearly as famous as Johnny was.
Next to me, Johnny rose from his stool. “Henry, we’re done here, right?”
I knew my line. “Yes, sir,” I said, and the handsome couple left. All the trauma and misery from Joanne’s betrayal vanished the minute he had another woman on his arm. Whatever cares he had were melting faster than the ice cubes in his Tanqueray and tonic.
Later that same morning, not long before noon, he called. “Hey, what did we talk about last night?” he asked. “What the hell did I say?”
“Nothing much,” I replied. “Nothing important.”
He paused for several seconds. I think that he was impressed that my discretion extended even to him. “You must never, ever repeat a word from last night,” he finally said. “You understand that?”
“I do.”
“So what did I talk about?”
“You talked about everything last night—everything. Your mother, your family, your heartbreak over Joanne, a lot of stuff. But if you’re worried, just realize that I’m your lawyer; everything that is said between us is confidential and covered by attorney-client privilege. I would lose my license if during your lifetime I repeated it to a soul.”
I heard him laugh. “Well, Henry, I guess you’re my lawyer now. Can you come over this afternoon? I want you to file for divorce as soon as possible.” ||||| A jealous, pistol-packing Johnny Carson — sure that his second wife, Joanne, was cheating on him — broke into her secret Manhattan apartment and found it full of pictures of the other guy: Giants football legend Frank Gifford.
So claims a lawyer who toiled for 18 years as consigliere to the moody king of late-night television until they had a falling-out.
In his new tell-all, “Johnny Carson,” Henry Bushkin writes that Carson hired him in 1962 and that one of his first jobs was to accompany Carson and a private eye to break into a pad Joanne was renting on the sly.
“I have reason to believe my wife is cheating on me,” Carson told Bushkin. “I also have an idea who the son of a bitch is that she’s shacking up with.”
He was talking about Gifford, who would go on to broadcast fame as an announcer on ABC’s “Monday Night Football.”
On seeing the “S.O.B.’s” framed photographs all over Joanne’s pied-a-terre, “Carson leaned against the living room wall and began to weep,” Bushkin writes.
“I realized that I was probably one of the very few people who ever saw Johnny Carson cry.”
Lucky for Joanne, she wasn’t home.
When Carson’s raincoat fell open, “I was shocked to see that Johnny was carrying a .38 revolver in a holster on his hip,” Bushkin writes.
Joanne Carson, now 81 and living on Sunset Boulevard in Bel-Air, California denied to The Post Monday that she ever had an affair with Gifford, saying she had only been pals with the gridiron great.
“Now I do know that Johnny was jealous of him because he knew that he had been a friend of mine,” she said.
Although she called Bushkin’s story “delusional,” she admitted there had been a New York City apartment with some of her things in it — but she said it belonged to her secretary.
She said that although it was possible he broke in, “Johnny never mentioned it to me.”
And the gun?
“Please,” she said. “Johnny would have never carried a gun. First of all, he was terrified of guns.”
Bushkin writes that after his alleged discovery, Carson fled to a bar to drown his sorrows with on-air sidekick Ed McMahon. When Bushkin arrived, he found the liquored-up host turning his humiliation into comic material.
“Why Frank Gifford? What’s that a- -hole got that I don’t have? That guy plays three positions on the field. I could never get Joanne to go for more than two.
“I think I’ll use that in tomorrow’s monologue,” he said.
“Joanne has broken my heart,” he told Bushkin, “to the extent I ever had one.”
Bushkin says Carson left the bar that night with another woman “nearly as famous” as he was.
Carson and Joanne remained married until 1972, the year “The Tonight Show” left New York for Burbank, Calif.
Carson died in 2005 at age 79.
On Monday night, Joanne scoffed at Bushkin’s tale, saying, “He should release it under fiction.”
Calls and e-mails to representatives of Gifford seeking comment were not returned. | A new tell-all from Johnny Carson's former lawyer includes a pretty nuts story about the iconic late night host. According to Henry Bushkin's Johnny Carson, excerpted at Entertainment Weekly, Carson became convinced in 1962 that wife Joanne was cheating on him. Bushkin says he, Carson, and a private investigator broke into a Manhattan apartment Joanne was secretly renting, and found pictures of football player Frank Gifford everywhere. "Carson leaned against the living room wall and began to weep," Bushkin writes. Oh, and he had a .38 revolver with him at the time, the lawyer claims. Of course, Joanne Carson, now 81, insists to the New York Post the story is "delusional" and the whole book a "fiction." But, she says, she was friends with Gifford, and Johnny was indeed "jealous of him," she says. She also admits to having kept some of her things in a New York City apartment, but says it actually belonged to her secretary, and adds that "Johnny never mentioned" breaking into the place. As for the gun, "Please. Johnny would have never carried a gun. First of all, he was terrified of guns." According to Bushkin, Carson left the apartment to drink at a bar with Ed McMahon, and left with a famous woman. He remained married to Joanne until 1972. |
Corn plants stunted by the current drought grow in a field near Cicero, Indiana July 19, 2012. The most expansive U.S. drought in more than a half century grew more dire in the farming states of the Midwest and High Plains this week, wilting corn and soybean crops and sapping already-damaged yield potential, climate experts said Thursday.
(Reuters) - The drought ravaging America's prime farmland is having an unexpected consequence that could shape the future of agricultural finance: in some cases, farmers who have amped up their insurance coverage may be giving up on their crops early rather than to trying to save them.
Anecdotal evidence and economic assumptions suggest that a record number of farmers are likely preparing to file insurance claims this year, opting to plow under their withered crops -- some without bothering to administer the costly pesticides and weed killers that might help salvage a dwindling harvest.
Call it "moral hazard" in the heartland: with the growing use of federally backed crop insurance, a shift toward larger policies and newer schemes that protect revenue, some experts say farmers may now be better off claiming a total loss than eking out a shrunken harvest -- a move that could exacerbate a 50 percent surge in corn prices by further reducing supply.
"Why spend money trying to save a crop when every bushel of crop you save is then going to reduce the indemnity that you would otherwise receive?" said Vince Smith, an economist at Montana State University who has been critical of the program.
"The higher level of coverage means that you need a small shortfall in yield in order to be eligible for an indemnity payment, so these moral hazard effects come into effect more frequently," he said, referring to the economic theory in which one party may take excessive risk to the detriment of another.
Indemnified losses are likely to significantly exceed last year's record $10.7 billion, experts say, a sum that will be shared by the government programs that subsidize the dozen or so specialist crop insurance firms that sell the policies.
Consumers across the world will also pay at the grocery store: as more farmers give up, the corn crop shrinks, propelling prices even further beyond last year's $8 a bushel. Some analysts began revising down their crop estimates this week on the basis that millions of acres may not be harvested at all.
As it plays out, the trend may have far-reaching implications in Washington, where Congress is in the final furlong of hammering out a multiyear farm bill -- the cornerstone of which was expected to be an expanded insurance scheme, something that now faces even greater scrutiny.
GROWING SHARE...
The growth in crop insurance is well documented. A decade ago, insurance covered about 75 percent of the U.S. corn crop; last year it covered 85 percent of all planted acres.
But more importantly, farmers have also been shifting toward policies that offer a greater level of protection.
In 2004, farmers who took out policies at 75 percent or more coverage represented less than 40 percent of the total sum of insured acres. By last year that share had risen to 63 percent, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (RMA) data compiled by Thomson Reuters Lanworth, a natural resources intelligence firm.
While it is too early to see any definitive evidence of the total indemnity costs, early data supports anecdotal reports of greater activity. As of July 16, insurance indemnities for all crops stand at $446 million compared with $230 million at this time a year ago, according to RMA data.
At the same time, U.S. corn production is shrinking by the hour amid the worst drought in more than 50 years. The government slashed its production forecast by 12 percent just last week; by this week, analysts said output had likely fallen a further 7 percent due to the drought.
It is not just the level of coverage that matters; the type is also key.
Disaster modeling company AIR Worldwide, in a recent report on the drought, said most farmers in the Corn Belt took out revenue protection policies with a harvest price option -- contracts that will, in other words, pay them for the crops they would have harvested at the price they would have gotten at market even if they plow under instead.
To be sure, for every farmer thinking about cashing in on their insurance there are plenty who are still fighting the fight. Ben Hollis, who farms corn and soybeans in Petersburg, Illinois, raised his revenue protection level this year and held off on fungicide as a waste of money -- but he is adamant the two are not linked.
"If you continually try to raise (a) poor crop and cash in on your insurance, then you'll have a terrible average. I would resent the idea that I would ignore pesticide or fungicide because I have insurance," he said. "I want to produce something. When I do something I want to do it right."
CLAIMS, NO PLOWING YET
For the most part it is too early to see direct evidence of abandoned crops. Farmers generally must receive confirmation of their claim from the insurer before destroying their fields, and the speed of the drought is straining adjustors who would normally be busy only after the autumn harvest.
"Insurance claims are coming in like it's the fall," says Washington-based agricultural trade consultant John Baize, who has worked closely with farmers for over three decades.
Lanworth crop scouts toured more than 50 fields across northern Iowa, and dozens more in southern Illinois and northeastern Missouri, over the past two weeks without observing any plowed-under fields, they said.
However there was little doubt of widespread losses, potentially exceeding the drought of 1988 when more than five percent of planted acres in Iowa were not harvested in Iowa.
"We observed fields in northwestern Iowa with cracks in the soil nine inches long and one and a half inches deep -- what this crop needs is weeks of rain to abate the dry soil conditions," says Lanworth senior analyst Alexis Maxwell. Some fields had almost no pollinated ears of corn, she said.
"We saw a few crop dusters. It looks like some farmers just cannot give up hope on this crop and are trying to save it, but what we really need is not fertilizer but days of rain."
Still, the economics of calling in the insurance claims adjustor are growing more attractive daily.
If the fall harvest price is $8 a bushel, a farmer who has 80 percent insurance coverage and an actual production history of 180 bushels an acre would get $1,152 an acre if their field is a total loss and they did not sell any crops forward, according to Iowa State University economist Bruce Babcock.
Babcock noted that in the spring, when corn was planted, prices were around $5 a bushel. The farmer who thought he would get his 180 bushel/acre yield at that $5 price was expecting to make $900 an acre.
"So in fact this farmer with insurance may actually come out ahead if his field is a total loss and he did not forward contract the crop," Babcock said in an email interview.
HOT WORK
Policies require farmers to notify insurance companies of crop damage within 15 days, adjustors say. But it can be difficult to know when the damage begins in situations like a drought, where stalks wilt a little bit more with every day.
After being notified, insurance adjustors visit clients' farms to assess the extent of the damage. They can cover about 1,200 acres in a day, which includes driving from field to field and surveying conditions, said Mark Mossman, vice president of claims for NAU Country Insurance Company.
It can be physically and emotionally draining.
"It's hot work," he said in an interview earlier this month. "We have to walk the fields and assess the fields and take many different counts. Frankly I think the psychological part, dealing with the farmer who has suffered a significant loss, is just as hard. It's their livelihood."
He says that insurance policies require farmers to carry out "good farming practices," which would include treating crop diseases if possible. But he acknowledged that some may be tempted to quit.
"As a farmer with a devastated crop you're going to start thinking, 'when do I stop throwing good money after bad?'"
INSURERS LOSE OUT
Insurers say they can still make money in this environment, given government reinsurance and strong premiums for coverage, but the impacts of the drought are clear nonetheless.
"The two-year period we are in right now will probably be the worst in the past 30 years for crop insurance. Prior to 2011 there hadn't been a significant loss year since 1993. That's a 17 year run of profitability," said John Berger, chief executive of the reinsurance company Third Point Re.
Third Point is a newer player in the crop market, which is dominated by the likes of ACE Ltd's Rain and Hail, Everest Re's Heartland Crop Insurance and ADM's Crop Risk Services. Most insurers declined to comment on claims or estimated losses ahead of earnings.
Under a master agreement with the industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture pays an average 60 cents of each $1 of the premium. It subsidized up to $1.3 billion a year in overhead costs, and it shares the burden in case of catastrophe.
A spokeswoman for National Crop Insurance Services, a group that represents the nation's 15 or so private crop insurers, said it would probably be another month before members started to get a more complete picture of this year's losses.
"We're trying to be cautiously optimistic," she said. "Some areas will still produce a good crop while other areas won't."
(Reporting By Ben Berkowitz in Boston and Tom Polansek in Chicago; editing by Jim Marshall) ||||| The government has declared one-third of the nation’s counties — 1,297 of them across 29 states — federal disaster areas as a result of the drought, which will allow farmers to apply for low-interest loans to get them through the disappointing growing season.
Photo
“It’s got the potential to be the worst drought we’ve ever had in Arkansas,” said Butch Calhoun, the state’s secretary of agriculture. “It’s going to be very detrimental to our economy.”
What is particularly striking about this dry spell is its breadth. Fifty-five percent of the continental United States — from California to Arkansas, Texas to North Dakota — is under moderate to extreme drought, according to the government, the largest such area since December 1956. An analysis released on Thursday by the United States Drought Monitor showed that 88 percent of corn and 87 percent of soybean crops in the country were in drought-stricken regions, a 10 percent jump from a week before. Corn and soybean prices reached record highs on Thursday, with corn closing just over $8.07 a bushel and soybeans trading as high as $17.49.
As of Sunday, more than half of the corn in seven states was in poor or very poor condition, according to the Department of Agriculture. In Kentucky, Missouri and Indiana, that figure is above 70 percent. Over all, only 31 percent of the nation’s corn is in good to excellent condition, compared with 66 percent at the same time last year.
“We’re expecting significant reductions in production potential yield, potential for corn and soybeans in particular,” said Brad Rippey, a meteorologist with the Department of Agriculture.
The withering corn has increased feed prices and depleted available feeding land, putting stress on cattle farmers. A record 54 percent of pasture and rangeland — where cattle feed or where hay is harvested for feeding — was in poor or very poor condition, according to the Department of Agriculture. Many farmers have been forced to sell their animals.
Because feed can account for nearly half of a cattle farmer’s costs, consumers could see a rise in the price of meat and dairy products, experts said. The high sustained heat has led the key components in milk, like fat and protein, to plummet more than usual, said Chris Galen, a spokesman for National Milk Producers Federation.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“This is due to cows eating less dry matter, and drinking more water ... which tends to thin out the resulting milk output,” he said in an e-mail. “So, if you’re a cheese maker, you need to use a little more milk to get the same volume of cheese output.”
Photo
Still, this year’s drought is not expected to be as rough on Midwestern agriculture as the one in 1988. Corn yields were 22 percent under trend that year, and this year the Department of Agriculture is projecting yields 11 percent under trend — “though that could change in August,” said Joseph W. Glauber, the department’s chief economist.
Many also believe that farmers are better situated this year to handle the impact of a drought than they were two decades ago. More than 80 percent of corn and soybeans are estimated to be insured, Mr. Glauber said.
Last year, crop insurers paid a record $11 billion in indemnity payments, and that “should serve as a good model for what farmers can expect this year,” Tom Zacharias, the president of National Crop Insurance Services, said in a news release.
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.
But the impact of this drought has extended beyond farming. In Missouri, the torrid conditions have sparked forest fires that resemble the types of wildfires seen in the West. Already, 117 wildfires have burned in Missouri’s Mark Twain National Forest, a record-setting pace. Conditions have been so dry that there was a report of hay in a barn combusting on its own.
Meanwhile, water levels are falling in town reservoirs as well as major waterways like the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Barge and towboat operators have been reducing the size of their loads because of the low water, said Ann M. McCulloch, a spokeswoman for the American Waterways Operators. This means shipping operators, who transport a variety of goods from crops to gravel, have had to take more trips, increasing transportation costs that could be passed on to consumers.
Officials in Augusta, Kan., estimate that they have 110 days worth of water that they can draw from a nearby reservoir. The primary reservoir used for their municipal water supply dropped too low last year, the result of a drought in the area that started two years ago, said Josh Shaw, the assistant to the city manager. Indianapolis has put restrictions on water use; south of the city, Johnson County banned smoking at the county fair.
In Colorado, there is concern that the drought could damage forage that deer, elk and other game feed on in the fall. But the state also has seen advantages from the drought. Lower water levels have been helpful for fly fishing, and, with fewer places for animals to drink water, they will likely gather in concentrated areas, making conditions better for hunting.
And one Indianapolis painter is making the best of the situation, according to The Indianapolis Star, by starting a new arm of his business: painting brown lawns green. | The worst drought in decades shows few signs of letting up; in fact, it could stretch through October and get even worse, according to weather officials. Following the hottest half-year ever recorded, "we don't have a reason for saying it's going to improve," notes one. "Even if temperatures went down 5 degrees and rainfall increased 50% for the rest of this month ... it's not going to reverse the decline in crop conditions and the ultimate yield," adds an Iowa climatologist. The only glimmer of hope is tropical activity in the Gulf of Mexico that could offer rain in some southern areas, notes the New York Times. Some 70% of the Corn Belt was suffering from drought conditions as of the week ending Tuesday. Corn and soybean prices have already set records, while wheat prices are at a four-year high, Reuters notes. And federally backed farmers' insurance could end up salting the wound for consumers: It could be in farmers' best financial interest to report complete crop losses instead of trying to salvage what's left, further slicing supply. |
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), signed into law on December 10, 2015 ( P.L. 114-95 ), comprehensively reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Among other changes, the ESSA amended federal K-12 educational accountability requirements for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving ESEA funds, including those regarding the identification, support, and improvement of high schools with low graduation rates. Under the ESSA, states seeking Title I-A funds are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education (ED) that must address, among other things, their approaches toward dealing with low high school graduation rates. In implementing these plans, states must identify for support and improvement all public schools failing to graduate one-third or more of their students. LEAs that serve schools identified for support and improvement are required to develop a plan to improve graduation rates. If a school does not improve within a state-determined number of years, the school is subject to more rigorous state-determined actions. The national graduation rate for the Class of 2016 was 84.1%—the highest rate recorded since 2010-2011, when most states and LEAs began consistently reporting under 2008 federal guidelines. Improvement in the national rate has been accompanied by improvements in nearly every state and across all reported groups of students, including all racial and ethnic subgroups, low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities. However, graduation rate gaps persist among the several student subgroups. Moreover, the graduation rate varies enormously among individual high schools across the country, with a large number of schools doing poorly on this measure. Importantly for ESSA accountability implementation, CRS analysis of school-level data reveals that as many as 16% of high schools may fail to graduate at least one-third of their students. Thus, there are potentially thousands of high schools nationwide that may be identified for intervention in the coming years. Implementation of the accountability rule occurs in school year 2017-2018 and relies on additional criteria that would undoubtedly impact this estimate. In addition to new accountability rules, the ESSA provided the first definition of the high school graduation rate in federal education law. This was the culmination of years of effort at the national, state, and local levels to achieve national uniformity of measurement and establish statewide longitudinal data systems. Put simply, the ESSA defines the Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) as the number of students who graduate in four years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for the graduating class. From the beginning of 9 th grade, students entering that grade for the first time form a cohort that is adjusted by adding students who subsequently transfer into the cohort and subtracting students who subsequently transfer out, emigrate to another country, or die. The following formula provides an example of how the ACGR is calculated for the class of 2016: As Figure 1 shows, the rate of high school completion in the United States increased dramatically after World War II. The rate displayed in this figure is not the ACGR; rather, it represents the number of persons ages 25 to 29 whose highest level of educational attainment was at least a high school diploma (or its equivalent). It is based on responses to the Current Population Survey (CPS). After 10-15 percentage-point increases every decade, this measure plateaued at about 85% in 1980 and stood at 92.5% in 2017. Although the overall rate of high school completion has reached an historically high level, inequities persist among racial and ethnic groups. In general, these groups have made progress similar to the overall trend with one exception: Hispanics have seen a rapid increase in high school completion in recent years. Even with this increase, the attainment gap between white, non-Hispanics and Hispanics remains wide—13 percentage points in 2017. Black attainment also continues to lag behind that of Asians and non-Hispanic whites—maintaining a roughly five percentage point gap below the latter since the early 1990s. The CPS educational attainment rate is presented here (in Figure 1 ) because it is useful for tracking long-term trends. It is important to note the differences between the ACGR and the CPS educational attainment rate. The CPS is a cross-sectional measure (i.e., taken at a single point in time) of those included in the survey sample. The ACGR is a longitudinal measure that tracks an entire cohort of students from entry into high school to graduation. Another distinction between the two measures is that the CPS includes diploma equivalencies (such as the General Educational Development (GED) test) in its rate, while the ACGR only includes "regular" diplomas. The inclusion of equivalencies may partly explain why the CPS rate is higher than the ACGR. Additionally, the CPS rate shown in Figure 1 is for people ages 25 to 29—giving them more time to complete high school or receive a GED compared to the four years allotted to cohorts in the ACGR. More broadly, while the ACGR is confined to those engaged in the school system, the CPS captures a wider population of persons in society, generally. Even with these differences, the overall ACGR collected since 2010-2011 shows similar trends. As Table 1 shows, the overall graduation rate increased five percentage points between 2011 and 2016—a rate similar to the three percentage point increase in the overall CPS educational attainment rate estimate for the same time period. The two high school completion measures show somewhat different trends among racial/ethnic groups. In the CPS data, the white, non-Hispanic rate increased less than 1% between 2011 and 2016, while it increased over 4% in the ACGR data. During the same period, the CPS rate for blacks increased less than 3%, while the ACGR for blacks increased over 9%. The CPS rate grew just over 1% for Asians while the ACGR grew almost 4%. Both measures had similar changes for Hispanics. Because the ESSA accountability requirements apply to both the total student body within schools as well as specified subgroups, states must report the ACGR for several subgroups including low-income students, English language learners, students with disabilities, and various racial/ethnic categories. The data spanning 2011-2016 indicate progress among all three of these subgroups: graduation rates among low-income students increased more than seven percentage points, English language learners increased nearly ten percentage points, and students with disabilities increased six and a half percentage points. The rate of on-time high school completion varies widely across the country. For the Class of 2016, the ACGR in 27 states was above the national average (84.1%) and below the national average in 23 states. New Mexico had the lowest ACGR (71%) and Iowa had the highest (91.3%). Figure 2 displays the ACGR for the Class of 2016 by state. Four states graduated fewer than 76.1% of their students, nineteen states graduated 76.2%-84.1%, seventeen states graduated 84.1%-87.7%, and ten states graduated 87.8% or more. As shown in Table 2 , graduation rates have increased or remained the same in every state between the graduating classes of 2011 and 2016. The largest increase occurred in Alabama, which saw an increase from 72% (which was below the national average), to 87.1% (which was above the national average). Four states—Alaska, Georgia, Nevada, and West Virginia—had increases of more than ten percentage-points. Three states—Indiana, South Dakota, and Vermont—saw increases of less than one percentage point over this same period. ESSA provisions require that, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, each state must use the ACGR as an indicator in their accountability systems and in calculating long-term and interim goals. Analysis of school-level data for the Class of 2015 reveals 2,512 high schools—16% of schools nationwide—had an ACGR of less than 70% ( Table 3 ). [Note that, due to privacy protections imposed on publically available data, this analysis uses 70% (instead of 66.7%) as the cutoff for schools to be identified for intervention. These limitations only apply to published data; states would not face such constraints as they have access to the complete data of actual rates reported for every school.] Because this analysis uses 70% instead of 66.7%, it likely overestimates the number of schools that may be identified for intervention due to low graduation rates. This analysis may further overestimate the number of schools that may be identified for intervention because the accountability provisions do not take effect until the 2017-2018 school year and graduation rates have been improving. Even with these caveats, this analysis suggests that there are potentially thousands of high schools that may be identified for improvement due to failure to graduate more than one-third of their students. Whether or not these schools would be uniquely identified for intervention based upon graduation rates (or identified for other reasons as well) is unknown. That is, it is unclear how much overlap may exist among schools identified by graduation rate and those identified for other reasons (i.e., the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools and those with chronically underperforming subgroups). Nonetheless, the number of schools identified as being in need of comprehensive support for this reason may be large in some states. The Department of Education (ED) collects the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) from states through its EDFacts Initiative. These data are made public on ED's website. Disclosure avoidance techniques are applied to comply with privacy protections required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. These steps result in complete suppression of the ACGR for schools with cohorts of fewer than 6 students, reporting of ACGR ranges for cohorts between 6 and 200 students, and reporting of exact rates for cohorts over 200 students. The widths of the ACGR ranges are determined by cohort size and get progressively wider as a cohort size decreases. The actual ACGR reported by states lies somewhere within the published range. ACGR ranges reported by EDFacts are shown in Table A-1 . | The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) comprehensively reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Among other changes, the ESSA amended federal K-12 educational accountability requirements for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving ESEA funds, including those regarding the identification, support, and improvement of high schools with low graduation rates. In addition to new accountability rules, the ESSA provided the first definition of the high school graduation rate in federal education law. States and LEAs have been reporting their rates using the same definition, originally laid out in 2008 regulations, since the 2010-2011 school year. The national graduation rate for the Class of 2016 was 84.1%—the highest rate recorded using the new methodology. The graduation rate for the Class of 2011 was 79.0%. This national-level improvement has been accompanied by improvements in nearly every state and across all reported groups of students, including all racial and ethnic subgroups, low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities. Still, graduation rate gaps persist among several student subgroups. At the state level, 27 states were above the national average in 2016 and 23 were below. Three states graduated fewer than 75% of their students, nine states graduated 75%-79.9%, eleven states graduated 80%-84.9%, seventeen states graduated 85%-87.9%, and ten states graduated 88% or more. Importantly for ESSA accountability implementation, analysis of 2014-2015 school-level data reveals that as many as 16% of high schools may fail to graduate at least one-third of their students. Thus, there are potentially thousands of high schools nationwide that may be identified for intervention in the coming years. |
An unidentified man just rushed the table where James and Rupert Murdoch were seated answering questions before a Parliament committee. He appeared to fling a white plate full of some sort of foam or cream at Rupert's face before being apprehended by security. As they grabbed him, Wendi Murdoch managed to get in a firm swat at the man's head. (On Twitter, a comedian and "activist" named Johnnie Marbles has claimed responsibility.) ||||| 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 ||||| Select Committee hearings in the U.K.’s House of Commons rarely qualify as riveting television. But Tuesday’s affair, featuring News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch, had all the entertainment value of the media conglomerate’s best fare.
Besides Mr. Murdoch, the hearing featured his son James, who runs News Corp.’s international arm, as well as Rebekah Brooks, who until she stepped down Friday ran its U.K. newspaper division, including the recently closed tabloid at the heart of the scandal enveloping the company.
The hearing consisted of an informal succession of questions from members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is made up of 10 members of Parliament from all three major parties. ||||| Editor's Note: Watch live coverage of Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks answering questions before the British Parliament in the phone-hacking scandal on CNN.com/Live, the CNN apps for iPhone, iPad, Android and selected Nokia handsets internationally.
[Updated at 6:16 p.m. GMT, 2:16 p.m. ET] Bit of a twist at the end – and an intriguing cliffhanger request from Brooks.
At the end of her session, she asked that, when she is freed from legal constraints – remember, she has been arrested and bailed – she be invited back again to be questioned by the committee. Committee members said they were fine with that.
And with that, Brooks left the hearing.
[Updated at 6:16 p.m. GMT, 2:16 p.m. ET] "There’s a lot out there that is not true” Brooks says of claims in the UK media about her social relations with Prime Minister David Cameron and his family.
She also points out that she and her husband, Charlie, a famed race horse trainer and owner, do have a home close to Cameron in southern England. However, the former News International chief executive says she hasn’t been to Cameron’s official Downing Street residence, nor has she been horse riding with him.
[Updated at 6:14 p.m. GMT, 2:14 p.m. ET] Brooks, who appears well prepared for this inquisition, says she hopes that the truth about the whole phone-hacking scandal will be known as soon as possible and that those found culpable will be punished.
“A newsroom is based on trust,” she says. “You rely on the people that work for you to behave in a proper manner.”
[Updated at 6:12 p.m. GMT, 2:12 p.m. ET] To give Brooks her due, she is answering questions quite freely, despite the fact that she was arrested Sunday. She could easily claim more than she actually has that her answers might prejudice ongoing police investigations, for example.
She does have a lawyer by her side off camera, but he seems to be having a quiet time of it.
[Updated at 6:02 p.m. GMT, 2:02 p.m. ET] Brooks again says it’s "staggering to believe" staff at News of the World would have authorized the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone.
"My instant reaction, like everybody else, was one of shock and disgust that a family who had suffered so much already, that these allegations clearly added immeasurably to their suffering," she said.
Lawmaker Therese Coffey then asks whether Brooks asked her reporters how they got information relating to that story. She replied that the phone hacking was "unknown to me."
[Updated at 5:54 p.m. GMT, 1:54 p.m. ET] The foam attack on Rupert Murdoch continues to reverberate. Filmmaker Jeff Reed told the Press Association: "I feel really let down. The Murdochs came here with the reasonable expectation of being protected. This was quite a juvenile prank, hitting someone with a paper plate of shaving foam.
"It's very undignified and undermines the whole democratic process. I thought it was quite self-defeating. The MPs were all truly shocked. Even some of Mr. Murdoch's most vociferous critics like Tom Watson - you could see the sheer disappointment of all their hard work being undone."
[Updated at 5:46 p.m. GMT, 1:46 p.m. ET] Brooks is repeating her allegation that her own phone was hacked by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2007.
[Updated at 5:43 p.m. GMT, 1:43 p.m. ET] Turning to the issue of payments made to police officers, which has aroused almost as much outrage as phone hacking itself, Brooks attempts to clarify her comments in 2003 to a select committee in which she admitted paying officers in the past.
Brooks now says when she made her earlier comments she was referring to a "wide-held belief" that payments had been made in the past, and not to a "widespread practice."
"I can say that I have never paid a policeman myself. I have never sanctioned, knowingly sanctioned, a payment to a police officer," she said. "In my experience of dealing with the police, the information they give to newspapers comes free of charge."
[Updated at 5:41 p.m. GMT, 1:41p.m. ET] The committee is continuing to question Brooks about Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked. Brooks said that Dowler’s phone being hacked was the most shocking thing she had heard about journalists at News international.
To put this in context: The interest in the hacking of phones belonging to celebrities, politicians and other public figures had aroused interest – and denials – for several years. However, the anger aroused by the phone hacking of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler took revulsion to a new level – and is what has turned this issue into a crisis for the media, police and some politicians for the past few weeks.
Brooks has said she was on holiday during the Milly Dowler story but thinks Andy Coulson was editing while she was away. Coulson later became press chief for Prime Minister David Cameron but stood down this year as he said the interest in him over his role in alleged phone hacking had become too much of an issue.
[Updated at 5:35 p.m. GMT, 1:35 p.m. ET] Louise Mensch, a Conservative member of Parliament, has been grilling all three executives in addition to questioning comments made by Piers Morgan in his book about the tactic of phone hacking.
The New York Times has gone through the book and seems to be agreeing with Morgan's frustration about the allegations that he possibly knew or took part in phone hacking, based on what he wrote in the book.
"Mr. Morgan wrote that he suspected that he had been a victim of phone hacking, not that his newspaper had used the practice to get information," The New York Times notes in its live blog. "Mr. Morgan wrote that, at one stage, he was puzzled as to how other newspapers had obtained confidential information about him. In one entry in the diary, he wrote: 'I am mystified. But someone suggested today that people might be listening to my mobile messages. Apparently, if you don't change the standard security code that every phone comes with, then anyone can call your number and, if you don't answer, tap in the standard four digit code to hear your messages. I'll change mine just in case, but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of this little trick.' "
[Updated at 5:30 p.m. GMT, 1:30 p.m. ET] Brooks says the hacking of murder victim Milly Dowler's phone – which sparked the outrage of the last few weeks - by News of the World was “abhorrent,” adding that the speed at which we've found things out has been too slow.
However, she says the company acted "quickly and decisively" in investigating the scandal after News International saw evidence in December 2010 that actress Sienna Miller’s phone was hacked.
Brooks says she promised that as soon as the company discovered the allegations about Milly Dowler, she promised the family that News International would get to the bottom of it.
[Updated at 5:23 p.m. GMT, 1:23 p.m. ET] Piers Morgan's name has been coming up frequently over the past few hours of questioning regarding the practice of phone hacking.
In response, the CNN journalist tweeted: (@piersmorgan): "To all reporters now chasing this MP's claim – the book is called The Insider: Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade. Great read. #Murdoch."
He then responded to someone adding, along with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, that he will appear on the Situation Room on Tuesday night to discuss the issue.
[Updated at 5:19 p.m. GMT, 1:19 p.m. ET] A slight break from Brooks' questioning for some post-game on the Murdochs' job today from documentary maker Michael Cockerell on the way they ran their empire: "There has been an extraordinary disconnect going on for the past two and a half hours in terms of what we know of journalism, what we know of tabloid journalism, and this rather corporate-speak that's been going on."
"Rebekah Brooks knows more than anyone. She knows where the bodies are buried. She was editor of News of the World when Andy Coulson was her deputy. She then became editor of The Sun, she then became chief executive of News International. So she knows how journalism works," Cockerell told CNN. "And there was no sense in this meeting today of how journalism works on the front line and how it works as far as the editor is concerned - what the editor really knows of his or her staff is up to. Those kind of questions will need to be asked of Rebekah Brooks, but she may say that because she has been arrested, that because there is an ongoing police investigation, that she can't answer them as fully as she would like."
For those of you still debating whether it was thumbs-up or down for Rupert Murdoch, CNN's Jim Boulden has blogged about the session and says his perfromance showed him to be a "hands-off" CEO, but one who believes he was "the best person to clear this up."
[Updated at 5:17 p.m. GMT, 1:17 p.m. ET] Brooks is now discussing the close of the News of the World and why it shut.
“For the last few months, actually for the last few years, it had been leading the headlines for the wrong reasons," she said.
The decision to close the NOTW is moving into more sensitive territory for Brooks. Many journalists said it had been shut to defuse the crisis, and so Brooks did not have to resign – but she did, on Friday, less than a week later.
[Updated at 5:14 p.m. GMT, 1:14 p.m. ET] Committee member Lousie Mensch is switching to ask questions about the Daily Mail and the comment by its editor, Paul Dacre, that it had never published a story based on phone hacking.
For those of you outside the UK, the Daily Mail is a middle-market tabloid whose influence in many respects can be as strong as the Murdoch stable.
Brooks is saying she didn’t really see Dacre’s comments. But it's interesting that Mensch, who writes successful novesl as Louise Bagshawe, is broadening the questioning beyond News International.
[Updated at 5:12 p.m. GMT, 1:12 p.m. ET] Brooks admits it “seems extraordinary” that News International re-employed Jonathan Rees as a private investigator despite him being a convicted criminal. She admits that “it may be incredible” that as CEO, she didn’t know this, but “that’s the truth.”
[Updated at 5:10 p.m. GMT, 1:10 p.m. ET] Louise Mensch repeats her allegation that Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) admits in his book that he used phone-hacking while he was editor of News of the World.
The former editor, now a presenter on CNN, responds on Twitter that this is "complete nonsense. "I've never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone."
Morgan then tweeted: "Ms. Mensch is completely and utterly wrong. She clearly hasn't read my book. Can someone please give her a copy?"
[Updated at 5:04 p.m. GMT, 1:04 p.m. ET] Brooks said it was “abhorrent” that the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler was hacked by someone at the News of the World.
[Updated at 5:02 p.m. GMT, 1:02 p.m. ET] Lawmaker Tom Watson said he will be limited in his questioning because of police proceedings.
He asks Brooks whether she remembers authorizing payments to private detectives, such as Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2007 for hacking the phones of members of the royal family. She says the editor’s job was to manage the overall budget of the paper, while the managing editor authorized payments to individual departments. She says she cannot remember making individual payments to private detectives while she was editor of News of the World.
Watson, who did much forensic probing early in the Murdoch hearing, is looking at how much Brooks knew about the hiring of private investigator Jonathan Rees and repeatedly questioning how much she knew, saying that people might find it incredible that she did not know about their role.
“It may be incredible, but it is also the truth,” Brooks has replied.
[Updated at 4:55 p.m. GMT, 12:55 p.m. ET] Rebekah Brooks seems slightly more relaxed than the Murdochs, although it’s early into this hearing. She also seems less hesitant with her answers.
Possibly it’s because Brooks has been here before and appeared before this committee previously. Rupert Murdoch had not, although his son had.
Frankly, her hearing would be hard-pushed for an incident to surpass that which hit the Murdochs nearly an hour ago.
[Updated at 4:52 p.m. GMT, 12:52 p.m. ET] While Brooks continues to answer questions, we take a quick break for a post-game on the Murdochs' performance at the hearing.
Allyson L. Stewart-Allen, an international marketing and corporate diplomacy expert, told CNN: "If you look at all of the comments they made over the course of the past three hours, what comes out loud and clear to me are two executives who appear profoundly out of touch."
[Updated at 4:48 p.m. GMT, 12:48 p.m. ET] Brooks admits that what happened at News of the World was "pretty horrific."
Brooks, the former News International chief executive, says that "of course mistakes were made, but I think we acted quickly" after new information came to light, adding that she did not have the full picture of phone hacking from her staff.
[Updated at 4:44 p.m. GMT, 12:44 p.m. ET] Okay, Rebekah Brooks has started her testimony – 2 hours and 15 minutes after she was due to speak.
She is offering her own apologies at the start of her questioning. She states she was arrested and questioned several days ago and has legal representation so she does not impede those investigations but will try to answer questions as freely as she can.
Just a reminder that Brooks had emerged as one of the stars of UK tabloid journalism during the past 20 years and was the youngest ever editor of a national newspaper.
[Updated at 4:35 p.m. GMT, 12:35 p.m. ET] Testimony from Rupert Murdoch and his son James has concluded. Committee is in a short recess and will return to question former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks.
[Updated at 4:29 p.m. GMT, 12:29 p.m. ET] A popular retweet right now comes from New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller's wife.
Emma Gilbey Keller (@EMMAGKELLER) a contributor to Vanity Fair Daily tweeted to her husband: "@nytkeller If someone chucked a pie at you I would totally jump on top of them too."
[Updated at 4:29 p.m. GMT, 12:29 p.m. ET] Asked if Rupert Murdoch would still like to make a closing statement he begins to read the prepared remarks he had originally asked to open the hearing with. The committee had denied him that opportunity.
You can read the full statement here (PDF)
[Updated at 4:26 p.m. GMT, 12:26 p.m. ET] Asked by Louise Mensch if he has considered resigning as chief executive of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch says "No. People I trusted have let me down ... behaved disgracefully. I'm the best person to clear this up."
[Updated at 4:25 p.m. GMT, 12:25 p.m. ET] Committee member Tom Watson says to Rupert Murdoch: “Your wife has a very good left hook.”
That's in reference to one of the most bizarre incidents we can recall happening in the UK parliament.
[Updated at 4:20 p.m. GMT, 12:20 p.m. ET] Media law expert Geoffrey Robertson, a senior lawyer, tells CNN the strategy of the Murdochs "was clearly to let James do all the talking."
"The select committee did badly in cross-examination, they were feckless, they didn't get at much truth."
[Updated at 4:19 p.m. GMT, 12:19 p.m. ET] Murdoch issued a less categorical denial than that of his father Rupert that News Corp. reporters hacked into the phones of September 11, 2001 victims, saying he had no evidence of it and that it would have been totally unacceptable. Rupert Murdoch earlier told British lawmakers he did not believe it had happened.
[Updated at 4:16 p.m. GMT, 12:16 p.m. ET] In a committee room now cleared of members of the public and media, James Murdoch says he only became aware of the Milly Dowler allegations when they were reported in the press.
[Updated at 4:10 p.m. GMT, 12:10 p.m. ET] We're back up and running. Rupert Murdoch appearing in shirt sleeves, presumably because his jacket is covered in foam.
The hearing resumes, with lawmaker Louise Mensch saying her questioning will be just as robust as it would have been "before we were so rudely interrupted."
[Updated at 4:04 p.m. GMT, 12:04 p.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch was hit "squarely in the face" by the plate of shaving foam, reports CNN's Jonathan Wald, who was in the the hearing.
Wald added the man told Murdoch "you are a greedy billionaire." Police officers wiped foam off the man's face at Portcullis House, where the hearing is taking place.
[Updated at 4:02 p.m. GMT, 12:02 p.m. ET] CNN's Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) tweets: "Wendi just stole all the headlines. That idiot protester, allowed in by MPs, has single-handedly won the day's PR for the Murdochs."
[Updated at 4:01 p.m. GMT, 12:01 p.m. ET] Video footage shows Rupert Murdoch's wife, Wendi Deng, lunging towards attacker.
[Updated at 3:58 p.m. GMT, 11:58 a.m. ET] Press Association reports that Rupert Murdoch was pelted with a white substance in the attack. Reuters said it was a "white plate with foam."
TV pictures show police detaining a man wearing a checked shirt with what appears to be paint splashed across his face and clothes.
[Updated at 3:54 p.m. GMT, 11:54 a.m. ET] Hearing temporarily suspended as protester apparently lunges towards the Murdochs.
James Murdoch rises to his feet to move out of the way of the protester.
[Updated at 3:52 p.m. GMT, 11:52 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says people cannot expect total privacy in a transparent society. Referring to the recent scandal about lawmakers’ expenses, he says that one solution may be to pay them higher salaries like their counterparts in Singapore who he says are paid $1 million. One of the lawmakers suggests the proposal may not go down that well in Britain.
Rupert Murdoch said it was right for newspapers to campaign to change the law but never to break it. His voice breaking slightly, he cited the example of his father “who was not rich but was a great journalist.” He says his father Keith exposed the scandal of the World War I battle at Gallipoli “which I’m very very proud of. I would love to see my sons and daughters follow him.”
[Updated at 3:45 p.m. GMT, 11:45 a.m. ET] Lots of commentary coming on from Twitter on what's being dubbed "James-speak." A sampling of the chatter:
Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple (@ErikWemple) tweeted: James Murdoch–most classic use of passive voice ever in Parliament: "To my knoweldge, certain things were not known."
The Guardian's data journalist and a self-proclaimed "ex-Wikileaker" (@jamesrbuk) tweeted: "I'm glad you asked about that" – James Murdoch's catchphrase today."
And Richard Allen Greene (@RAGreeneCNN) of CNN Wires who is contributing to CNN.com’s main story on the phone-hacking hearings tweets: “James #Murdoch has a tendency to tell MPs if he thinks their questions are good or not. Can anyone see how MPs are reacting?”
[Updated at 3:42 p.m. GMT, 11:42 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch avoids commenting on whether editors knew about the illegal activities of some News of the World reporters, because he does not want to jeopardize various inquiries being conducted. However he says Les Hinton appointed Colin Myler as editor in 2007 to “find out what the hell is going on” at the paper.
Asked if the management of News International deliberately kept him in the dark over the hacking, the firm’s founder replies: “I may have been lax but it was such a small part of our business.”
[Updated at 3:35 p.m. GMT, 11:35 a.m. ET] The website of Murdoch’s tabloid Sun newspaper, which was attacked by hackers overnight (they posted a report claiming Murdoch had been found dead), is back online. It carries a very matter-of-fact four-paragraph report that the hearing is taking place.
There’s more coverage on the website of Murdoch’s broadsheet Times of London, but this is hidden behind a paywall.
[Updated at 3:31 p.m. GMT, 11:31 a.m. ET] James Murdoch says evidence that phone hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire only became apparent as result of later civil actions. Before then,News of the World editor Colin Myler and lawyer Tom Crone advised him, he says, to settle cases with out-of-court payments to victims, because there was no evidence of wider illegality.
"The police as well had closed their case and said there is no new evidence here," he said.
However in 2010 new evidence was presented from civil trials, James Murdoch says, which indicated “the circle was wider than the two individuals.”
However lawmaker Paul Farrelly strikes back, saying that evidence was sitting in their own files.
[Updated at 3:15 p.m. GMT, 11:15 a.m. ET] James Murdoch admits News International paid the legal fees of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2007 along with News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman, and says he was shocked to find this out.
When a lawmaker suggests the payment was designed to buy the silence of a phone hacker, James replies that he can understand why someone would infer this.
[Updated at 3:14 p.m. GMT, 11:14 a.m. ET] Not everyone is finding Murdoch & Murdoch’s testimony gripping. CNN’s Dan Rivers (@danieljerivers) says at least one member of the audience has dozed off.
“Can't believe 1 member of public fell asleep! This is riveting!”
There’ll be plenty of people upset about this, given the number of people turned away from the hearing after lining up for hours.
[Updated at 3:05 p.m. GMT, 11:05 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says both News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks and her predecessor Les Hinton – his right-hand man for 52 years - will have received "considerable" compensation following their resignation, but the details are confidential.
When asked why he did not accept Brooks' resignation earlier Rupert replies: "Because I trusted her." Eventually he did accept it "because she was in anguish."
[Updated at 3:01 p.m. GMT, 11:01 a.m. ET] Both Murdochs are being pressed on who paid disgraced former royal editor Clive Goodman's legal fees when he was on trial for hacking the phones of members of the royal family.
Murdoch Junior says he doesn't know the details; Murdoch Senior says it “could have been” former News International chief executive Les Hinton, a man Rupert says “he would trust with his life,” who authorized the payout.
[Updated at 2:59 p.m. GMT, 10:59 a.m. ET] Laura Rozen, a senior foreign policy reporter for Yahoo News, has a few thoughts on James Murdoch's style today. She tweets (@lrozen): Someone should advise James Murdoch to talk less. the more he talks with that agentless managementese, more annoying he seems"
[Updated at 2:56 p.m. GMT, 10:56 a.m. ET] Our correspondent Dan Rivers (@danieljerivers) who is watching proceedings, tweets: "James Murdoch seems badly prepared his father totally unaware of what's been going on. Awkward silences and repeated denials."
[Updated at 2:52 p.m. GMT, 10:52 a.m. ET] Looks like the questioning of Rupert and James Murdoch is going to run well over schedule. Former News International executive Rebekah Brooks was slated to appear at 2:30 p.m. GMT, 10:30 a.m. ET, but that has clearly been pushed back.
The interviewing panel are clearly relishing their chance to put the world’s most powerful media baron on the spot and aren’t wrapping it up in a hurry.
This is interesting given the reluctance to attend this hearing initially shown by both Murdochs. Both originally said they were too busy, relenting only after they were threatened with a parliamentary summons.
[Updated at 2:52 p.m. GMT, 10:52 a.m. ET] CNN’s Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) tweets that when he was editor of News of the World, “Rupert called me every week for 18ms on News of the World – rarely asked about anything but what stories we had that week.”
[Updated at 2:48 p.m. GMT, 10:48 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says he wouldn't expect to be told in conversations about payouts to victims of phone-hacking in amounts of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Murdoch Senior says conversations would often be just talking about the sports pages.
[Updated at 2:45 p.m. GMT, 10:45 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says he seldom rang the editor of News of the World, sometimes on a Saturday night to find out "what the news was." He says he rang the Sunday Times editor almost every Saturday.
He adds: "I'm not really in touch."
[Updated at 2:42 p.m. GMT, 10:42 a.m. ET] James Murdoch said he and his father were advised to "fundamentally tell the truth at the hearing and to be as open and transparent as possible."
[Updated at 2:40 p.m. GMT, 10:40 a.m. ET] Pressed to admit that a News Corp. out-of-court settlement with English soccer executive Gordon Taylor was for "illegal activity," James Murdoch conceded the point Tuesday to British lawmakers probing phone hacking by the disgraced Sunday tabloid News of the World.
[Updated at 2:37 p.m. GMT, 10:37 a.m. ET] CNN’s Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan), who once worked as a journalist for one of Murdoch’s papers, has this to say about the News Corp chief’s habit of pounding the table to make his point in answer to questions.
He tweets: "Nothing unusual in Rupert's desk-whacking, He did that in every meeting I ever had with him. To convey both pleasure & displeasure #Murdoch"
[Updated at 2:35 p.m. GMT, 10:35 a.m. ET] More on current Twitter trends: According to twitscoop.com: Murdoch-related terms seem to be dominating the social networking tool at the moment. At 14:20 GMT it’s list includes: Murdoch, Rupert, and James. “Humble,” also features, a reference to Rupert Murdoch’s earlier statement (1:38 p.m. GMT, 9:38 a.m. ET), as does “Burns” for reasons stated in an earlier post about the Simpsons.
[Updated at 2:33 p.m. GMT, 10:33 a.m. ET] Remember that statement the Murdoch father and son wanted to read before they began answering questions? That request was denied by lawmakers but the statement has been released to the media. They had planned, in part, to begin this way:
"My son and I have come here with great respect for all of you, for Parliament and for the people of Britain whom you represent."
"This is the most humble day of my career. After all that has happened, I know we need to be here today. Before going further, James and I would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened - especially with regard to listening to the voicemail of victims of crime."
Read the full statement here (PDF)
[Updated at 2:30 p.m. GMT, 10:30 a.m. ET] Asked whether the scandal will make you think about how you approach your headlines in the future, Rupert Murdoch replies: "I'm not aware of any transgressions. We have a wonderful variety of voices. I'm sure there are some headlines that give offense but it's not intentional."
[Updated at 2:23 p.m. GMT, 10:23 a.m. ET] It would be remiss of us not to mention the numerous Twitter comments comparing Rupert and James Murdoch and two characters from the Simpsons cartoon: scheming nuclear power station boss Montgomery Burns and his craven assistant Smithers.
Mark Borkowski (@MarkBorkowski), a UK-based public relations expert, remarks: “Murdoch is playing the beffudled Mr Burns figure #PR #Genius”
A colleague also points out that #Smithers is among items trending on Twitter.
[Updated at 2:19 p.m. GMT, 10:19 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch denied feeling responsible for illegal phone hacking carried out by his employees, answering a British lawmaker's question simply: "No."
James Murdoch has "no knowledge" that any News Corp. companies are the subject of investigations by the UK's Serious Fraud Office or other regulators, he told British lawmakers investigating phone hacking on Tuesday.
[Updated at 2:16 p.m. GMT, 10:16 a.m. ET] Media critic, new-media columnist for The Guardian in London and professor Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) tweets: "Murdoch calls this a "hysteria" and competitive conspiracy to stop him from getting BSkyB. Wow! Dementia."
[Updated at 2:15 p.m. GMT, 10:15 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says he is not ultimately responsible for "this fiasco" despite being responsible - the lawmakers remind him - for corporate governance. He blames "the people I trusted and the people they trusted."
[Updated at 2:14 p.m. GMT, 10:14 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says he has seen "no evidence" that victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States were victims of phone hacking by his employees and does not believe it happened.
[Updated at 2:13 p.m. GMT, 10:13 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch says David Cameron asked him to visit the prime minister’s official residence 10 Downing Street after the last general election to thank him for his support. He went in the back door, saying “I did what I was told.”
[Updated at 2:12 p.m. GMT, 10:12 a.m. ET] Ian Katz, deputy editor of The Guardian, (@iankatz1000) tweeted: "The greatest puzzle watching this is how Rupert Murdoch has run a $40bn so successfully for so long."
[Updated at 2:04 p.m. GMT, 10:04 a.m. ET] Lawmaker Tom Watson asks when Rupert Murdoch discovered that criminality was endemic at News of the World. Rupert replies: “Endemic” is a very wide ranging word he says, but “he became aware as it became apparent.”
He says he was "absolutely shocked, appalled and ashamed when I heard about the Milly Dowler case only two weeks ago." He added that “I was graciously received” by the Dowler family last week.
Watson asks whether anyone at News International passed on to him that parliamentarians had accused individuals at the company of being guilty of “collective amnesia.” Rupert admits no one brought it to his attention, adding, “What you're really saying is that they lied."
Watson also asks when Murdoch learned that the company’s claim that there was only “one rogue reporter” was not true. Rupert says after a long pause: “I forget. Mr Watson, we have given all our files to the police.”
Asked why the company closed News of the World, Rupert says forcefully: “We are ashamed of what had happened and felt we should bring it to a close. We had broken our trust with our readers.”
[Updated at 2:00 p.m. GMT, 10:00 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch's performance under questioning is drawing comments on twitter (and, unless we’re mistaken, eye-rolling from James Murdoch).
Armando Ianucci (@aianucci) an Oscar-winning satirist, compares his delivery to that of befuddled contestants on a popular British TV quiz show. “You know that bit in Celebrity Mastermind when the celeb goes completely blank on their specialist subject? Like that, but not for charity.”
[Updated at 1:59 p.m. GMT, 9:59 a.m. ET]A Freelance reporter for the Independent, @RichardHall, tweets: "Can't imagine Rupert Murdoch has ever been spoken to like this before. Fascinating stuff. #hackgate"
[Updated at 1:57 p.m. GMT, 9:57 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch, taking long pauses, says no one has brought to his attention the fact that Neville Thurlbeck, a senior News of the World reporter, had been found guilty of trying to blackmail women.
He also says he did not investigate after former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks said the newspaper paid police, says he was "misled."
Murdoch added he has "no knowledge" that former News Corp. senior officials Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton knew of the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World tabloid and he has "no evidence" they did anything wrong.
[Updated at 1:56 p.m. GMT, 9:56 a.m. ET] It’s early in the trading day, but worth noting that News Corp, which has seen its share value slide in recent weeks, has opened up compared to the previous day. The opening price is $15.40, compared to the previous day’s close of $14.97. The price is still well down on the $18 highs seen at the beginning of July when the phone hacking scandal began gathering steam.
[Updated at 1:52 p.m. GMT, 9:52 a.m. ET] New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter tweets a comment about Rupert Murdoch's answer about his company - one many expected Murdoch would say during this hearing.
@brianstelter: "Is Rupert Murdoch using the we're-a-really-big-company defense?"
[Updated at 1:52 p.m. GMT, 9:52 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch asks to say something. Thumping the table repeatedly, he says News of the World is only 1% of his company; he employs 53,000 people around the world and he has to rely on their integrity.
[Updated at 1:50 p.m. GMT, 9:50 a.m. ET] The direct hearing on the phone hacking, which saw senior police figures testifying, has ended.
[Updated at 1:49 p.m. GMT, 9:49 a.m. ET] Aside from Rupert Murdoch’s remarkable interruption, James seems to be doing most of the talking so far. It’s also worth mentioning that Rupert’s wife Wendi Deng is sitting visibly front-and-center on the benches behind James and his father.
[Updated at 1:48 p.m. GMT, 9:48 a.m. ET] Asked why News International executives said at previous appearances before select committees that there was no evidence of illegality, James Murdoch says the company relied on a police investigation in 2007 and subsequent inquiries. He says he can’t say exactly what they knew, but key facts only emerged from civil trials at end of 2010.
Asked who else was involved with phone hacking at News of the World, James says a number of investigations are going on, and he can’t comment further. He says News International has established a group within company that is cooperating with the police.
[Updated at 1:38 p.m. GMT, 9:38 a.m. ET] Rupert Murdoch interrupts his son who is apologizing for the illegal phone-hacking, to say: "This is the most humble day of my life."
[Updated at 1:36 p.m. GMT, 9:36 a.m. ET] Now to the main event. James Murdoch sitting alongside his father Rupert asks to read out a statement, but chairman John Whittingdale refuses.
[Updated at 1:28 p.m. GMT, 9:28 a.m. ET] Dan Rivers has managed to get into the committee room where the Murdochs will be grilled. No more tweets allowed," he writes.
[Updated at 1:27 p.m. GMT, 9:27 a.m. ET] It appears we may have a bit of overlapping between the two hearings, but we'll be watching both. We'll bring you continued coverage of comments from outgoing Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates as well as the beginning of coverage of testimony in the second hearing. That hearing, before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee, will focus on testimony from Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks.
[Updated at 1:26 p.m. GMT, 9:26 a.m. ET] Yates has been defending his 2009 review of the phone hacking investigation which recommended that no further action was needed. Asked whether his eight-hour perusal of 11,000 documents was sufficient, he said it was.
“You can criticize me with hindsight," he said. "It was a reasonably sophisticated process."
[Updated at 1:21 p.m. GMT, 9:21 a.m. ET] As anticipation builds for the day’s main attraction – the questioning of Rupert Murdoch - Dan Rivers (@danieljerivers) tweets that some members of the public have been lining up since 5:30 a.m. this morning to get a seat at in the gallery.
[Updated at 1:19 p.m. GMT, 9:19 a.m. ET] As with Stephenson before him, Yates’ answers have brought up the police force’s relationship with Downing Street – which is a key element when considering the scandal’s potential to taint the current government.
Yates said he had offered to brief the prime minister’s chief of staff over the “nuances” of the phone-hacking affair in September 2010. He said the offer was rejected.
Earlier Stephenson spoke about being warned by a Downing Street official that directly briefing Prime Minister David Cameron about Neil Wallis could compromise the Conservative leader’s integrity. He was later unable to put a name to this official.
[Updated at 1:10 p.m. GMT, 9:10 a.m. ET] The questioning has turned once again to the subject of former News of the World executive Neil Wallis. Yates said he asked Neil Wallis if there was anything that could embarrass the Met before he was hired.
Asked about what role he played in the Met’s hiring of Wallis’s daughter, he said: “The met employs people all the time. I had absolutely nothing to do with her employment…” He added that he was merely “a postbox” for her resume.
Yates says he met Wallis two or three times a year since they first met in 2000 - mostly they had "sport-related" meetings.
"Don't get the impression we're bosom buddies, forever round each other's houses," he said.
[Updated at 1:02 p.m. GMT, 9:02 a.m. ET] Outgoing Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates is facing the panel now. Explaining why he resigned yesterday over the scandal he said he wanted to “stand up and be counted.”
He added: “I’ve done nothing wrong, my integrity is intact and my conscience is clear.”
[Updated at 1:01 p.m. GMT, 9:01 a.m. ET] Keith Vaz thanks Fedorcio for coming in, but adds “I’m not sure we’re any clearer now than we were at the beginning.”
[Updated at 12:56 p.m. GMT, 8:56 a.m. ET] Fedorcio faces detailed questioning on why he asked Yates to perform a “due diligence” check on former News of the World executive Wallis.
He says he asked him to carry out the checks because he knew he had investigating phone hacking; asked by the panel if he knew Wallis and Yates had been close friends since 1998, he says did not.
Repeatedly Fedorcio says: “I had no reason to doubt Mr. Yates’s integrity.”
[Updated at 12:53 p.m. GMT, 8:53 a.m. ET] More from CNN’s Dan Rivers (@danieljerivers) outside the inquiry. He writes: “Just seen Rebekah Brooks in Portcullis House smiling and looking confident.”
[Updated at 12:43 p.m. GMT, 8:43 a.m. ET] A bit of post-match analysis on Stephenson from former Metropolitan Police Commander John O’Connor. He says Stephenson “held his end very well.” The MPs were looking for a smoking gun, or evidence of doing favors for News International, but they found no such evidence, O’Connor told CNN's Richard Quest.
Stephenson accepted his position as top cop was untenable after it was revealed he accepted $19,000 worth of hospitality from Champneys as it would have implied there was one rule for him and another for ordinary police officers. O’Connor said Stephenson emerged as a “man of great integrity.”
O’Connor said he believed some people will ultimately find themselves in the dock over the scandal and some of them will go to jail.
[Updated at 12:39 p.m. GMT, 8:39 a.m. ET] Dick Fedorcio, the Metropolitan police’s director of public affairs, has wasted no time in pointing an accusing finger at John Yates.
Fedorcio says he was told by Yates that employing former News of the World executive Neil Wallis would not embarrass the police force.
[Updated at 12:31 p.m. GMT, 8:31 a.m. ET] Stephenson has wrapped things up after an hour and a half with a closing statement in which he praised his police colleagues as “decent hard-working professionals” and sought to clarify the circumstances of his departure.
“I’m not leaving because I was pushed” he said.
He sounded slightly morbid speaking his colleague John Yates. “We’re the poorer for his passing,” he said.
FYI: Yates, a former assistant police commissioner who blocked an investigation into phone hacking, is very much alive since resigning over the scandal yesterday. He’s up for a grilling later.
[Updated at 12:27 p.m. GMT, 8:27 a.m. ET] CNN’s Jonathan Wald (@jonathanwaldcnn) is tweeting that the arrival of Associate editor of the Independent Jemima Khan, one of the more glamorous figures in the phone hacking scandal, is causing excitement outside the hearing.
“Flurry amongst the paparazzi around the queue for the #Murdochs & #Brooks hearing as #Jemima #Khan enters the building.”
[Updated at 12:23 p.m. GMT, 8:23 a.m. ET] Press Association reports that a small but noisy group of protesters wearing Rupert Murdoch and David Cameron masks are making their presence felt outside the hearing. One held a placard with "smash Murdoch's evil empire" written on it.
[Updated at 12:22 p.m. GMT, 8:22 a.m. ET] Looks like we’re already running over schedule, which means that the earlier listing timings for the first hearing have been thrown to the wind. We could end up with the day’s two inquiries running simultaneously, but attention will certainly be focused on the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks.
[Updated at 12:17 p.m. GMT, 8:17 a.m. ET] Pop star George Michael (@georgemichael) has been tweeting about the scandal. He's had his private life delved into many times by the Murdoch press, and has had frequent run-ins with the law.
He just tweeted: "A lot of really decent policemen and women must be watching this scandal in utter horror. They have more right to their anger than you and I."
[Updated at 12:11 p.m. GMT, 8:11 a.m. ET] A bit of apparent buck-passing from Stephenson over the original phone-hacking investigation. He said he asked John Yates, another senior police figure who will be questioned later today, to look into the matter and accepted Yates’ finding that the original investigation was successful, despite the fact he reviewed evidence for just eight hours.
[Updated at 12:04 p.m. GMT, 8:04 a.m. ET] The panel is now asking questions about why an initial investigation in 2009 concluded that the phone hacking issue was not pursued further by the Metropolitan police.
Stephenson said there was "no reason whatsoever to think that there was anything wrong with the initial investigation."
[Updated at 12:00 p.m. GMT, 8:00 a.m. ET] The questions are now focusing on Stephenson’s 2009 meetings with the editor of the Guardian newspaper – which has broken many of the stories about the phone-hacking scandal. Stephenson has been accused of trying to persuade editor Alan Rusbridger to back off.
Stephenson said he was acting on information available to him at the time. He said he told the paper that the claims about phone hacking they were making were “nothing new.”
“I didn’t put pressure to lay off,” he said, adding that the meetings were not made at the advice of News of the World executive Neil Wallis.
[Updated at 11:51 a.m. GMT, 7:51 a.m. ET] We’re back to discussing News of the World executive Neil Wallis. Stephenson is being grilled on why Wallis was given a contract as a police media adviser when the Metropolitan police had dozens of press officers.
Stephenson said: “With the benefit of what we know now I’m happy to go on the record that I regret that contract, it’s embarrassing.”
[Updated at 11:47 a.m. GMT, 7:47 a.m. ET] Explaining his frequent dinner dates, Stephenson said this was proportionate to News International’s dominance of the British media.
[Updated at 11:41 a.m. GMT, 7:41 a.m. ET] Stephenson’s dietary habits are now under scrutiny. He’s being asked to explain why he had 18 lunches or dinners with News of the World executives and “seven or eight dinners” with executive Neil Wallis over a five year period.
He said it was important to improve relations between the Metropolitan police and the media.
[Updated at 11:38 a.m. GMT, 7:38 a.m. ET] The questioning has moved on to Stephenson’s acceptance of a free stay (worth $19,000) at a health spa named Champneys, which has links to News of the World executive Neil Wallis – this is the key reason for his resignation.
Stephenson is insisting he had no knowledge that Wallis was connected to Champneys. He says his stay was a legitimate part of rehabilitation from injury.
“I was recovering from a serious illness… wheelchair-bound… concentrating on getting back to work,” he said.
He adds: “The owner of Champneys is a family friend… I paid for many treatments. It was damnably unlucky Wallis was connected to this.”
[Updated at 11:34 a.m. GMT, 7:34 a.m. ET] A moment of levity caused by what was perhaps a Freudian slip of the tongue from former police commissioner Stephenson: “When I took over as prime minister….,” he said before correcting himself.
[Updated at 11:30 a.m. GMT, 7:30 a.m. ET] Stephenson is trying hard to explain his links to Neil Wallis, the News of the World executive. Earlier he said he had no reason to suspect Wallis was linked to phone hacking. He said he first became aware of a connection in January 2011.
“Prior to that I had no reason for concern," he said.
He said he was advised by a Downing Street official not to tell David Cameron about his links to Wallis so as not to compromise the prime minister.
[Updated at 11:25 a.m. GMT, 7:25 a.m. ET] Talking about the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, the former News of the World editor, Stephenson said he was aware the arrest was going to take place up to two days prior to the event. Brooks’ spokesman on Sunday told CNN she herself was unaware she was going to be arrested.
[Updated at 11:17 a.m. GMT, 7:17 a.m. ET] Stephenson is answering questions about whether he intended to launch a personal attack on Prime Minister David Cameron when he made his resignation statement on July 17.
In that statement Stephenson made reference to Cameron’s links to Andy Coulson, a former News of the World editor hired by the prime minister as a media adviser.
Stephenson insists no personal attack was intended. He rejected accusations that he implied Cameron’s integrity had been compromised.
[Updated at 11:15 a.m. GMT, 7:15 a.m. ET] Stephenson says he is not apologetic about claims he accepted hospitality from Neil Wallis, the former News of the World executive. He also said the mayor of London and Britain’s home secretary, Theresa May, accepted his resignation with regret.
"The decision was mine and mine alone" he said.
[Updated at 11:09 a.m. GMT, 7:09 a.m. ET] Former commissioner of the Metropolitan police Paul Stephenson is explaining why he resigned.
He says he was trying to remove himself from the story. He said he wanted to stand down well ahead of the 2012 London Olympics to avoid becoming a distraction. “We are in extraordinary times,” he says.
[Updated at 11:07 a.m. GMT, 7:07 a.m. ET] And we’re off. Paul Stephenson is first up before the hearing of the U.K. parliament’s home affairs select committee. Stephenson resigned on Sunday over his links to a former executive editor of the News of the World.
Keith Vaz, who will be leading the questioning the chairman of the hearing, has started by declaring an interest. He said that he was invited to a News International summer party, but did not attend.
[Updated at 11:00 a.m. GMT, 7:00 a.m. ET] CNN’s Dan Rivers has Tweeted a photograph @danrivers of the line to get into the hearings, which are open to the public. Demand for seats for the appearances of the Murdochs and Brooks is expected to be heavy.
[Updated at 10:48 GMT, 6:48 a.m. ET] Before we delve into the main event, here’s a few useful links to get you all caught up:
CNN.com’s main story on today’s phone hacking-related developments can be found here. And here’s some useful background material to help you wrap your head around the key players at the center of the scandal: Press baron Rupert Murdoch, his son, CEO of News International and an executive at News Corp. James Murdoch and former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks.
For a look back at how all this started, check out our timeline of the key events in the phone-hacking scandal.
[Updated at 10:32 GMT, 6:32 a.m. ET] We'll get started with a rundown of who will be at the hearings today. There are two sessions. The first is a direct hearing on the phone hacking, which will see senior police figures give evidence. The second is a standing government committee, to which senior News Corp. figures have been called to face questions.
First up at 11:00 a.m GMT, 7:00 a.m. ET is Paul Stephenson, who resigned as commissioner of London’s Metropolitan police force at the weekend because of the phone hacking scandal. At 11:45 a.m., GMT, 7:45 a.m. ET we have Dick Fedorcio, the director of public affairs at the Met. At 12.15 p.m. GMT, 8:15 a.m. ET we have John Yates, who resigned on Monday as assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, again as a result of the phone hacking scandal.
The second session, a hearing of the U.K. parliament’s culture committee, is the main attraction of the day. At 1:30 p.m. GMT, 9:30 a.m. ET Rupert Murdoch and his son James Murdoch are due to face questions. At 2:30 p.m. GMT, 10:30 a.m. ET we have Rebekah Brooks, the former editor of the News of the World newspaper that was at the epicenter of the scandal.
They are expected followed by, Lord MacDonald, a former director of public prosecutions at 4:30 p.m. GMT, 12:30 p.m. ET; Keir Starmer, current director of public prosecutions at 5:00 p.m. GMT, 1:00 p.m. ET and then at 5:20 p.m. GMT, 1:20 p.m. ET we have Mark Lewis, the legal representative of the Dowler family, whose murdered daughter’s phone was targeted by hackers.
[Posted at 10:17 GMT, 6:10 a.m. ET] News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch, his son James and former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks are due to testify Tuesday before British lawmakers investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Lawmakers on the before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee will want to know what the Murdoch family knew - and when - about the alleged illegal interception of telephone messages of individuals ranging from celebrities and politicians to murder victims and the families of those killed in terror attacks and wars.
Murdoch is engaged in a frantic damage limitation exercise after it was alleged that News of the World had hacked into the phone of Milly Dowler, a teenager who was murdered. The allegation sparked fury in Britain; News International bosses, politicians and police have been trying to defuse the anger ever since.
We'll be live-blogging the hearings from start to finish here. | A little drama toward the end of the Rupert Murdoch hearing today: A protester lunged forward with something like a plate of shaving cream and tried to smear the News Corp chief. Murdoch's wife, Wendi Deng, jumped up to defend her 80-year-old husband from the attack, notes the Wall Street Journal live blog. Looks like she even clocked the assailant on the head, adds the Daily Dish coverage. The hearing was suspended for about 10 minutes, and the protester taken into custody. CNN says Murdoch got hit in the face by the foam, and he finished the hearing sans jacket. A comedian and self-described "activist" named Jonnie Marbles claimed responsibility for the foamy assault on Twitter with a pre-attack tweet, notes the Daily Intel blog. He apparently shouted something along the lines of Murdoch being a greedy billionaire when he came forward during the hearing. |
|| News ||
Official White House Photos by Pete Souza
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is taking the implementation manual for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” with him on vacation, President Obama told The Advocate during a wide-ranging interview late Tuesday afternoon — the first one-on-one interview of his presidency with an LGBT news outlet.
“My strong sense is [implementation] is a matter of months,” Obama said from the Oval Office. “Absolutely not years.”
The president added that he has also broached the topic with Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, and that “he’s going to make it work.” Amos has been the most outspoken critic of repeal among the military’s service chiefs.
Obama also said that he is “incredibly proud” of following through on repealing the 1993 law and recalled a pledge he made to a service member while working a rope line in Afghanistan just a few weeks ago.
“A young woman in uniform was shaking my hand — it was a big crowd — she hugged me and she whispered in my ear, ‘Get ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ done.’ And I said to her, ‘I promise you I will.’”
On the question of marriage equality, the president said his “attitudes are evolving.”
“Like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this,” he said. "I've wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.”
The president also signaled that he and his lawyers are reviewing “a range of options” when it comes to the administration’s responsibility to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, especially since repealing it over the next two years will be a nonstarter with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
“I have a whole bunch of really smart lawyers who are looking at a whole range of options. My preference wherever possible is to get things done legislatively,” Obama said, drawing a comparison with repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
“That may not be possible in DOMA’s case,” he added. “That’s something that I think we have to strategize on over the next several months.”
Read the full interview here:
The Advocate: Mr. President, you’re on the verge of signing legislation that is arguably one of the greatest advances for LGBT civil rights. What does it mean to you personally? And if you were to put it on a continuum of your accomplishments as president, where do you think it will rank in the history books?
President Barack Obama:I am incredibly proud. And part of the reason I’m proud is because this is the culmination of a strategy that began the first week I was in office. When I met with [Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates and I met with Admiral Mullen, I said to them, “I have a job as commander in chief in making sure that we have the best military in the world and that we’re taking care of our folks who make such enormous sacrifices for our safety. I also have an obligation as president to make sure that all Americans have the capacity to serve, and I think ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is wrong. So I want you guys to understand that I want to work with the Pentagon, I want to figure out how to do this right, but I intend to have this policy.”
And to have been able to work through all the complications of that, arrive at a point where the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both of whom were appointed under Republican presidents, were willing to publicly testify and advocate for this repeal; to have engineered an attitudinal study that vindicated my strong belief that people in the military care about how somebody does their job, not their sexual orientation ...
Did you anticipate that that survey would turn out like that?
I was confident about it because I talked to enough troops and I had a sense of the innate fairness of the American people when it comes to an issue like should people be able to serve their military and potentially die for their country, that military attitudes were not going to be wildly divergent from public attitudes. And then to see how that combination of Gates, Mullen, [and] the study [could] break the logjam and essentially provide the space for people of goodwill of both parties to do the right thing was just really gratifying.
And things don't always go according to your plans, and so when they do—especially in this town — it’s pleasantly surprising. And when I think about the troops who I know are impacted by this — I visited Afghanistan just a few weeks ago. And while I was doing the rope line, a young woman in uniform was shaking my hand — it was a big crowd — she hugged me and she whispered in my ear, “Get ‘don't ask, don't tell’ done.” And I said to her, “I promise you I will.” And for me to be able to deliver that Christmas present to her and so many others is incredibly gratifying.
So I would say, look ... we’ve done a lot this year and we did a lot the previous year, and so obviously saving the economy from depression, getting health care passed, and getting financial regulatory reform are all things that I’m very proud of. But this is one of those issues where you know individual people directly that are going to be impacted and you know it helps shift attitudes in a direction of greater fairness over the long term. I think when people look back 20 years from now they’ll say this was one of the more important things that I’ve gotten done since I’ve been president.
Well, no doubt I think a pivotal moment. And I know that so many people who voted for you, LGBT folks who voted for you, did so because they believe that you were a fierce supporter of equality. Given what you’ve just said, Mr. President, do you think it’s time that gays and lesbians should be entitled to full marriage rights?
Well, I spoke about this recently with some bloggers who were here ...
Mr. Joe Sudbay.
Yes, and Joe asked me the same question. And since I've been making a lot of news over the last several weeks, I’m not going to make more news today. The sentiment I expressed then is still where I am — which is, like a lot of people, I’m wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I’ve wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.
And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I’m continually asking myself this question, and I do think that — I will make this observation, that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don’t understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there’s greater resistance.
And so this is an issue that I’m still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.
Can you imagine a time when you would get there? I mean, you say “evolving,” and that sort of assumes that you get somewhere. Can you imagine a time of getting there?
I'm going to stick with my answer.
OK. So, looking forward, I know that there are — many of your LGBT supporters would have wished for more in the first two years. And it’s never enough, of course ...
I’ve found that.
And especially like passing employment nondiscrimination ...
And, in fairness, by the way, that is true of every single group of supporters that I have. I mean, there’s not a single constituency that doesn’t think we could be doing more.
And true of every civil rights movement.
Yes.
I know one of the things that people were interested [in] — especially gay and transgender Americans — was passing employment nondiscrimination protections. But looking forward, it looks like most legislation, pro-LGBT, will be stalled in Congress. So as you look to much of the action that’s going to be happening in the courts — do you think that gays and lesbians and transgender people should have a heightened scrutiny status?
Before I answer that question, let me just say there are still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don’t pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that’s something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board. Our implementation ...
But DOMA, of course, is one of the ...
I understand. Our changes on hospital visitation is something that didn’t require legislation but has concrete impacts, making a difference in people’s lives as we speak.
So I want to continue to look for ways administratively, even if we’re not able to get something through the House of Representatives or the Senate, that advances the causes of equality. With respect to the courts and heightened scrutiny, I think that if you look at where Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is moving, the kind of rational review that he applied in the Texas case was one that feels right to me and says that, even if he was calling it “rational review,” is one that recognizes that certain groups may be vulnerable to stereotypes, certain groups may be subject to discrimination, and that the court’s job historically is to pay attention to that.
And so I’m not going to engage in — I’m not going to put my constitutional lawyer hat on now, partly because I’m president and I’ve got to be careful about my role in the three branches of government here. But what I will say is that I think that the courts historically have played a critical role in making sure that all Americans are protected under the law. And there are certain groups that are in need of that protection; the court needs to make sure it’s there for them.
One quick follow-up. You’ve taken the oath of office, of course, to protect the Constitution.
This is true.
And so ...
But that does not mean that in every interview I opine on constitutional law.
No, but in fact you’ve opined on very few constitutional [questions] — I think, in this particular case, I think this is something that LGBT people would be hungry to hear you weigh in on.
I’m sure they would be.
Yes, OK. Back to “don’t ask, don’t tell” real quick. How long do you anticipate the certification process [will be]?
I spoke to Admiral Mullen today. He said he’s taking the implementation manual that was a companion to the attitudinal survey off to vacation with him. He is prepared to implement. I spoke to other of the service chiefs, including, for example, General Amos. We saw that in the attitudinal surveys there was the most resistance in the Marine Corps. But Jim Amos said to me that he’s ready to implement and he’s going to make it work. So my strong sense is this is a matter of months…
Not years?
Absolutely not years — and that we will get this done in a timely fashion, and the chiefs are confident that it will get done in a timely fashion. They understand this is not something that they’re going to be slow-walking.
Once it’s lifted, of course, there’s no nondiscrimination mandate as it stands. Is that something that you plan to work with the Department of Defense on, setting some internal regulations so that there is a nondiscrimination protection for gays and lesbians, or even issue an executive order?
I think there are a whole range of implementation issues that are going to be worked through in the coming weeks, and so I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process. I want to make sure it’s very deliberate. I want to make sure that these guys have time to answer these questions. But one of the things I’m confident about in the military is, once a decision is made by the commander in chief, it gets carried out and it gets carried out well.
And when you think about what happened in terms of racial integration in the Army or in our military, when you look at women’s inclusion in our military, I think the history has been that there are bumps along the road; new issues arise that weren’t always anticipated — partly, by the way, because it wasn’t done as systematically as we’re going to — as I think we’re going to be able to carry out here — but to a remarkable degree, our military is able to inculcate a strong sense that everybody has got to be treated the same. And I have confidence that that will be true here as well.
So I’m going to be getting recommendations from them partly from tracking what was in the implementation recommendations — about how to move forward to make sure that everybody from the private to the four-star general knows sexual orientation is not a criteria by which they are treating people in a discriminatory fashion in the military. And I’m confident it’s going to be carried out.
So there’s going to be some way of having a nondiscrimination mandate somehow?
I am going to look exactly at what the recommendations are, and we will be making decisions over the next series of weeks about what is necessary to implement not just the letter but the spirit of this repeal.
Big-picture question about LGBT people and where the movement is headed. You’re sitting in the midst of a time that’s of great change. You’re not quite willing to go there on same-sex marriage yet. What do you see as something that moving forward would be one of the biggest possible advancements for LGBT people ...
Well ...
Potentially in the course of your presidency in the next two years?
Well, look, I would distinguish between things that should get done and I fully support but may still be stalled with a Republican-controlled Congress — or Republican-controlled House of Representatives that's not inclined to go there, versus things that can happen in society at large.
I have been struck — let me take the former — repealing DOMA, getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] done, those are things that should be done. I think those are natural next steps legislatively. I’ll be frank with you, I think that's not going to get done in two years. I think that's — we’re on a three- or four-year time frame unless there’s a real transformation of attitudes within the Republican caucus. ||||| WASHINGTON — Buoyant in political victory, President Barack Obama on Wednesday wrapped up a long, rough year in Washington by rejoicing in a rare, bipartisan "season of progress" over tax cuts, national security and civil justice. Halfway through his term, he served notice to his skeptics: "I am persistent."
The president who strode on stage for a news conference cut a remarkably different figure than the Obama who, just seven weeks ago, held a similar event in which he somberly admitted he had taken a "shellacking" in the midterm elections and needed to re-evaluate. This time, Obama was about to jet off to a Hawaiian holiday vacation knowing he had secured the kind of legislative wins that rarely come so bundled as they just did, particularly in a postelection lawmaking session.
Obama spoke on the same day that he found enough allies in both parties to get Senate ratification of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a vote watched around the world as a test of international security and presidential clout. He also signed landmark legislation to allow gays to serve openly in the military, calling himself overwhelmed by the enormity of the moment.
And that was on top of other achievements, including a hard-fought deal to extend tax cuts and unemployment insurance even as it piled on more debt, a broad food security bill, a trade deal with South Korea and declarations of progress in the widening war in Afghanistan.
"If there's any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it's that we are not doomed to endless gridlock," Obama said. "We've shown in the wake of the November elections that we have the capacity not only to make progress, but to make progress together."
That spirit may be fleeting.
Obama was able to get the votes he needed in a lame-duck session in which his party still controlled the House and Senate, retiring or ousted members could act knowing they would no longer face voters, and the potential of a politically devastating tax hike on Jan. 1 forced lawmakers into action. None of those factors will be in play come January when Republicans take control of the House and have a greater voice in the Senate as well.
To a nation long tired of political gamesmanship, Obama used the moment to try to put himself above it – and to challenge both parties to join him. He said voters wanted this "season of progress," promising to stick with that mission and hoping "my Democratic and Republican friends will do the same."
He also did not get all he wanted, losing some fights and swallowing a two-year extension of tax cuts for wealthier people as part of the tax deal.
Obama underscored his agenda ahead, much of it amounting to unfinished promises: deficit reduction, energy innovation, immigration reform, the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison, education and research investments, and the biggest item of all: finding ways to create more jobs for millions of hurting Americans.
In the course of questioning, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is "constantly evolving." He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline – at this point, as he put it.
"This is something that we're going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward," he said.
The slow progress on the economy continues to pull down the spirits of the country and threaten to overshadow many of Obama's other successes. Unemployment was measured at 9.8 percent in November, down only slightly from its double-digit high in 2009. Obama sought to broaden the burden of responsibility to Republicans for a faster economic rebound, saying "people are going to be paying attention to what they're doing as well as what I'm doing."
Obama sought to give credit to Congress, and chiefly the Democrats who have been running it, for what he called the most successful post-election period in decades. But he also sought to assert his own role and power, just weeks after his relevancy had been called into question.
"One thing I hope people have seen during this lame duck: I am persistent," Obama said. "If I believe in something strongly, I stay on it."
He saved his most emotional appeal for committing anew to the DREAM Act, a measure which would offer a path to legal status for young illegal immigrants who enroll in college or join the military. It died in Congress in the waning days of the session, overwhelmed by Republican opposition. Obama said those young people live in fear of deportation.
"It is heartbreaking," he said. "That can't be who we are."
Obama also promised that deficit reduction would be a major issue in 2011. The midterm elections were seen in part as a reflection of how many Americans are sick of Washington's spending ways, and promises over the years to rein in deficit spending have fallen short of reality when the choices get tough.
"I guarantee you, as soon as the new Congress is sworn in, we're going to have to have a conversation about, how do we start balancing our budget or at least getting to a point that's sustainable when it comes to our deficit and our debt?" he said.
Obama was flying to Hawaii later in the day, joining his wife and the couple's two children for a year-end holiday. When he returns, it will be a few days before a new Congress convenes, with a House controlled by Republicans and a Senate with a shrunken Democratic majority. | President Obama today reiterated that his views on gay marriage are "constantly evolving," reports ABC News. Asked in today's victory-lap news conference why he supported repeal of "Don't Ask" but still opposes same-sex marriage, the president said his "baseline is a strong civil union that affords them legal protections." But, he noted, "I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful long-lasting gay or lesbians unions." He said he knows that gay marriage "means a lot to them." He used much the same language in an interview with the Advocate: “Like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this,” he said. "I've wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.” In that interview, he also said that repeal of DADT "will be a matter of months," not years. Click here for more on today's news conference, in which the president hailed a "season of progress." |
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption This sperm whale was one of a number stranded on this beach in the Netherlands
Large solar storms, responsible for the northern lights, may have played a role in the strandings of 29 sperm whales in the North Sea early in 2016.
A new study says these geomagnetic disruptions may have confused the whales' ability to navigate, diverting them into the shallow waters.
Trapped and lost, the whales died on European beaches, attempting to escape.
The research has been published recently in the International Journal of Astrobiology.
Mysterious losses
Researchers have been puzzled by the losses as autopsies showed that the animals were mainly well fed, young and disease-free.
The 29 strandings generated a great deal of public interest and a large number of theories among scientists.
These ranged from poisoning, to climatic changes driving prey into the North Sea which the large cetaceans followed to their doom.
Sperm whales live in deep, warm-to-temperate waters all around the world. Many groups live around the Azores in the eastern Atlantic.
When they are between 10 and 15 years old, young males head north towards the polar region, attracted by the huge quantities of squid found in the colder waters.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Two sperm whales that washed up on a beach near Gibraltar Point in Skegness in January 2016
Their journey sometimes takes them up along the west coasts of the UK and Ireland and into the Norwegian sea. They normally return by the same route.
But in less than a month in early 2016, 29 sperm whales were found stranded on the coasts of Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and France.
Now a team of researchers say they think they understand what happened to them.
The argue that sperm whales navigate using the Earth's geomagnetic field.
Rather than being uniform, the field is stronger in some places and weaker in others, and scientists believe that species learn to read these anomalies and use them for navigation in the way that humans read contours on maps.
Dr Klaus Vanselow from the University of Kiel, Germany, and his colleagues say that large-scale solar storms may have distorted the magnetic field and caused the whales to lose their way.
Triggered by coronal mass ejections from the Sun, these storms contain large amounts of charged particles and radiation.
When they hit the Earth's upper atmosphere, they produce the spectacular displays of the polar lights over the Arctic, however the most powerful storms can also damage communications systems and satellites.
Scientists already have some evidence that solar storm activity can impact the navigating abilities of birds and bees.
Image copyright KLAUS VANSELOW Image caption This map shows the 'magnetic mountain' anomaly off the coast of Norway. The whales should have followed the white arrow but the authors argue that the solar storms made the mountains invisible and the whales instead followed the red arrow to the North Sea
Dr Vanselow and his colleagues studied the connection between whale strandings and two major solar storms that took place at the very end of December in 2015.
These produced huge displays of the Aurora Borealis that were seen in many parts of Scotland and elsewhere.
Looking specifically at the region around Shetland, the scientists found that these solar events would have caused short-term shifts in the magnetic field of up to 460km, in the area between the islands and Norway.
This could have caused sperm whales in the region to move in the wrong direction.
They also believe that sperm whales see a regular magnetic anomaly off the Norwegian coast as a "geomagnetic mountain chain", a kind of guardrail that prevents them from entering the North Sea.
The solar storms may have nullified this effect, rendering the mountain chain invisible and allowing the whales to swim through into the North Sea.
"Where the polar lights are seen, that's the region with the most geomagnetic disruptions on the Earth's surface," Dr Vanselow told BBC News.
"Sperm whales are very huge animals and swim in the free ocean so if they are disrupted by this affect, they can swim in the wrong direction for days and then correct it.
"But in the area between Scotland and Norway, if the whales swim in the wrong direction for one or two days, then it is too late for them to go back, they are trapped."
Dr Vanselow believes that his theory makes sense with the timeline of the discovery of the stranded whales up to six weeks after the storms.
He believes that because young males grow up around the Azores, an area that sees minimal impacts from solar storms, the creatures have little experience of the abrupt and powerful events that affect the poles.
Dr Vanselow's research is a theory that is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
However, other scientists say it is plausible.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption This whale was beached at Hunstanton and was one of the last to die in the stranding event in early 2016
"It would be difficult to say that 'yes this was the cause', we would be cautious in saying that," said Abbo Van Neer from the University of Hannover who carried out the autopsies on the 16 whales that stranded in Germany.
"But it is a valid hypothesis and a potential reason for the stranding."
Nasa has also been investigating the question of whether solar storms can affect a whole range of cetaceans around the world.
A team of researchers is shortly to publish a research paper on the connection between strandings in Cape Cod and geomagnetic storms. They say the Venselow paper is "well founded".
"It is one potential mechanism for having animals confused, I think it's a credible theory," Dr Antti Pulkkinen, who is leading the Nasa project, told BBC News.
"But does their paper prove that is the case? I don't think so."
"Having looked at this problem from a data analysis point of view, it is not a single factor that contributes to this.
"Things need to line up from multiple different perspectives for these events to take place."
Follow Matt on Twitter and on Facebook. ||||| Alerstam , T. ( 1987 ). Bird migration across a strong magnetic anomaly . J. Exp. Biol . 130 , 63 – 86 .
Begall , S. , Malkemper , E.P. , Červený , J. , Němec , P. & Burda , H. ( 2013 ). Magnetic alignment in mammals and other animals . Mamm. Biol . 78 , 10 – 20 .
Brothers , J.R. & Lohmann , K.J. ( 2015 ). Evidence for geomagnetic imprinting and magnetic navigation in the natal homing of sea turtles . Curr. Biol . 25 , 392 – 396 .
Červený , J. , Begall , S. , Koubek , P. , Nováková , P. & Burda , H. ( 2011 ). Directional preference may enhance hunting accuracy in foraging foxes . Biol. Lett . 7 , 355 – 357 .
Clemens , T. , Hartmann , A. & Ulber , J. ( 2016 ). Pottwal-Drama an der Nordseeküste. Natur- und Umweltschutz, Zeitschrift der Naturschutz-und Forschungsgemeinschaft . Der Mellumrat e.V . 15 , 13 – 24 .
Cochran , W.W. , Mouritsen , H. & Wikelski , H. ( 2004 ). Migrating songbirds recalibrate their magnetic compass daily from twilight cues . Science 304 , 405 – 408 .
Dennis , T.E. , Rayner , M.J. & Walker , M.M. ( 2007 ). Evidence that pigeons orient to geomagnetic intensity during homing . Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol . 274 , 1153 – 1158 .
Evans , K. , Thresher , R. , Warneke , R.M. , Bradshaw , C.J.A , Pook , M. , Thiele , D. & Hindell , M.A. ( 2005 ). Periodic variability in cetacean strandings: links to large-scale climate events . Biol. Lett . 1 , 147 – 150 .
Evans , P. ( 2016 ). Largest sperm whale stranding ever recorded in the North Sea. Sea Watch Foundation (online since 10.02.2016). ). Largest sperm whale stranding ever recorded in the North Sea. Sea Watch Foundation (online since 10.02.2016). http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/largest-sperm-whale-stranding-ever-recorded-in-the-north-sea/
Evans , P.G.H. ( 1997 ). Ecology of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the Eastern North Atlantic, with special reference to sightings & strandings records from the British Isles . Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Bel. Biol . 67 ( Suppl. ), 37 – 46 .
Ferrari , T.E. ( 2017 ). Cetacean beachings correlate with geomagnetic disturbances in Earth's magnetosphere: an example of how astronomical changes impact the future of life . Int. J. Astrobiol . 16 , 163 – 175 .
Ferrari , T.E. & Tautz , J. ( 2015 ). Severe Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Losses correlate with geomagnetic and proton disturbances in Earth's atmosphere . Astrobiol. Outreach 3 , 134 .
Goold , J.C. , Whitehead , H. & Reid , R.J. ( 2002 ). North Atlantic sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, strandings on the coastlines of the British Isles and Eastern Canada . Can. Field-Naturalist 116 , 371 – 388 .
Jaquet , N. & Whitehead , H. ( 1999 ). Movements, distribution and feeding success of sperm whales in the Pacific Ocean, over scales of days and tens of kilometers . Aquat. Mamm . 25 , 1 – 13 .
Jiang , H. et al. ( 2015 ) Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic . Geology 43 , 203 – 206 .
Kirschvink , J.L. ( 1997 ). Magnetoreception: homing in on vertebrates . Nature 390 , 339 – 340 .
Kirschvink , J.L. , Dizon , A.E. & Westphal , J.A. ( 1986 ). Evidence from strandings for geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans . J. Exp. Biol . 120 , 1 – 24 .
Klinowska , M. ( 1985 ). Cetacean live stranding sites relate to geomagnetic topography . Aquat. Mamm . 1 , 27 – 32 .
Klinowska , M. ( 1988 ). Cetacean navigation and the geomagnetic field . J. Navigation 41 , 52 – 71 .
Kremers , D. , Marulanda , J.L. , Hausberger , M. & Lemasson , A. ( 2014 ). Behavioural evidence of magnetoreception in dolphins: detection of experimental magnetic fields . Naturwissenschaften 101 , 907 – 911 .
Liboff , A.R. ( 2014 ) Why are living things sensitive to weak magnetic fields? Electromagn. Biol. Med . 33 , 241 – 245 .
Lohmann , K.J. , Lohmann , C.M.F. & Putman , N. ( 2007 ). Magnetic maps in animals: nature's GPS . J. Exp. Biol . 210 , 3697 – 3705 .
Lohmann , K.J. , Lohmann , C.M.F. & Endres , C.S. ( 2008 ). The sensory ecology of ocean navigation . J. Exp. Biol . 211 , 1719 – 1728 .
Olesen , O. et al. ( 2010a ). New aeromagnetic and gravity compilations from Norway and adjacent areas – methods and applications . In: Vining , B.A. and Pickering , S.C. (eds) Petroleum Geology: From Mature Basins to new Frontiers. Proceedings of the 7th Petroleum Geology Conference . Geology Society , London , pp. 559 – 586 .
Olesen , O. , Gellein , J. , Gernigon , L. , Kihle , O. , Koziel , J. , Lauritsen , T. , Mogaard , J.O. , Myklebust , R. , Skilbrei , J.R. & Usov , S. ( 2010b ). Magnetic anomaly map, Norway and adjacent areas. Scale 1 : 3 million, Geological Survey of Norway. ). Magnetic anomaly map, Norway and adjacent areas. Scale 1 : 3 million, Geological Survey of Norway. http://www.ngu.no/upload/Kart og data/Geofysikkart stort format/Mag_3_mill.pdf
Phillips , J.B. ( 1996 ). Magnetic navigation . J. Theor. Biol . 180 , 309 – 319 .
Pierce , G.J. , Santos , M.B. , Smeenk , C. , Saveliev , A. & Zuur , A.F. ( 2007 ). Historical trends in the incidence of strandings of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) on North Sea coasts: an association with positive temperature anomalies . Fish. Res . 87 , 219 – 228 .
Qin , S. et al. ( 2016 ). A magnetic protein biocompass . Nat. Mater . 15 , 217 – 226 .
Rice , D.W. ( 1989 ). Sperm whale. Physeter macrocephalus linnaeus, 1758 . In: Ridgway , S.H. & Harrison , R. (eds), Handbook of Marine Mammals, River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales , vol. 4 , pp. 177 – 233 . Academic Press , London .
Schiffner , I. , Fuhrmann , P. & Wiltschko , R. ( 2011 ) Tracking pigeons in a magnetic anomaly and in magnetically ‘quiet’ terrain . Naturwissenschaften 98 , 575 – 581 .
Schreiber , B. & Rossi , O. ( 1976 ). Correlation between race arrivals of homing pigeons and solar activity . Bolletino di zoologia 43 : 3 , 317 – 320 .
Schreiber , B. & Rossi , O. ( 1978 ). Correlation between magnetic storms due to solar spots and pigeon homing performances . IEEE Trans. Magn. , 14 , 961 – 963 .
Smeenk , C. ( 1997 ). Strandings of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the North Sea: history and patterns . Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Bel. Biol. , 67 ( Suppl. ), 15 – 28 .
Steiner , L. , Lamoni , L. , Plata , M.A. , Jensen , S.-K. , Lettevall , E. & Gordon , J. ( 2012 ). A link between male sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, of the Azores and Norway . J. Marine Biol.l Assoc. UK 92 , 1751 – 1756 .
Thébault , E. et al. ( 2015 ). International geomagnetic reference field: the 12th generation . Earth Planet. Space 67 , 79 .
Thejll , P. & Lassen , K. ( 2000 ). Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature: new data . J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys . 62 , 1207 – 1213 .
Tougaard , S. & Kinze , C.C. (eds) ( 1999 ). Proceedings from the Workshop Sperm Whale Strandings in the North Sea. The Event – the Action – the Aftermath , pp. 1 – 25 . Fisheries and Maritime Museum , Esbjerg , Biological Papers 1.
Unger , B. , Rebolledo , E.L.B. , Deaville , R. , Gröne , A. , Ijsseldijk , L.L. , Leopold , M.F. , Siebert , U. , Spitz , J. , Wohlsein , P. & Herr , H. ( 2016 ). Large amounts of marine debris found in sperm whales stranded along the North Sea coast in early 2016 . Mar. Pollut. Bull . 112 , 134 – 141 .
Vanselow , K.H. & Ricklefs , K. ( 2005 ). Are solar activity and sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus strandings around the North Sea related? J. Sea Res . 53 , 319 – 327 .
Vanselow , K.H. , Ricklefs , K. & Colijn , F. ( 2009 ). Solar driven geomagnetic anomalies and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) strandings around the North Sea: an analysis of long term datasets . Open Mar. Biol. J . 3 , 89 – 94 .
Walker , M.M. , Kirschvink , J.L. , Ahmed , G. & Dizon , A.E. ( 1992 ). Evidence that fin whales respond to the geomagnetic field during migration . J. Exp. Biol . 171 , 67 – 78 .
Walker , M.M. , Dennis , T.E. & Kirschvink , J.L. ( 2002 ). The magnetic sense and its use in long-distance navigation by animals . Curr. Opin. Neurobiol . 12 , 735 – 744 .
Wiltschko , R. , Schiffner , I. & Wiltschko , W. ( 2009 ). A strong magnetic anomaly affects pigeon navigation . J. Exp. Biol . 212 , 2983 – 2990 .
Wiltschko , W. & Wiltschko , R. ( 1996 ). Magnetic orientation in birds . J. Exp. Biol . 199 , 29 – 38 . ||||| Last year brought what seemed like a disturbing omen to communities surrounding Europe’s North Sea: a whole lot of beached sperm whales. As Gizmodo reported at the time, the whales entered the sea’s shallow waters, where their internal sonar-like systems stopped working, causing them to become stranded and die. But scientists didn’t know why the whales entered these dangerous shallow waters in the first place.
A new team has come up with a cosmic hypothesis for the mysterious beachings: Perhaps the whales got stranded after trying to navigate using the Earth’s geomagnetic field during a solar storm. The Sun could have broken the whales’ GPS.
Advertisement
The idea is that if you have a map and a navigation system in your car, they might glitch and send you driving the wrong way, study author Klaus Henrich Vanselow from the University of Kiel in Germany told Gizmodo. “I think it’s the same for whales. They do not realize that the Sun is changing the geomagnetic environment for a short time.”
Mass sperm whale strandings have been recorded since the Middle Ages, but Vanselow was specifically interested in one that occurred in the winter of 2016, when 29 male sperm whales washed ashore in Germany, Britain, France and The Netherlands. Autopsies revealed that the whales were all healthy aside from some debris in nine of their bellies, not enough to kill them.
Vanselow realized that many animals, including cetaceans, navigate via the Earth’s magnetic field (he has studied the effect of magnetic anomalies on whale behavior in the past). The team collected data on the magnetic field’s strength and the angles it made with the Earth, and noticed that just before the strandings began, some measuring stations recorded magnetic field changes from solar storms, flares of particles blasting off of the Sun and streaming at Earth. He and his co-authors published their findings in the International Journal of Astrobiology last month.
Advertisement
The timing of a strong solar storm prior to the whale beachings led the researchers to a hypothesis. While female sperm whales remain closer to the equator to raise their calves, males swim north to feed. Perhaps, then, the males adapt to a quieter magnetic field in those more equatorial waters, making them susceptible to random and large magnetic field fluctuations from solar storms they face further north.
As the BBC notes, this paper merely offers a plausible explanation and a hypothesis about a single event that would be difficult to prove. There are plenty of other factors to take into account, such as increased whale populations due to decreased whaling pressure, earthquakes, boats and oil development. “It would be difficult to say that ‘yes this was the cause’, we would be cautious in saying that,” Abbo Van Neer from the University of Hannover, who performed some of the whale autopsies, told the BBC. “But it is a valid hypothesis and a potential reason for the stranding.” I have reached out to other researchers for further comment.
So, next time you hear about an incredibly powerful aurora borealis, keep your eyes open. You might spot some lost whales.
Advertisement
[International Journal of Astrobiology via BBC] | In the first weeks of 2016, 29 sperm whales were found stranded and dead off the coasts of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Germany, the BBC reports. The whales had been generally healthy, and scientists were confounded as to what had caused them to enter the dangerously shallow waters of the North Sea. Now a study published last month in the International Journal of Astrobiology has a possible answer: Two massive solar storms in the final days of 2015 screwed with Earth's magnetic field and affected the sperm whales' ability to navigate. Or, as Gizmodo puts it: "The Sun could have broken the whales' GPS." Researchers say sperm whales use Earth's magnetic field to navigate. They say the field usually creates a "geomagnetic mountain chain" that prevents the whales from entering the North Sea. But the solar storms could have caused that mountain chain to disappear and sent the whales in the wrong direction. "They do not realize that the Sun is changing the geomagnetic environment for a short time," study author Klaus Henrich Vanselow says. Researchers say measuring stations noticed changes in Earth's magnetic field from solar storms just prior to the stranded whales appearing. Vanselow's research will be very hard to prove, but other scientists say it's a "valid hypothesis" and "credible theory." (These whales are rarely seen, but scientists managed to spot two.) |
Wade Michael Page, the tattooed white supremacist and former Army soldier police say gunned down six Sikhs in a Milwaukee-area temple before a police officer killed him, spread his message of hate through several rock bands for more than a decade before mounting his bloody rampage Sunday.
Playing guitar and singing in various bands -- including Definite Hate and End Apathy -- in the obscure skinhead punk scene, the 40-year-old Page spewed his lyrics at ear-splitting volume in small underground bars and on independent record labels. In an April 2010 interview with Label 56, the label that carries End Apathy's music, Page described the message behind his songs.
"He was involved in the scene." - Heidi Beirich, Southern Poverty Law Center
"The topics vary from sociological issues, religion and how the value of human life has been degraded by being submissive to tyranny and hypocrisy that we are subjugated to," Page said.
White power lyrics, which frequently discuss genocide against the Jews and other minorities, are so violent and twisted that the music is typically available only over the Internet, according to experts. In a song called "Self-Destruct" by End Apathy, Page growls his dismal vision of life in the U.S.
"You betray your dignity for this miserable life,
Refuse to think for yourself, you want to be led."
On End Apathy's MySpace page, band members call their music, “a sad commentary on our sick society and the problems that prevent true progress.” Other bands on the Maryland-based music label include Force Fed Hate, Final War, Absolute Terror and Spirit of the Patriot.
Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's intelligence project, said Page had been on the group's radar since 2000, when he tried to purchase goods from the National Alliance, a well-known hate group. She said the group has evidence that Page attended "hate events" around the country.
"He was involved in the scene," Beirich said.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Theresa Carlson said Page was known to law enforcement authorities, but did not give details. Carlson said authorities are interested in learning what role Page's ties to white supremacy played in his attack.
"We are looking at his ties to white supremacist groups," she said.
Page, who served in the military for six years but was never stationed overseas, was a psychological operations specialist and Hawk Missile System repairman. He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct award, the National Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal and Parachutist Badge. While stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., in 1998, he was disciplined for being drunk on duty and busted down from sergeant to specialist, sources told Reuters. He was not eligible to re-enlist, the sources said.
Once booted, the Colorado native, who said he began playing guitar at age 13, apparently traveled the country, attending skinhead festivals that may have helped solidify his warped world view. Before his move to Milwaukee, Page was based in Littleton, Colo., from 2000 to 2007, 9News reported. A man bearing the same name was reportedly convicted of DUI in 1999 in Denver. Page was also ticketed for driving without a valid license in 1999, according to 9News.
"I am originally from Colorado and had always been independent, but back in 2000 I set out to get involved and wanted to basically start over," Page said in the 2010 interview. "So, I sold everything I owned except for my motorcycle and what I could fit into a backpack and went on cross country trip visiting friends and attending festivals and shows."
Page moved to Milwaukee earlier this year, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Neighbors who lived near Page in South Milwaukee remembered him and his female companion as "hermit-like" people who never said hello.
"He wouldn't even look at you," said Robert Haugle, 31, who lives in the same building where Page lived from early 2012 until April.
He said the pair quietly moved out when a Hispanic tenant moved into the building.
"But they had no stuff, and they didn't have movers, it was really weird," he said. "Just one day they were gone."
David Brown, 62, a retired Navy man who also lived in the building, said the pair had a young child with them. He said Page lifted weights in the basement of the building, as his angry music blasted away.
"I don't think he had any ambition at all, like a drone, like a worker ant doing what he was told to do, going through the drudgery of life," Brown said.
Interestingly, both neighbors said they did not remember Page having tattoos, allowing for the possibility his ink was new.
Page reportedly worked as a truck driver with Granger, Iowa-based Barr-Nunn Transportation, from about April 2006 to August 2010 while living in Fayetteville, North Carolina. An employee at the company told the Daily Mail he left 'involuntarily' but declined to elaborate.
Joseph Rackley of Nashville, N.C. told the AP on Monday that Page lived with his son for about six months last year in a house on Rackley's 3 acres of property. Wade was bald and had tattoos all over his arms, Rackley said, but he doesn't remember what they depicted. He said he wasn't aware of any ties Page may have had to white supremacists.
"I'm not a nosy kind of guy," Rackley said. "When he stayed with my son, I don't even know if Wade played music. But my son plays alternative music and periodically I'd have to call them because I could hear more than I wanted to hear." ||||| He wore his beliefs on his arm, along with his hate.
He called non-whites "dirt people," and sent roses to his grandmother.
He talked about accomplishing positive results in society, then killed six people and tried to gun down a cop (hitting him at least eight times) who was helping the wounded.
Wade Michael Page, dead himself in the wake of his mass-slaying rampage at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek Sunday, appears to have been many things - Army veteran of a special unit, fired truck driver, devoted grandson, hard-metal musician, white supremacist.
But to psychiatric nurse Jennifer Dunn, the 40-year-old with the shaved head was merely the "creepy quiet" neighbor who moved into her Cudahy building three weeks ago, toting his belongings in two black plastic garbage bags.
He rarely left his one-bedroom upper, where he lived alone. His only visitor, Dunn said, was a pizza delivery guy who stopped by a couple of times.
She didn't think twice about Page's numerous tattoos - one, it turns out, was an obscure reference to white supremacist doctrine - but his manner was strange.
"He made no eye contact," she said. "That's an abnormal thing. He wasn't rude, but he was not wanting to be engaged."
Late last week, Dunn said, Page's behavior became odder still. On Friday and Saturday, he blasted aggressive music from his stereo.
"He really had the tunes cranked up," said Dunn, who lives downstairs with her two daughters.
Then, on Saturday, Page carried what appeared to be the same "two bags full of crap" to his red SUV parked in the alley. He also carried out a large cardboard box.
"He paced around the truck for about 10 minutes" and then sat behind the wheel for a long time "staring off into space," Dunn said.
One of her daughters came inside and told her mother, "the dude is acting strange."
A day later, with police SWAT teams surrounding their home and Page and six innocent victims shot dead in and around the temple, she'd find out how strange he was.
But it didn't start that way.
'We have no idea'
Sobbing Tuesday as she spoke by telephone from her home in Denver, Colo., Page's stepmother said he grew up as a "precious child" in a normal, loving family.
"Where he changed and where this came from, we have no idea," said Laura Page, who was married to Wade Michael Page's father for about two decades.
The boy was 10 when the couple married. Three years later, his birth mother died, from lupus.
Like any child losing a parent, "he was devastated," Laura Page said.
Yet, she said, her stepson was mostly happy and liked to do "normal little boy stuff" - play with his dog, fish, camp. He loved music and played his guitar often, she said.
"He was kind and gentle and loving," she said. "He was normal in every way that I can think of."
She and Page's father moved to Texas when the boy was a teenager, but he stayed in Colorado, splitting time between an aunt and his grandmother, with whom he was very close.
He rejoined his parents in Texas after graduating from high school, took a job at a convenience store and eventually joined the Army.
"He said it was one of the best things he ever did - it gave him focus, a direction," Laura Page said.
She divorced Page's father in 2001, but talked with him after Sunday's killings. The father said he had tried calling his son about three weeks ago, but never got a call back.
'Exclusive' unit
Page may have thought he found direction in the Army, but it appears that by then he was already pointed down the road that would lead to the mass shooting in Oak Creek.
He served approximately from 1992 to 1998, and was assigned to psychological operations - the specialists who analyze, develop and distribute intelligence used for information and psychological effect.
"That is very exclusive," said John Liebert, a psychiatrist who performs fitness examinations for the military and is an expert on suicidal mass murderers. "It's like going from the lobby to the 20th floor."
But Page's beliefs were starting to show.
Fred Allen Lucas, a Bloomington, Ind., man who served with Page at Fort Bragg, N.C., in a psychological operations battalion, recalled that he spoke of the need for securing a homeland for white people and referred to all non-whites as "dirt people."
"It didn't matter if they were black, Indian, Native American, Latin - he hated them all," Lucas said.
Lucas said he met Page in 1995, the same year that the killings of a black couple in Fayetteville by two members of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg revealed the presence of a white-supremacist movement among soldiers on the base.
At the time, Lucas said, Page was covered with tattoos, including one that made a reference to the "14 words," a phrase used by white supremacists: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
"He criticized me for my attraction to (Latina) women," Lucas said. "He'd call me a 'race-traitor.' He said I should change my ways because I was a blond-haired, blue-eyed white guy, and I shouldn't be wasting myself on that."
Page left the Army in 1998 with a general discharge, a cut below honorable. He was ineligible for re-enlistment, Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said Monday.
Two skinhead bands
By 2000, according to an interview Page gave two years ago, he was circulating in what the Southern Poverty Law Center called the white-power music scene.
The center said Page was a member of two racist skinhead bands -- End Apathy and Definite Hate.
End Apathy was Page's project, started in 2005.
In the interview two years ago with a website, he said he launched the band "to figure out what it would take to actually accomplish positive results in society and what is holding us back.
"A lot of what I realized at the time was that if we could figure out how to end people's apathetic ways it would be the start toward moving forward," Page is quoted as saying. "Of course after that it requires discipline, strict discipline, to stay the course in our sick society."
Photos on the band's MySpace page, which was taken down Monday, show Page playing a guitar with a stars-and-bars strap, and the "14" tattoo prominent on his shoulder.
In a picture of a band practice, a Nazi flag hangs behind the drummer.
The Southern Poverty Law Center said that in 2010 Page played at a racist music festival in Baltimore called Independent Artist Uprise.
For part of the last decade, Page lived in North Carolina.
According to the Fayetteville Observer, he worked at a Harley-Davidson dealership as a parts coordinator, but was fired after a series of clashes - one involving his displeasure at taking orders from a female co-worker.
The newspaper quoted general manager John Tew as saying that, after Page was fired, he found an application for joining the Ku Klux Klan on Page's desk.
"I threw that in the trash can," Tew was quoted as saying. "He came back looking for it. And I told him I discarded that. He got all chapped again."
Move to Wisconsin
Page worked as a truck driver for about five years, but was dismissed from that job as well, in 2010.
Last year, he lost a house, too. He had purchased a $165,000 home in the Fayetteville, N.C., area in September 2009, using a Veterans Administration loan.
Last August, with the house already vacant, Wells Fargo foreclosed. The bank took over the property in February.
By then, Page was in Wisconsin.
He moved into a South Milwaukee apartment in late 2011, joining his girlfriend, who had been living there for about two years.
Neighbors described him as a grumpy loner who occasionally pumped high-volume music through the building, worked third shift at a south side factory and disappeared on weekends, with a couple of guitars and his girlfriend in tow to play gigs with his band.
"If you were lucky, he would just say 'hi,' otherwise he would just shrug," said Dave Brown, who lived downstairs. "The less I had to do with him the better."
Page stayed in South Milwaukee only for a few months, moving out in June and getting his own place in Cudahy. He appears to have lost his job around then. Neighbors near his Cudahy apartment said he didn't appear to be working.
Page has had minor scuffles with the law, most notably a drunken driving conviction - he pleaded guilty - in Colorado in 1999.
But while he had no police record of violence, Liebert, the psychiatrist who does examinations for the military, sees in Page's past warning signs of potential trouble.
The fact that the Army essentially dropped Page after he had been selected for psychological operations team seems significant, said Liebert, who practices in Arizona and, for a time, worked at St. Francis Hospital here.
"I would want to know what happened to cause him to leave suddenly," he said.
Liebert wonders now, given Sunday's carnage, whether Page was mentally ill, and what could possibly have been going through his mind.
"He had to know that he was going to be killed," Liebert said.
***
This story was written by Rick Romell with additional reports from James B. Nelson, Karen Herzog, Don Walker, Mike Johnson, Sharif Durhams, John Diedrich, Annysa Johnson, Meg Kissinger, Raquel Rutledge, Cary Spivak, Ellen Gabler, Piet Levy, Georgia Pabst, Jesse Garza and Mark Johnson. | More details are emerging on Wade Michael Page, the Army vet suspected of killing six at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, and his involvement in white supremacist groups. Over the past 10 years, Page played guitar and sang in at least two skinhead punk bands, Fox News reports: Definite Hate and End Apathy. "[Song] topics vary from sociological issues, religion, and how the value of human life has been degraded by being submissive to tyranny and hypocrisy that we are subjugated to," Page said in a 2010 interview with End Apathy's label. The band's MySpace page describes its music as "a sad commentary on our sick society and the problems that prevent true progress." White power songs are often so violent—discussing genocide against minorities, among other topics—that experts say the music is usually only available online. Page first came to the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2000, when he attempted to buy goods from a hate group, and a director from the group says he has attended "hate events" and was definitely "involved in the scene." He was also known to law enforcement, although an FBI agent won't say why. Police say Page acted alone, but the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that authorities are looking for a second person of interest, a man with a 9/11 tattoo who was on the scene yesterday, possibly taping the chaos. |
State and local governments that receive grants from HHS must follow the uniform administrative requirements set forth in federal regulations.When procuring property and services, these regulations require that states follow the same policies and procedures they use for procurements supported with nonfederal funds. Under HHS’s regulations, states must also ensure that contracts include any clauses required by federal statutes and executive orders. Grantees other than states and subgrantees, such as local governments, rely on their own procurement procedures, provided that they conform to applicable federal laws and the standards identified in the regulations, including standards of conduct, requirements of full and open competition in contracting, procedures for different types of procurements, and bid protest procedures to handle and resolve disputes relating to their procurements. Grantees and subgrantees must maintain a contract administration system that ensures that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts. The procurement of contracts typically follows a process that comprises several phases, including bid solicitation and contract award processes. The bid solicitation process will begin with the development of a work plan by the contracting agency that outlines the objectives contractors will be expected to achieve and the manner in which they will be expected to achieve them. The state or locality will then issue a request-for-proposals to inform potential bidders of the government’s interest in obtaining contractors for the work specified. A request-for-proposals is a publicly advertised document that outlines information necessary to enable prospective contractors to prepare proposals properly. After these activities are completed, the contract award process begins. Once proposals have been submitted, they are evaluated to assess their relative merit. Several key criteria are almost always considered in evaluating proposals, including price/cost, staffing, experience, and technical and/or other resources. The environment for administering social services such as TANF has been affected by changes to the nation’s workforce system. Through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220), the Congress sought to replace the fragmented training and employment system that existed under the previous workforce system. WIA requires state and local entities that carry out specified federal programs to participate in local one-stop centers—local centers offering job placement assistance for workers and opportunities for employers to find workers—by making employment and training-related services available. While TANF is not a mandatory partner at one-stop centers, some states are using one-stop centers to serve TANF recipients. WIA called for the development of workforce investment boards to oversee WIA implementation at the state and local levels. WIA listed the types of members that should participate on the workforce boards, such as representatives of business, education, labor, and other segments of the workforce investment community, but did not specify a minimum or maximum number of members. Local workforce boards can contract for services delivered through one-stop centers. PRWORA broadened both the types of TANF services that could be contracted out and the types of organizations that could serve as TANF contractors. The act authorized states to contract out the administration and provision of TANF services, including determining program eligibility. Under the prior AFDC program, the determination of program eligibility could not be contracted out to nongovernmental agencies. In addition, under the PRWORA provision commonly referred to as charitable choice, states are authorized to contract with faith-based organizations to provide TANF services on the same basis as any other nongovernmental provider without impairing the religious character of such organizations. Such changes in the welfare environment have affected the involvement of for-profit organizations in TANF contracting. Prior to PRWORA, contracting in the welfare arena was mainly for direct service delivery such as job training, job search instruction, and child care provision. While some for-profit companies provided services, service providers were mostly nonprofit. Large for-profit companies were mainly involved as contractors that designed automated data systems. In the broader area of social services, large for-profits were also involved in providing various services for child support enforcement. Now that government agencies can contract out their entire welfare systems under PRWORA, there has been an increase in the extent to which large for-profit companies have sought out welfare contracts, in some cases on a large scale that includes determining eligibility and providing employment and social services. Federal and state funds are used to serve TANF recipients. For federal fiscal years 1997 to 2002, states received federal TANF block grants totaling $16.5 billion annually. With respect to state funding, PRWORA includes a maintenance-of-effort provision, which requires states to provide 75 to 80 percent of their historic level of funding. States that meet federally mandated minimum participation rates must provide at least 75 percent of their historic level of funding, and states that do not meet these rates must provide at least 80 percent. The federally mandated participation rates specify the percentages of states’ TANF caseloads that must be participating in work or work-related activities each year. HHS oversees states’ TANF programs. In accordance with PRWORA and federal regulations, HHS has broad responsibility to oversee the proper state expenditure of TANF funds and the achievement of related program goals. While TANF legislation prohibits HHS from regulating states in areas that it is not legislatively authorized to regulate, it must still oversee state compliance with program requirements, such as mandated work participation rates and other program requirements. Nearly all states and the District of Columbia contract with nongovernmental entities for the provision of TANF-funded services at the state level, local level, or both levels of government. In 2001, state and local governments spent more than $1.5 billion on contracts with nongovernmental entities, or at least 13 percent of all federal TANF and state maintenance-of-effort expenditures (excluding those for cash assistance). The majority of these contracts are with nonprofit organizations. Although TANF contractors provide a wide array of services, the most commonly contracted services reported by our survey respondents include employment and training services, job placement services, and support services to promote job entry or retention. In addition, eligibility determination for cash assistance under TANF or other TANF-funded services has been contracted out in one or more locations in some states. Most state TANF contracting agencies pay contractors a fixed overall price or reimburse them for their costs rather than base contract payments on achieving program objectives for TANF recipients. Contracting for TANF-funded services occurs in the District of Columbia and every state except South Dakota. However, the level of government at which contracting occurs varies, which complicates efforts to provide comprehensive information on TANF-funded contracts. Contracting occurs only at the state level in 24 states, only at the local level in 5 states, at both levels in the remaining 20 states, and in the District of Columbia. Moreover, contracting at the local level encompasses contracting by agencies such as county departments of social or human services as well as workforce development boards whose jurisdiction may include several counties. Our national survey of TANF contracting provides comprehensive information on contracting at the state level but incomplete and nonrepresentative information on local contracting. In 2001, state and local governments expended at least $1.5 billion in TANF funds for contracted services. With respect to state-level contracting, contracts with nonprofit organizations accounted for 88 percent of TANF funds while contracts with for-profit organizations accounted for 13 percent of funds (see fig. 1). Seventy-three percent of state-level contracts are with nonprofit organizations and 27 percent are with for-profit organizations. Under PRWORA’s charitable choice provision, some states have established initiatives to promote the use of faith-based organizations. Contracts with faith-based organizations constitute a smaller proportion of all contracted TANF funds than contracts with secular nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations. As shown in figure 1, contracts with faith-based organizations account for 8 percent of TANF funds spent by state governments on contracts with nongovernmental entities nationally. In several states, large percentages of the funds contracted by states and localities that were identified by our national survey are in contracts with for-profit organizations. As shown in table 1, at least half of the contracted funds in 8 states are with for-profit organizations. Moreover, in 11 states, more than 15 percent of all TANF-contracted funds identified by our survey went to faith-based organizations. The proportion of TANF funds expended for contracted services with nongovernmental entities varies considerably by state. Nationally, at least 13 percent of TANF funds expended for services other than cash assistance have been contracted out. As shown in table 1, the proportion of funds contracted out in 10 states in 2001 exceeded 20 percent of their fiscal year 2000 TANF fund expenditures (excluding the portion of expenditures for cash assistance). Idaho, Mississippi, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia expended more than 40 percent of their TANF funds on contracted services. On the other hand, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Oregon spent the smallest proportion (2 percent or less of their TANF funds) on contracts with nongovernmental entities. Several large for-profit organizations and nonprofit organizations have large TANF contracts in multiple states. Our national survey of TANF contracting asked state and local respondents to identify the names of the contractors with the three largest dollar contracts in their jurisdictions. Four for-profit organizations—Curtis & Associates, Inc.; Maximus; America Works; and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.—have contracts with the highest dollar values in two or more states. Among this group, Curtis & Associates, Inc., had the TANF contracts with the highest dollar value relative to other contractors in their respective locations. Among nonprofit contractors, Goodwill Industries, YWCA, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Salvation Army, Urban League, United Way, Catholic Community Services, American Red Cross, and Boys & Girls Clubs all have TANF-funded contracts in two or more states. Among this group, Goodwill Industries had the TANF contracts with the highest dollar value relative to other contractors in their respective locations. States and localities contract with nongovernmental entities to provide services to facilitate employment, administer program functions, and strengthen families. Overall, states and localities rarely contract different types of services to nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Government entities contract out most often for services to facilitate employment. As shown in figure 2, over 40 percent of state respondents reported that half or more of their TANF-funded contracts ask for the provision of education and training activities, job placement services, and support services that address barriers to work and help clients retain employment. These support services include substance abuse treatment, assistance with transportation, and other services that facilitate job entry and retention. Childcare services are less common. While the responses we obtained from local respondents about types of services contracted out may not be representative of local TANF contracting, they revealed a similar overall pattern to the responses by state respondents presented in figure 2. In some cases, states and localities have contracted with nongovernmental entities to provide program administrative functions that were required to be performed by government workers in the past, such as determining eligibility. The determination of eligibility for TANF-funded services provided to low-income families who are ineligible for cash assistance has been contracted out in one or more locations in at least 18 states. For example, one Ohio county, which offers a variety of services with varying eligibility criteria to the working poor, contracts with nongovernmental organizations to both provide and determine eligibility for the services. Contractors in at least 4 states are contracting out eligibility for cash assistance under TANF, an option authorized under TANF. Finally, some states and localities are using TANF funds to contract for services related to the TANF objectives of preventing and reducing the incidence of nonmarital pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. For example, 20 percent of state respondents reported that half or more of their TANF contracts call for the provision of services pertaining to stabilizing families. We asked state and local governments about the use of four common types of contracts for TANF services: cost-reimbursement, fixed priced, incentive, and cost- reimbursement plus incentive. Under cost- reimbursement contracts, contracting agencies pay contractors for the allowable costs they incur, whereas under fixed-price contracts, contracting agencies pay contractors based on a pre-established overall contract price. As figure 3 shows, almost 60 percent of state respondents said that half or more of their TANF contracts are cost-reimbursement. Far fewer respondents report that half or more of their TANF contracts were incentive or cost-reimbursement plus incentive. Under incentive contracts, the amount paid to contractors is determined based on the extent to which contractors successfully achieve specified program objectives for TANF recipients, such as job placements and the retention of jobs. Cost-reimbursement plus incentive contracts pay contractors for costs they incur and provide payments above costs for the achievement of specific objectives. While the responses we obtained from local respondents may not be representative of local TANF contracting, they revealed a similar pattern to the responses by state respondents. Our survey disclosed that many state and local governments have chosen to use a contract type—cost-reimbursement—under which the government assumes a relatively high level of financial risk. Contracting agencies assume greater financial risk when they are required to pay contractors for allowable costs under cost-reimbursement contracts than when overall contract payments are limited to a pre-established price. HHS relies primarily on state single audit reports to oversee state and local procurement of TANF services and monitoring of TANF contractors. State single audit reports identified TANF procurement or subrecipient monitoring problems for about one-third of the states for the period 1999 to 2000, and subrecipient monitoring problems were identified more frequently. However, HHS officials told us that they do not know the overall extent to which state single audits have identified problems with the monitoring of nongovernmental TANF contractors or the nature of these problems because they do not analyze the reports in such a comprehensive manner. Our review of state single audit reports for 1999 and 2000 found internal control weaknesses for over a quarter of states nationwide that potentially affected the states’ ability to effectively oversee TANF contractors. HHS relies primarily on state single audits to oversee TANF contracting by states and localities. The Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-502), as amended, requires federal agencies to use single audit reports in their oversight of state-managed programs supported by federal funds. The objectives of the act, among others, are to (1) promote sound financial management, including effective internal controls, with respect to federal funds administered by states and other nonfederal entities; (2) establish uniform requirements for audits of federal awards administered by nonfederal entities; and (3) ensure that federal agencies, to the maximum extent practicable, rely on and use single audit reports. In addition, the act requires federal agencies to monitor the use of federal funds by nonfederal entities and provide technical assistance to help them implement required single audit provisions. The results of single audits provide a tool for federal agencies to monitor whether nonfederal entities are complying with federal program requirements. To help meet the act’s objectives, Office Of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 requires federal agencies to evaluate single audit findings and proposed corrective actions, instruct states and other nonfederal entities on any additional actions needed to correct reported problems, and follow up with these entities to ensure that they take appropriate and timely corrective action. States, in turn, are responsible for working with local governments to address deficiencies identified in single audits of local governments. Single audits assess whether audited entities have complied with requirements in up to 14 managerial or financial areas, including allowable activities, allowable costs, cash management, eligibility, and reporting. Procurement and subrecipient monitoring constitute 2 of the 14 compliance areas most relevant to TANF contracting. Audits of procurement requirements assess the implementation of required procedures, including whether government contracting agencies awarded TANF contracts in a full and open manner. Audits of subrecipient monitoring requirements examine whether an entity has adequately monitored the entities to whom it has distributed TANF funds. Subrecipients of TANF funds from states can include both local governments and nongovernmental entities with whom the state has contracted. Subrecipients of TANF funds from localities can include nongovernmental TANF contractors. State single audit reports identified TANF subrecipient monitoring or procurement problems for one-third of the states. Single audits identified subrecipient monitoring deficiencies for 9 states in 1999 and 12 states in 2000. Of the 15 states that had subrecipient monitoring deficiencies in either 1999 or 2000, 6 states were cited for deficiencies in both years. State single audits identified procurement problems less frequently: for 3 states in 1999 and 4 states in 2000. The extent to which state single audits have identified problems with subrecipient monitoring involving TANF funds is generally equal to or greater than for several other social service programs in which contracting occurs with nongovernmental organizations. As shown in table 2, the number of state single audits that identified deficiencies in subrecipient monitoring for the 1999 to 2000 time period is similar for TANF, child care, and the Social Services Block Grant. Fewer state audits identified such problems for child support enforcement, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. With regard to procurement, the frequency of identified deficiencies in state audits for TANF was fewer than that for Medicaid but about the same as for several other programs. HHS officials told us that state single audits during this time period had identified TANF subrecipient monitoring problems in only two states— Florida and Louisiana—that involved unallowable or questionable costs and that also pertained to the oversight of nongovernmental TANF contractors. However, HHS officials also said that they do not know the overall extent to which state single audits have identified problems with the monitoring of nongovernmental TANF contractors or the nature of these problems because they do not analyze the reports in such a comprehensive manner. Our analysis of the state single audit reports that cited TANF subrecipient monitoring problems in 1999 or 2000 indicates that the reports for 14 of the 15 states identified internal control weaknesses that potentially affected the states’ ability to adequately oversee nongovernmental TANF contractors. Thus, internal control weaknesses pertaining to contractor oversight have been reported for more than a quarter of all states nationwide. (See app. III for a summary of the problems reported in each of the state single audits.) The reported deficiencies in states’ monitoring of subrecipients cover a wide range of problems, including inadequate reviews of the single audits of subrecipients, failure to inform subrecipients of the sources of federal funds they received, and inadequate fiscal and program monitoring of local workforce boards. The audit reports for some states, such as Alaska, Kentucky (2000 report), and Louisiana (1999 and 2000 reports) specified that the monitoring deficiencies involved or included subrecipients that were nongovernmental entities. For example, the 2000 single audit for Louisiana reported that for 7 consecutive years the state did not have an adequate monitoring system to ensure that subrecipients and social service contractors were properly audited, which indicates that misspent federal funds or poor contactor performance may not be detected and corrected. The audit reports for other states, including Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Mississippi do not specify whether the subrecipients that were inadequately monitored were governmental or nongovernmental entities. However, the reported internal control weaknesses potentially impaired the ability of these states to properly oversee either their own TANF contractors or the monitoring of TANF contractors that have contracts with local governments. For example, the 2000 single audit report for Minnesota found that the state agency did not have policies and procedures in place to monitor the activities of TANF subrecipients. The 2000 audit report for Mississippi found that the state did not review single audits of some subrecipients in a timely manner and did not perform timely follow-up in some cases when subrecipients did not submit their single audits on time. Even if the subrecipients referred to in both of these audit reports were solely local governmental entities, the deficiencies cited potentially limited the states’ abilities to identify and follow-up in a timely manner on any problems with local monitoring of TANF contractors. HHS follows up on a state-by-state basis on the TANF-related problems cited in state single audits and focuses primarily on the problems that involve monetary findings. However, HHS does not use these reports in a systematic manner to develop a national overview of the extent and nature of problems with states’ oversight of TANF contractors. HHS officials said that HHS regional offices review state single audits and perform follow-up actions in cases where deficiencies were identified. These actions include sending a letter to the state acknowledging the reported problems and any plans the state may have submitted to correct the identified deficiency. HHS officials told us that their reviews of single audit reports focus on TANF audit findings that cited unallowable or questionable costs, and that HHS tracks such findings in its audit resolution database. The officials explained that their focus on monetary findings stems from the need to recover any unallowable costs from states and from HHS’s oversight responsibility under PRWORA to determine whether to impose penalties on states for violating statutory TANF requirements. If the deficiency identified by a single audit involves monetary findings, HHS takes actions to recover the costs within the same year, according to HHS officials. HHS officials told us that if the identified deficiency does not involve monetary findings but pertains to a programmatic issue such as subrecipient monitoring, HHS generally relies on the state to correct the reported problem and would initiate corrective action if the same problem were cited in the state’s single audit the following year. However, HHS does not use state single audit reports in a systematic manner to oversee TANF contracting, such as by analyzing patterns in the subrecipient monitoring deficiencies cited by these reports. HHS auditors and program officials also told us that inconsistent auditing of nongovernmental entities and state monitoring of these entities affects HHS’s use of single audits as a management tool. For example, HHS officials said that the same nongovernmental entity might be treated as a subrecipient by one state and as a vendor by another state, which could limit HHS’s ability to determine whether the entity has consistently complied with all applicable federal and state requirements. HHS officials told us that they plan to work, in conjunction with OMB, to explore the reasons for the inconsistencies and, where appropriate, to identify ways to better assure compliance with audit requirements applicable to nongovernmental entities. State and local governments rely on third parties to help ensure compliance with procurement requirements, including bid protests, judicial processes, and external audits. Procurement problems that resulted in the modification of contract award decisions surfaced in 2 of the 10 TANF procurements we reviewed. These problems affected 5 of the 58 TANF contracts awarded in the 10 procurements. Procurement issues were raised in 2 other procurements but did not result in the modification of contract award decisions. State and local governments have primary responsibility for overseeing procurement procedures, and they use several approaches to identify problems with procurement processes. In some cases, contracting agencies rely on aggrieved third parties to identify procurement problems through bid protests or lawsuits. In other cases, organizations outside the procurement process may review bid solicitation and contract award procedures. A bid protest occurs when an aggrieved party—a bidder who did not win a contract award—protests the decision of the local or state agency to award another bidder a contract. The process usually has several tiers, starting with a secondary review by the agency that denied the contract award. If the protest cannot be resolved internally, it can be brought to a higher level of authority. Contract agency officials said that bidders frequently protest contract award decisions. However, state and local officials also said that many bid protests are based more on bidder disgruntlement with award decisions than on corroborated instances of noncompliance with procurement processes. However, these protests do occasionally result in a resolution that favors the bid protester. We reviewed 10 separate procurements—specific instances in which government agencies had solicited bids and awarded one or more TANF contracts—in the local sites that we visited. Procurement problems identified in San Diego and Los Angeles resulted in contract award decisions being modified. In San Diego, the county employees union filed a lawsuit against the county maintaining that the county had failed to conduct a required cost analysis to determine whether it was more or less efficient to contract out services than it would be to provide them by county employees. The union won the case, and the county was required to perform a cost analysis and, upon determination that contracted services would be more cost-efficient than publicly provided services, resolicit bids from potential contractors. In Los Angeles County’s procurement of TANF services, one bidder filed a bid protest, claiming that the contracting agency had failed to properly evaluate its bid. As the final contract award authority, the County Board of Supervisors ordered the Director of Public Social Services to negotiate separate contracts for TANF services to the original awardee and protesting bidder. While procurement issues were raised in the District of Columbia and New York City, their resolution did not result in contract award decisions being modified. In the District of Columbia, the city Corporation Counsel raised concerns regarding the lack of price competition and the lack of an evaluation factor for price. For example, the District’s contracting agency set fixed prices it would pay for TANF services and did not select contractors based on prices they offered. District officials said that they set fixed prices so that contractors would not submit proposals that would unrealistically underbid other contractors. In addition, the agency did not include price as a factor in its evaluation of proposals. As a result of these and other factors, the Corporation Counsel concluded that the District’s procurement of TANF services was defective and legally insufficient. However, the city, operating under the authority of the mayor’s office to make final contract award decisions, approved the contract awards and subsequently implemented regulations changing the way price is used in making contract award decisions. In New York City, the TANF contracting process was alleged to have violated certain requirements, but these charges were not confirmed upon subsequent legal review and a resulting appellate court decision. The New York City Comptroller reported that the contracting agency had not disclosed the weights assigned to evaluation criteria for assessing bids, provided contract information to all bidders, and assessed each bid equitably. With regard to the assessment of bids, the comptroller maintained that the city’s Human Resources Administration (HRA) had deemed as unqualified some proposals that clearly ranked among the most technically qualified and recommended contract awards for other proposals that were much less qualified. The comptroller also maintained that HRA had preliminary contact with one of the potential contractors, reporting that HRA had held discussions and shared financial and other information with the contractor before other organizations had been made aware of the same information. The comptroller concluded that these actions constituted violations of city procurement policies. Utilizing its authority to make final contract award decisions, the mayor’s office subsequently overruled the comptroller’s objections and authorized the contract agency to award contracts to the organizations it had selected. A later court appeal found in favor of the mayor’s office. State and local governments use a variety of approaches to help ensure that TANF-funded contractors expend federal funds properly and comply with TANF program requirements, such as on-site reviews and independent audits. Four of the six states that we visited identified deficiencies in their oversight of TANF contractors. Various factors have contributed to these deficiencies, such as the need in some states to create and support local workforce boards that contract for TANF services and oversee contractors. With regard to contractor performance, several contractors at two local sites were found to have had certain disallowed costs and were required to pay back the amounts of these costs. Moreover, in six of the eight locations that established performance levels for TANF contractors, most contractors, including both nonprofit and for-profit contractors, did not meet one or more of their performance levels. State and local oversight approaches that we found being used originate from organizations external to contracting agencies and these include independent audits and program evaluations. State and local government auditors, comptrollers, treasurers, or contracted certified public accounting firms audit contractors. Independent auditors conduct financial and programmatic audits of compliance with contract specifications. Similarly, evaluators from outside the contracting agency generally evaluate various aspects of program implementation, including financial, programmatic, and operational performance by contractors and other entities responsible for achieving program goals. State and local government auditors in several states have identified shortcomings in how contracting agencies oversee TANF contractors. As shown in table 2, auditors reported oversight deficiencies in four of the six states that we visited—Florida, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. Audit reports cited uneven oversight coverage of TANF contractors over time or across local contracting agencies. We did not identify any audit reports that assessed the oversight of TANF contractors in California or the District of Columbia. Evolving TANF program structures, resource constraints, and data quality issues contributed to the deficiencies in contractor oversight. In Florida and Texas, for example, new TANF program structures entailed establishing local workforce boards throughout the state as the principal entity for TANF contracting and the subsequent oversight of TANF contractors. In both states, local workforce boards varied significantly in their capability to oversee TANF contractors and ensure compliance with contract requirements. According to New York State program officials, contracting agencies in the state continue to experience ongoing shortfalls in staff resources necessary to provide sufficient oversight of contractor performance. In addition, Wisconsin’s Legislative Audit Bureau reported in 2001 that the Private Industry Council had not provided the requisite oversight of five TANF-funded contractors in Milwaukee County. In addition, state and local officials in other states frequently told us that data quality issues complicated efforts to monitor contractors effectively. For example, officials told us that case file information on job placements or job retention frequently differed from data in automated systems maintained by state or local contracting agencies. In New York City, such discrepancies required the Human Resources Administration to conduct time-consuming reviews and reconciliations of the data. Such inaccuracies forced delays in New York City’s payments to contractors, estimated by city officials to total several million dollars. States and localities have taken actions in response to some of the reported contract oversight deficiencies. For example, state of Florida officials worked with local workforce boards to integrate the operations of welfare and employment offices to improve oversight of service providers, including nongovernmental contractors. In Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission issued new oversight policies and provided technical assistance and guidance to help local workforce boards oversee the performance of TANF contractors. For example, the commission’s prior monitoring had identified inappropriate cost allocations across programs and other financial management problems by local boards. The commission subsequently issued guidance on how boards and their contractors can meet cost allocation requirements. Commission officials told us that they use a team approach to monitor workforce boards and provide technical assistance. Auditors disallowed significant costs by TANF contractors at two of the locations that we visited: Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and Miami-Dade County, Florida. In the first location, Wisconsin’s State Legislative Audit Bureau reported that one for-profit contractor had disallowable and questionable costs totaling $415,247 (of which 33 percent were disallowable) and one nonprofit contractor had disallowable and questionable costs totaling $367,401 (of which 83 percent were disallowable). State auditors reported that a large proportion of the disallowable costs resulted from the contractors claiming reimbursement from Wisconsin for expenses incurred while attempting to obtain TANF contracts in other states. Auditors said that generally accepted contract restrictions prohibit the use of contract funds obtained in one state from being used to obtain new contracts in other states. State auditors also said they examined whether there had been any preconceived intent underlying these prohibited contract practices, which could have led to charges of fraud. However, the auditors could not demonstrate preconceived intent or any related allegations of fraud. The for-profit contractor also had costs disallowed for expenditures that supported TANF-funded activities involving a popular entertainer who had formerly received welfare benefits. The contractor believed the activity would provide an innovative, motivational opportunity for TANF recipients. While the contractor claimed that Wisconsin officials had not provided sufficient guidance about allowable activities, state officials subsequently found the costs associated with the entertainment activities to be unallowable. Costs incurred by the for-profit contractor that state auditors cited as questionable included charges for a range of promotional advertising activities, restaurant and food purchases for which there was no documented business purpose, and flowers for which documentation was inadequate to justify a business purpose. Costs incurred by the nonprofit contractor that were cited as questionable included funds spent on advertising, restaurant meals and other food purchases that were not a program need, and local hotel charges for which there was inadequate documentation. At the time of our review, the contractors had repaid all unallowable and questionable costs. In 2001, Wisconsin enacted a state law that requires TANF contracts beginning on January 1, 2002, and ending on December 31, 2003, to contain a provision stating that contractors that submit unallowable expenses must pay the state a sanction equal to 50 percent of the total amount of unallowable expenses. Auditors also disallowed some program costs claimed by several contractors under contract with the Miami-Dade Workforce Development Board in Florida. The auditors found instances in which several contractors had billed the contracting agency for duplicate costs. On the basis of these findings, the auditors recommended that the contractors repay the board about $33,000 for the costs that exceeded their valid claims. At the time of our review, arrangements had been made for the contractors to repay the disallowed costs to the contracting agency. Many TANF contractors at the sites that we reviewed are not meeting their established performance levels in the areas of work participation, job placement, or job retention rates. Contracting agencies in eight of the nine localities we reviewed (all except the District of Columbia) have established expected levels of performance for their TANF contractors, and these performance levels vary by locality. At two of the eight sites— Milwaukee and Palm Beach—all contractors met all specified performance levels. However, at each of the six other sites, most contractors did not meet one or more of their performance levels, indicating that state and local governments did not achieve all anticipated performance levels by contracting for TANF services. Figures 4, 5, and 6 indicate the overall extent to which contractors met performance levels with respect to measures for work participation, job placement, and job retention rates in each location that had established these performance levels. In contrast, at the two local sites that either established performance measures for the percentage of job placements that pay wages of at least a specified level (Milwaukee and Palm Beach) or offered health benefits (Milwaukee), all contractors met these measures. Payments to contractors at the eight localities that established performance levels are based either entirely or in part on whether contractors meet their specified performance levels. The measures most often used in the locations we visited mirror PRWORA’s emphasis on helping TANF recipients obtain employment. The most common performance measures are work participation, job placement, and job retention rates. Work participation rates stipulate that contractors engage a specified percentage of TANF recipients in work-related activities such as job search or community work experience. Job placement rates specify that contractors place a specified percentage of recipients in jobs and job retention rates specify that contractors ensure that recipients retain employment (but not necessarily at the same job) for a specified period, typically ranging from 30 to 180 days. In addition, some localities have established performance levels that require contractors to place TANF recipients in certain types of jobs, such as jobs that pay wages of at least a specified level or offer health benefits. The localities varied in the types of measures and levels of performance they established. For example, the specified levels for job placements ranged from 22 percent of program participants in Palm Beach to 50 percent in Austin and Houston. Performance levels established for job retention also varied by jurisdiction. For example, the specified performance levels for contractors in Milwaukee County are that 75 percent of TANF recipients who entered employment retain employment for 30 days and 50 percent retain employment for 180 days. In comparison, contractors in San Diego County face a 90-percent level for 30-day employment retention and a 60-percent level for 180-day retention.Appendix IV provides additional details on the performance levels established by each locality. In most cases, nonprofit and for-profit contractors had similar performance levels. Across the locations we reviewed, there are eight instances in which a local site had data on the comparable performance of nonprofit and for-profit contractors. In five of these eight instances, the percentages of nonprofit and for-profit contractors that met the measures were similar. In each of the remaining three instances, for-profit contractors performed substantially better overall. In two locations we reviewed—Los Angeles County and San Diego County—county governments also provided TANF services. Overall, the relative performance levels of county-provided services and contracted services were mixed. For example, in San Diego County, the county performed better than one for-profit contractor and worse than another for-profit contractor in meeting performance levels for certain job retention rates. In Los Angeles County, one of two for-profit contractors performed better than the county in placing TANF recipients in jobs while one of the two county providers achieved higher placement rates than the other for-profit contractor. At the remaining site, the District of Columbia, contracting officials were unable to provide information on how well TANF contractors met expected levels of performance. While the District has not established contractually specified performance levels for TANF contractors, these contractors do have performance-based contracts. For example, contractors receive a specified payment for each TANF recipient who becomes enrolled in work-related activities, placed in a job, or who retains employment for a certain period of time. However, District officials were unable to provide us with an assessment of TANF contractors’ performance in serving TANF recipients. The contracting out of TANF-funded services is an important area for several reasons. First, the magnitude of TANF contracting is substantial, involving at least $1.5 billion in federal and state funds in 2001, which represents at a minimum 13 percent of the total amount states expended for TANF programs (excluding expenditures for cash assistance). In 2001, about a quarter of the states contracted out 20 percent or more of the amounts they had expended for TANF programs in fiscal year 2000, ranging up to 74 percent. Second, PRWORA expanded the scope of services that could be contracted out to nongovernmental entities, such as determining eligibility for TANF. Third, some states are using new entities—local workforce boards—that procure TANF services and are responsible for overseeing TANF contractors. Problems with the performance of TANF contractors have been identified in some cases, but there is no clear pattern of a greater incidence of these problems with nonprofit versus for-profit contractors. At two of the nine localities we reviewed, auditors had disallowed certain costs by several contractors, and arrangements had been made for the contractors to repay unallowable costs. We found more widespread instances of contractors at the local sites not meeting their contractually established performance levels in areas such as work participation, job placement, and job retention rates. Contracting agencies at the local sites had established financial incentives for contractors by basing payments to contractors in whole or part on their performance in such areas. While meeting the service needs of TANF recipients can present many challenges for contractors, this has become even more important now that these recipients face time limits on the receipt of TANF. Effective oversight is critical to help ensure contractor accountability for the use of public funds, and our review identified problems in some cases with state and local oversight of TANF contractors. At the national level, our review of state single audit reports found internal control weaknesses for over a quarter of the states that potentially affected the states’ ability to effectively monitor TANF contractors. The extent to which state single audits have identified problems with subrecipient monitoring involving TANF funds is generally equal to or greater than for several other social service programs in which contracting occurs with nongovernmental organizations. Moreover, in four of the six states we visited, independent audits have identified deficiencies in state or local oversight of TANF contractors. However, HHS officials told us that they do not know the extent and nature of problems pertaining to the oversight of TANF contractors that state single audit reports have cited because HHS does not analyze these reports in such a comprehensive manner. This is due, in part, to HHS’s focus on those problems identified by single audit reports that involve unallowable or questionable costs. While such problems certainly warrant high priority, the result is that there is not adequate assurance that identified deficiencies pertaining to the monitoring of TANF contractors are being corrected in a strategic manner. Greater use of single audits as a program management tool by HHS would provide greater assurance that TANF contractors are being held accountable for the use of public funds. For example, HHS could use state audit reports more systematically in ways such as obtaining additional information about the extent to which nongovernmental TANF contractors are involved in the subrecipient monitoring deficiencies cited in these reports, identifying the most commonly reported types of deficiencies, and tracking how often the same deficiencies are cited recurrently for individual states. To facilitate improved oversight of TANF contractors by all levels of government, we recommend that the Secretary of HHS direct the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families to use state single audit reports in a more systematic manner to identify the extent and nature of problems related to state oversight of nongovernmental TANF contractors and determine what additional actions may be appropriate to help prevent and correct such problems. 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. Once we receive comments from HHS, the comments and our response will be incorporated in the final report. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you have any questions about this report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V. To identify the extent and nature of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) contracting, we conducted a national survey of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the10 counties with the largest federal TANF-funding allocations in each of the13 states that administer their TANF programs locally. Contracting for TANF-funded services occurs at different levels of government—the state, the local, or both—and data on TANF-funded contracts are maintained at various levels of government. We developed three survey instruments to accommodate these differences. The first survey instrument, which requested state data only, was sent to the 13 states that contract at both levels of government or locally only, but maintain data separately. For these 13 states, a second survey instrument, which requested data on contracts entered into at the local level, was sent to 10 counties that receive the largest TANF allocations in each of these 13 states to determine how much contracting takes place in their larger counties. The third survey instrument, which requested data on state-level and local-level contracts, was sent to the remaining 37 states and the District of Columbia (see app. II for this survey instrument). All three survey instruments were pretested with appropriate respondents in six states. In addition to obtaining data through our national survey, we also obtained data from HHS on federal TANF and state maintenance-of-effort funds for fiscal year 2000. We did not independently verify these data. The response rate for the survey instrument sent to the counties in the 13 states was 78 percent. The response rate for the remaining survey instruments sent to state governments was 100 percent. Since our survey did not cover all counties in the 13 states that contract for TANF services locally, the total number of TANF-funded contracts and their dollar value may be understated. In addition, eight states that maintain data on local- level contracting did not provide us with these data. We subsequently contacted survey respondents who had indicated that the determination of eligibility had been contracted out to confirm that this was for the TANF program and determine whether contractors determined eligibility for cash assistance or other TANF-funded services. To obtain information on approaches used by the federal government to oversee TANF contracting, we met with officials in HHS’s Administration for Children and Families in Washington, D.C., and conducted telephone interviews with staff in HHS regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. We also interviewed the director of HHS’s National External Audit Review Center to learn how the agency uses single audit reports to oversee procurement processes and contractor monitoring. In addition, we analyzed the single audit database and reviewed state single audit reports. To obtain information on approaches used by state and local governments to ensure compliance with bid solicitation and contract award requirements and to oversee contractor performance, we conducted site visits to California, the District of Columbia, Florida, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. We met with state TANF officials in these states. In addition, we met with procurement officers, contract managers, auditors, and private contractors in the following nine locations: Austin and Houston, Texas; the District of Columbia; Los Angeles County and San Diego County, California; Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and New York City, New York. We elected to visit these localities because they all serve a large portion of the TANF population and have at least one large contractor providing TANF-funded services. To obtain additional perspectives on TANF contracting, we interviewed representatives from government associations (American Public Human Services Association, Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties) and unions (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees at the national office and in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin). We also reviewed various audit reports for the state governments, local governments, and nonprofit contractors that we interviewed in the nine locations to determine whether auditors found instances of noncompliance with bid solicitation and contract award requirements or contract monitoring. In addition, we selected 7 TANF- funded contracts with nonprofit organizations and 10 TANF-funded contracts with for-profit organizations to obtain information on their contract structure, services provided, and other relevant information. Appendix III: Problems Cited with TANF Subrecipient Monitoring by State Single Audits, 1999 and 2000 2000 The state lacked procedures to ensure that subrecipient nonprofit organizations used TANF funds only for allowable purposes as required by TANF regulations. The state failed to inform nonprofit subrecipients of the source and amount of TANF funds they received. As a result, the state cannot provide assurance that nonprofit organizations are complying with federal requirements, including TANF requirements for allowable activities, allowable costs, and suspension and debarment of contractors. In some cases, the state did not provide subrecipients with information about the sources of federal funds they received. The lack of proper notification to subrecipients of federal award information increases the risk of the improper use and administration of federal funds. In some cases, the state did not notify subrecipients that the funding they received originated from TANF. The lack of proper notification to subrecipients of federal award information increases the risk of the improper use and administration of federal funds, including limited assurance that proper audits are conducted of those funds. The single audit report references a state inspector general report that identified inadequate state oversight of local workforce coalitions that administer TANF funds and inadequate procurement and cash management practices by the local coalitions. The state has not ensured that significant deficiencies related to electronic benefit transfer cards are corrected on a timely basis. The state did not issue monitoring reports to counties within a consistent timeframe. The 1999 finding on not notifying subrecipients of the federal funding sources from which they received funds was subsequently reported in 2000, including the associated risks reported in the prior year. The state did not provide information to some subrecipients on the sources of federal funds it distributed to them. The state did not provide this information because it initially considered the service providers to be vendors rather than subrecipients, and as such, the state did not believe it was necessary to notify the service providers of the federal award information. Failure to inform subrecipients of the federal award information could result in subrecipients improperly reporting expenditures of federal awards, expending federal funds for unallowable purposes, or not receiving a single audit in accordance with federal requirements. The state did not ensure that all nongovernmental contractors submitted their required audit reports or requested an extension. As a result, the state cannot be assured that subrecipients expended federal awards for their intended purpose and complied with federal requirements. 1999 a result, the state cannot be assured that subrecipients spent grant monies for their intended purpose and complied with federal requirements. The state continues to lack an adequate monitoring system to ensure that federal subrecipients and social services contractors are audited in accordance with federal, state, and department regulations. For the seventh consecutive year, the state does not have an adequate monitoring system to ensure that federal subrecipients and social services contractors are audited in accordance with federal, state, and department regulations. In addition, the audit identified $267,749 in questionable costs for TANF. For 35 percent of the contracts audited, the contract did not include required federal award information and information on applicable compliance requirements. The state cannot determine if all required audit reports are received and lacks review procedures to ensure that the information entered into the audit tracking system is accurate and complete. State policy and procedures relating to audit follow-up for subrecipient audits need to be revised to include current official policies. The state is not able to ensure the completeness or accuracy of its system for tracking the total amount of funds provided to subrecipients. The state’s internal control mechanisms did not provide for the proper identification, monitoring, and reporting of payments to all subrecipients. The state’s contract management database excludes several entities that received payments of federal funds. As a result, the state could not be assured that all entities receiving funds were identified as subrecipients, when appropriate, and monitored. In addition, self-certification of entities as subrecipients or vendors increases the risk that the state is not properly identifying and monitoring subrecipients.While OMB Circular A-133 requires states to monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts, the state agency did not have policies and procedures in place to monitor the activities of subrecipients. The state did not verify the amount of federal financial assistance expended by subrecipients, which should be done to determine which subrecipients require an audit. The state had not implemented an effective procedure for documenting the fiscal year-end for each new subrecipient. 2 of 15 subrecipients tested did not submit their 1998 audit reports in a timely manner, and the state did not perform follow up procedures in a timely manner. For 5 of 15 subrecipients tested, the state’s review of the audit reports was performed 6 months or more after the state received the reports. Without adequate control over the submission of audit reports and prompt follow-up of audit findings, noncompliance with federal regulations by subrecipients could occur and not be detected. 1999 Local offices of the state agency reported that they could not locate over 6 percent of the case files requested for detailed review. Without case files, adequate documentation is not available to verify the eligibility of clients and the appropriateness of benefits paid. The state did not properly monitor the federal funds expended by the Essex County Welfare Board for the Public Assistance Program. While an independent auditor issued a single audit report for Essex County, the audit excluded the Public Assistance Program because of the lack of internal controls related to some components of the program. Payments to public assistance recipients are made through an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system administered by a contractor, but EBT account activity has not been reconciled to the state’s automated system for the public assistance program. Eleven of the 58 local districts did not submit their single audit reports within the required 13-month period. The state did not maintain sufficient documentation to adequately monitor advance payments to, and expenditures of, contractors providing child care services. The state’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient audit reports were inadequate. Errors and omissions in reports on subrecipient expenditures went undetected. The state did not conduct expenditure reviews to ensure that amounts disclosed in subrecipient audit reports agreed with expenditure records maintained by the state. As reported in the prior audit, the state did not perform sufficient monitoring procedures to provide reasonable assurance that subrecipients administered federal awards in compliance with federal requirements. The reported problem remains unresolved, as the state did not provide reasonable assurance that services and assistance were provided to eligible families. Eleven of the 58 local districts did not submit their single audit reports within the required 13-month period. The state does not perform an adequate desk review of local districts’ single audit reports to ensure that submitted reports were performed in accordance with federal requirements. The state did not always perform or document a review of the counties’ eligibility determination process to provide reasonable assurance that services and assistance were provided to eligible families. The state did not always monitor to ensure that sanctions were imposed on TANF recipients who did not cooperate with the child support enforcement office. The state did not perform monitoring procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the counties used Social Services Block Grant funds for only eligible individuals and allowable service activities. 1999 The state’s fiscal and program monitoring of local workforce boards does not provide reasonable assurance that TANF funds are being spent appropriately. Current fiscal monitoring procedures are inconsistent and lack program-specific attributes. For example, state fiscal monitors generally do not compare a local workforce board’s funding allocation for specific programs to its subcontractor’s budget to ensure that the board is passing on the funds as required. Federal and state compliance is not ensured by the limited scope of reviews. The state conducted limited program monitoring of only 4 of 18 boards that had TANF contracts in place. No problems were cited. While the 2000 state single audit did not report monitoring problems, another state audit issued in March 2001 reported that local workforce boards still needed to make significant improvements in their contract monitoring. The audit reported that improvements are needed to ensure proper accounting for program funds, management of contracts with service providers, and achievement of data integrity. Not applicable. The following individuals made important contributions to this report: Barabara Alsip, Elizabeth Caplick, Mary Ellen Chervenic, Joel Grossman, Adam M. Roye, Susan Pachikara, Daniel Schwimer, and Suzanne Sterling. Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move TANF Recipients With Impairments Toward Employment. GAO-02-37. Washington, D.C.: 2001. Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: 2001. Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce. GAO/HEHS-01-368. Washington, D.C.: 2001. Welfare Reform: Progress in Meeting Work-Focused TANF Goals. GAO- 01-522T. Washington, D.C.: 2001. Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: 2000. Social Service Privatization: Ethics and Accountability Challenges in State Contracting. GAO/HEHS-99-41. Washington, D.C.: 1999. Social Service Privatization: Expansion Poses Challenges in Ensuring Accountability for Program Results. GAO/HEHS-98-6. Washington, D.C.: 1997. Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance. GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138. Washington, D.C.: 1997. Privatization: Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments. GAO/GGD-97-48. Washington, D.C.: 1997. Child Support Enforcement: Early Results on Comparability of Privatized and Public Offices. GAO/HEHS-97-4. Washington, D.C.: 1996. | The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 changed the nation's cash assistance program for needy families with children by replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. As specified in PRWORA, TANF's goals include ending the dependence of families receiving government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; preventing and reducing the incidence of non-marital pregnancies; and encouraging two-parent families. Contracting with nongovernmental entities to provide TANF-funded services occurs in most states and exceeded $1.5 billion in federal and state funds in 2001. A GAO survey indicated that the most commonly contracted services included education and training, job placement, and support services to promote job entry or retention. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) relies primarily on state single audit reports to oversee TANF contracting by states and localities. HHS officials told GAO that their regional offices follow up on the TANF deficiencies identified and that HHS focuses on reported deficiencies that involve unallowable or questionable costs. However, HHS officials said that they do not know the extent and nature of problems pertaining to the oversight of nongovernmental TANF contractors that have been cited in state single audits. State and local governments rely on third parties to help ensure compliance with bid solicitation and contract award procedures, including bid protests, judicial processes, and external audits. They use various approaches to oversee TANF contractors, but problems persist in contract oversight and contractor performance. |
During the storage and distribution of the billions of pounds of food consumed annually in the United States, some food is damaged or contaminated because of mishandling, accidents (e.g., fires, explosions, or truck and train accidents), or natural and man-made disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, or riots). Food that is adulterated or contaminated is generally destroyed. However, if the food is determined to be safe, it may be salvaged and “reconditioned” for consumption. Both FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are responsible for ensuring that all food shipped or received in interstate commerce is safe for consumption. FDA enters into contracts or initiates cooperative agreements with state authorities to inspect food manufacturers and warehouses, including operations to salvage food. According to FDA officials, state and local authorities are the most effective regulatory bodies for monitoring such operations because (1) FDA has no authority to place an embargo on hazardous food; (2) the states have intensive regulatory coverage of food warehouses and retail establishments, where most food salvaging operations occur; and (3) FDA has concentrated its resources on issues that pose a higher risk to public health, such as monitoring the blood supply and the safety of medical devices. USDA directly monitors meat and poultry salvaging operations using its own inspectors or designates states to perform inspections when they have inspection programs that meet requirements at least equal to federal laws. When a major disaster occurs, states may contact FDA and/or USDA field offices for assistance and advice. However, FDA’s operational procedures state that in unusual circumstances, such as those involving the interstate movement of merchandise or areas in which state or local political ramifications are anticipated, FDA may assume the primary role in overseeing salvaging operations. On December 28, 1991, a major disaster occurred when a fire began in a storage cave of approximately 100 acres owned by Americold Services Corporation in Kansas City, Kansas. This man-made limestone cave is the largest underground food storage facility in the world, with freezers, coolers, and dry storage areas accessible by truck and rail. Figure 1 shows the layout of the Americold cave, including the location of the fire. When the fire began, about 245 million pounds of food was stored in the cave. Of that amount, about 159 million pounds was owned by about 110 private food companies; USDA owned the remaining 86 million pounds. The products stored in the cave included dry milk, cheese, butter, fruit, nuts, and other dry goods, as well as canned and frozen meats, vegetables, and fruits. The fire started in an area of the cave containing grocery items, including cleaning compounds, pesticides, paper goods, and cooking oil. The fire reached temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit and, despite continuous fire-fighting efforts, burned for about 2 months. (See fig. 2.) The fire was confined to one section of the cave, but smoke flowed throughout the cave, exposing food to smoke residue for a prolonged period. According to FDA, this event was unique in that no other fire had involved such a large quantity of food that was exposed to smoke for such a long time. Following the fire, the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE) met with FDA and other federal, state, and local agencies to determine a course of action for protecting the public health and supervising the salvaging operations. It was decided that KDHE should take the lead in overseeing the salvaging, with assistance from FDA’s district office in Kansas City. Such an arrangement is typical in routine salvaging operations. According to FDA’s records, contaminants found in the air and on surfaces in the cave included toluene, benzene, and phenol—substances cited by the Environmental Protection Agency as being carcinogenic and causing genetic changes and mutations. Because of the potential risk to public health from these contaminants, KDHE, with advice from FDA, placed an embargo on all of the stored food. The embargo was to continue until the owners of the food presented KDHE with evidence, based on laboratory analysis, that the food was suitable for consumption. In many instances, ownership of the food transferred to insurance companies and, ultimately, to food salvagers. The insurers and salvagers were eager to begin salvaging operations and, according to KDHE officials, placed pressure on KDHE to release the food. The salvaging operations began almost immediately and continued for over 2 years. Table 1 summarizes the final disposition of the food stored in the cave. Over 143 million pounds of food was sent to landfills to be destroyed, and about 102 million pounds was released for reconditioning and consumption. Most of the 102 million pounds of food salvaged from the fire was released to the public with little apparent controversy. However, in December 1993, about 2 years after the fire began, a series of articles in the Kansas City Star raised questions about the release of food to a Minnesota food salvager. About 3.7 million pounds of food was shipped to this salvager, and all but about 100,000 pounds was eventually sold to the public. Appendix I provides a chronology of the key events in the release of the food to this salvager. Our review of food salvaging activities following the fire—particularly those involving the shipment of food to Minnesota—found two problems from which lessons can be learned to improve future salvaging operations. First, FDA did not adequately share information with KDHE about past problems it had experienced with a food owner’s consultant and his laboratories. This consultant’s laboratory test results were used to demonstrate to KDHE the safety of food later released to the public. Second, FDA did not communicate its guidance on food sampling to the KDHE officials responsible for overseeing the salvaging operations. FDA relies on such guidance internally to ensure the integrity of analytical data from private laboratories. Both of these problems suggest the need for FDA to be more proactive in helping states manage food salvaging following major disasters. KDHE allowed several million pounds of food salvaged from the Americold fire to be sent to Minnesota on the basis of laboratory results submitted by a consultant to one of the food owners. KDHE officials subsequently learned from FDA that this consultant and his laboratories had been under investigation by FDA and that two of his laboratories were on FDA’s “nonacceptance” list. However, FDA did not provide this information in a timely manner either to its Kansas City District Office or to the KDHE investigators overseeing the salvaging of the food. In April 1992, KDHE asked FDA’s Kansas City District Office for advice on the consultant’s plans for sampling and testing food that had been stored in the Americold cave. The consultant had been hired by a food owner to sample and test the food for chemical and smoke residues. FDA’s district office raised several concerns about the consultant’s plans. However, it provided no information to KDHE about the past performance of the consultant or his laboratories. This information was known within FDA but was not shared with the FDA investigator advising KDHE. FDA’s Division of Field Science in Washington, D.C., maintains and periodically distributes to FDA district offices a “nonacceptance” list of some private laboratories. According to FDA officials, the list provides information about private laboratories that at least one FDA district office has found to be unacceptable for performing certain or all analytical tests. FDA’s district offices may use this information in deciding whether to accept or reject analyses from a particular laboratory. Much of this information is based on enforcement activities in FDA’s program for monitoring imported food. FDA’s information indicated that two of the consultant’s laboratories were unacceptable for performing any analyses. The investigator from FDA’s district office said that he was unaware that such a list existed until June 13, 1992, when he learned of it from a visiting FDA scientist. A month later, he advised KDHE not to accept test results from the consultant’s laboratories. However, the consultant informed KDHE that the analyses were being performed by another laboratory that KDHE, on the basis of discussions with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, had determined to be reputable. This laboratory was not affiliated with the consultant. On the basis of this information and subsequent laboratory results indicating that the tested food was not contaminated, KDHE allowed the food to be shipped, under embargo, to a Minnesota salvager. KDHE officials later learned from FDA that the consultant himself was the subject of an ongoing FDA investigation concerning the falsification of laboratory data. They said that if they had known this earlier, they would not have allowed the food to be shipped to Minnesota. After the food shipments to Minnesota began, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture asked FDA to test a truckload of cheese. Minnesota state food inspectors were concerned because the containers were covered with dust and smelled of smoke. FDA’s test results showed that some hazardous chemicals, including toluene, were present in the cheese. However, according to an FDA official, the levels of chemicals found did not pose a health hazard. The remaining food held by the salvager was retested by a private laboratory, judged to be safe for consumption, and eventually sold to the public. Officials from KDHE and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture told us that no illnesses have been attributed to this food. FDA has published guidance on food sampling to ensure the credibility, accuracy, and reliability of analytical data from private laboratories. This guidance, which primarily concerns FDA’s regulation of imported foods, was provided to KDHE’s state laboratory but not to the KDHE officials managing the food salvaging operations. The food sampling processes KDHE used in the salvaging operations following the fire lacked some important controls, thereby creating the risk that unsafe food might be released to the public. For example, food owners selected food samples without a KDHE official or other disinterested third party present. In addition, the consultant discussed earlier maintained control over food samples that were to be tested for chemical residues. Although it has no legislative regulatory authority over private laboratories, FDA has internal guidance to help ensure that laboratories performing analyses of FDA-regulated commodities submit scientifically sound data. In March 1992, FDA provided Kansas with its Laboratory Procedures Manual, which spells out recommended sampling controls that FDA uses in monitoring imported foods. Among other things, the guidance recommends that scientific data supplied by private laboratories be obtained by using sound methods of sampling and analysis and that sampling be performed by a disinterested, objective third party. The KDHE officials responsible for overseeing the food salvaging operations said, however, that they were not aware of this guidance because it had been provided only to KDHE’s state laboratory. They also noted that the FDA officials assisting them had not brought this guidance to their attention. They said that if they had been aware of the guidance, they would have required all food owners to hire a disinterested third party to perform food sampling and ensured that the chain of custody over food samples was secured. In discussing FDA’s participation in overseeing the salvaging activities following the Americold fire, FDA officials said they viewed their role as limited to that of a consultant. According to one FDA official, FDA’s role was limited to providing information to KDHE when requested, and FDA was not to anticipate what issues needed to be addressed. KDHE had to make decisions about the release of potentially contaminated food under stressful conditions, including pressure from food owners to expeditiously release the food for salvaging. KDHE relied on FDA, which has considerable experience in dealing with food safety issues, for advice and guidance. However, although the Americold fire was a major disaster with potentially serious consequences resulting from the release of improperly tested food, FDA continued to view its role as that of a consultant— primarily responding to specific requests from KDHE for advice. Such an interpretation may be appropriate for routine salvaging activities; however, this was not a routine operation. Over the years, FDA has developed considerable nationwide experience and expertise in food safety. We believe that in future disasters of this magnitude, in which so much is at stake and improper decisions can adversely affect food safety, FDA should proactively draw upon this expertise and provide stronger leadership in working with states to maintain the safety of the food supply. We recommend that FDA more actively assist states in managing food salvaging operations following major disasters. At a minimum, FDA should ensure that (1) the information it has about private food testing laboratories and key personnel is communicated to state officials responsible for monitoring food salvaging operations after a major disaster and (2) these state officials are made aware of FDA’s guidance for maintaining the integrity of the food sampling process. In commenting on a draft of this report, FDA disagreed with our conclusions and recommendations. FDA described the assistance it provided KDHE and said it had worked very closely with KDHE officials to ensure that the public health was protected and that unsafe food did not reach consumers. FDA stated that following a series of meetings, it was agreed that KDHE was the agency most suited to take the lead in the day-to-day supervision of the salvaging operations and that FDA’s Kansas City District Office would support KDHE in any way required. Overall, FDA said it believed its actions in assisting KDHE were correct and appropriate. With regard to our first recommendation, FDA stated that it would be inappropriate to routinely distribute its “nonacceptance” list of private laboratories to states, noting that (1) FDA does not have a regulatory mechanism for declaring a laboratory or analyst unacceptable, (2) the list could be misconstrued and used inappropriately, and (3) more aggressive distribution of the list could jeopardize FDA’s ability to maintain and internally disseminate information about the laboratories’ performance. With regard to our second recommendation—ensuring that appropriate state officials are made aware of FDA’s guidance on food sampling—FDA said it had provided KDHE with this guidance. FDA maintained that it is the state agency’s responsibility to ensure that individual employees receive copies of pertinent FDA documents. We recognize that FDA supported KDHE in dealing with the salvaging operations subsequent to the Americold fire and have added information to the report to more fully describe the nature of that assistance. However, we continue to believe that lessons learned from the Americold experience can make FDA’s support more effective in future disasters—the overall lesson being that FDA needs to provide stronger, more proactive leadership in assisting states in the aftermath of major disasters. Our report notes that KDHE took the lead in overseeing salvaging operations, with FDA’s Kansas City District Office acting in a consultant’s role—primarily responding to requests from KDHE for assistance—and that such an arrangement was typical in routine salvaging operations. However, the Americold fire and the subsequent salvaging operations were not routine. As FDA itself noted, “this event was unique in that no other fire has involved such a large quantity of food that was exposed to smoke for such a prolonged period of time.” It may be appropriate, in routine circumstances, for FDA to wait until states seek advisory information from it. However, in major disasters, we believe that FDA needs to draw upon its nationwide experience and expertise in food safety and more proactively provide relevant information to state officials responsible for dealing with such an event. Regarding our recommendation that FDA share with states information about private laboratories and key personnel, we recognize that FDA’s “nonacceptance” list is not intended to be a means of certifying a laboratory or declaring it unacceptable and that FDA believes it has no regulatory authority to do so. Furthermore, we understand FDA’s concern that aggressive dissemination of the list could result in inappropriate use of the information on it. Nevertheless, as discussed in our report, the list may contain information of great relevance to state officials making critical decisions affecting the safety of the food supply. To balance the risk of further disseminating FDA’s list with that of withholding potentially important information on it, we have worded our recommendation to say that following major disasters, FDA should communicate information it has about private food testing laboratories and key personnel to state officials responsible for monitoring food salvaging operations. Thus, we are not recommending that the list itself be disseminated, but rather information on the list as well as any other relevant information about the performance of laboratories and key personnel. The form in which FDA wishes to convey this information, as well as any caveats attached to it, is left to FDA’s discretion. Under these circumscribed conditions, we believe that FDA can maintain adequate control over the information to ensure that it is not inappropriately used. With regard to our second recommendation concerning communicating FDA’s guidance on food sampling to appropriate state officials, FDA explained that it had provided its Laboratory Procedures Manual, containing guidance on food sampling controls, to KDHE’s state laboratory, which was not directly involved in food salvaging following the Americold fire. The KDHE officials who were overseeing the salvaging operations were unaware of this guidance, and FDA did not bring it to their attention. We believe that FDA officials assisting states in major disasters should take the initiative to ensure that state officials who are managing the food salvaging operations be made aware of key FDA guidance, such as that pertaining to the food sampling process. Appendix II contains the complete text of FDA’s comments, along with our responses. To obtain information on the food salvaging that occurred after the Americold fire and to identify the lessons learned, we interviewed FDA officials in Washington, D.C., Kansas, and Minnesota; USDA officials in Washington, D.C., and Kansas; and state health officials in Kansas and Minnesota. In addition, we interviewed a food salvager located in Minnesota. We reviewed FDA, USDA, and state records on the Americold fire at the locations listed above. We also reviewed laws and regulations applicable to food salvaging. We conducted our review from June 1994 through January 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies to the appropriate agency heads and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. The owner of 3.7 million pounds of food hired a consultant to sample and test the food to determine if it could be salvaged. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture agreed to accept food shipped under Kansas’s embargo to a Minnesota salvager. FDA’s Kansas City District Office notified KDHE that the consultant’s laboratories were on FDA’s “nonacceptance” list and advised KDHE not to accept their results. KDHE agreed to accept laboratory results from the consultant after he told them that another laboratory had performed the analyses. KDHE began allowing food shipments to a Minnesota salvager under KDHE’s embargo after the laboratory results showed that the food was safe for human consumption. KDHE recommended that Minnesota’s Department of Agriculture perform organoleptic (sight, smell, taste) evaluations when the food arrived and agreed to lift the embargo upon the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s recommendation. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture placed a voluntary hold on a cheese shipment and asked FDA to test the cheese. However, the salvager sold the cheese before the laboratory results arrived. FDA’s laboratory results showed that the cheese had contained small amounts of chemicals, including toluene. FDA determined that the chemical levels were not sufficient to warrant action to seize the food. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture required the Minnesota food salvager to retest all the food from Kansas still in storage. The retested food was judged safe for human consumption. No illnesses have been attributed to the food shipped to the Minnesota salvager. The following are GAO’s comments on the Food and Drug Administration’s letter dated January 12, 1995. 1. FDA said the primary purpose of the “nonacceptance” list is to assist the agency’s district offices in reviewing analyses submitted to demonstrate whether products offered for import meet FDA’s requirements. FDA stated that many district offices have little involvement in decisions about imported products and therefore have little reason to become familiar with the list. We believe that individuals located in district offices, regardless of whether they are responsible for domestic or imported commodities, have reason to become familiar with the list, particularly when advising state agencies that may be using these same laboratories and analysts. Furthermore, FDA’s guidance was updated in June 1994 so that laboratories and analysts who have submitted unacceptable analysis for both domestic and imported commodities are included on the list. Therefore, we made no changes to the report. 2. FDA’s Kansas City District Office advised KDHE, on July 13, 1992, not to accept results from the consultant’s laboratories but did not provide information about the consultant’s past performance. KDHE subsequently learned that the consultant had been under investigation for submitting false testing data to FDA. We have changed the chronology to show the date that KDHE was notified about the consultant’s laboratories. 3. Food was shipped to the Minnesota salvager on the basis of laboratory results presented to KDHE, not the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, as stated in FDA’s comments. 4. Our report recognizes that no illnesses have been attributed to consuming food from the cave fire. However, we have no evidence to support FDA’s claim that no dangerous products were consumed, nor have we been provided with test results showing that residue levels did not exceed levels of the same chemicals found in similar food that had not been exposed to the fire. FDA officials told us that they performed laboratory analysis on only two samples of food and did not perform the sampling and testing required by FDA’s own procedures to ensure that the entire lot of food was safe for consumption. The food was sold by the salvager before the tests were completed. 5. GAO visited another FDA office to determine whether food salvaging had occurred following the 1993 Midwest flood. FDA noted that GAO found no deficiencies in FDA’s activities, which, it said, were generally similar to those following the Americold fire. We visited an FDA office in the area affected by the flood and were informed that no salvaging requiring the use of private food testing laboratories was performed. Therefore, this event was not similar to the Americold fire. We did not revise the report. 6. FDA stated that our draft report implied that FDA’s Kansas City District Office did not impress upon KDHE that the consultant was not acceptable and notes that both FDA’s district office and KDHE had ample reason early on to question the consultant’s capability. We continue to believe that FDA did not adequately share information about the consultant’s past performance. While the district office raised questions about the consultant’s sampling and testing plan, it provided no information to KDHE reflecting its concerns about the consultant’s past performance. This information was available elsewhere within FDA, but was not shared with the district office officials who were advising KDHE. In fact, KDHE officials later learned that the consultant was the subject of an ongoing FDA investigation. They said that had they known this earlier, they would not have allowed food to be shipped to the Minnesota salvager. We did not revise the report. 7. FDA contends that KDHE officials are familiar with proper techniques for collecting and safeguarding samples. KDHE officials agreed that this is true for samples collected by their own food inspectors. However, they said that they rarely use private laboratories in their routine food inspection activities and that FDA has much more experience in dealing with private laboratories. We have recommended in our report that following major disasters, FDA ensure that state officials responsible for overseeing food salvaging operations are made aware of FDA’s guidance for maintaining the integrity of the food sampling process. 8. Our report acknowledges that FDA’s guidance on third-party sampling is a recommendation, not a requirement. However, KDHE officials said that had they known of FDA’s guidance, they would have required all food owners to hire a disinterested third party to perform food sampling and ensure that the chain of custody over food samples was secured. 9. We have added this sentence to the background section of our report. 10. We agreed with this comment and removed the word “health.” 11. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 12. According to FDA’s Investigations Operations Manual, subchapter 940, paragraph 942, “Except in unusual circumstances, FDA responsibilities are to assist the state and local health agencies in removing, destroying or reconditioning affected merchandise. In situations involving interstate movement of merchandise; large interstate firms; areas in which state or local political ramifications are anticipated; or when state or local health officials so request; FDA may assume the primary role in the operation.” We included this statement to show that in major disasters, FDA may take on a stronger leadership role if it chooses to do so. We do not say, nor do we mean to imply, that KDHE was in any way influenced by political ramifications. 13. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 14. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 15. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 16. We believe that the Americold fire—an event that FDA described as “unique in that no other fire has involved such a large quantity of food that was exposed to smoke for such a prolonged period of time” and that resulted in the destruction of over 143 million pounds of food—can appropriately be described as a major disaster. Similarly, we do not question the fact that FDA supported KDHE. However, we believe that its support could have been more effective had it provided stronger, more proactive leadership. 17. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. Alan R. Kasdan, Assistant General Counsel The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the events surrounding a fire at a food storage warehouse in Kansas, focusing on the: (1) disposition of food salvaged from the facility; and (2) lessons learned from the incident that could be used to improve regulation of the food salvaging industry. GAO found that: (1) over half of the affected food was destroyed and the remaining 102 million pounds of food was released to the public after Kansas determined its salvageability; (2) about 3.7 million pounds of food was shipped to a salvager on the basis of laboratory results furnished by a consultant who was under investigation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); (3) although no illnesses were attributed to the food salvaged from the Kansas fire, potential public health risks were increased by shortcomings in FDA regulation of salvaged food; (4) FDA did not share important information with Kansas regarding its past problems with the consultant and his laboratories; and (5) FDA did not provide Kansas with guidance on food sampling controls that would have been useful in its oversight of the salvaging. |
Protections for workers in the United States were enacted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established three basic rights in American labor law: a minimum wage for industrial workers that applied throughout the United States; the principle of the 40-hour week, with time- and-a-half pay for overtime; and a minimum working age for most occupations. Since 1938, the act has been amended several times, but the essentials remain. For many years, the act (combined with federal and state legislation regarding worker health and safety) was thought to have played a major role in eliminating sweatshops in the United States. However, we reported on the “widespread existence” of sweatshops within the United States in the 1980s and 1990s. Subsequent to our work, in August 1995, the Department of Labor and the California Department of Industrial Relations raided a garment factory in El Monte, California, and found sweatshop working conditions—workers were confined behind razor wire fences and forced to work 20 hours a day for 70 cents an hour. Leading retailers were found to have sold clothes made at this factory. According to the National Retail Federation, an industry trade association, the El Monte raid provoked a public outcry and galvanized the U.S. government’s efforts against sweatshops. Concern in the United States about sweatshops has spread from its shores to the overseas factories that supply goods for U.S. businesses and the military exchanges. With globalization, certain labor-intensive activities, such as clothing assembly, have migrated to low-wage countries that not only provide needed employment in those countries but also provide an opportunity for U.S. businesses to profit from manufacturing goods abroad and for consumers to benefit from an increasing array of quality products at low cost. Various labor issues (such as child labor, forced overtime work, workplace health and safety, and unionization) have emerged at these factories. In May 2000, for example, the Chentex factory in Nicaragua—which produces much of the Army and Air Force exchange’s private label jeans and denim product—interfered in a wage dispute involving two labor groups, firing the union leaders of one of the groups. Subsequently, much publicity ensued over working conditions at this factory. International labor rights were defined in the Trade Act of 1974 as the right of association; the right to organize and bargain collectively; a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of children; and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. As globalization progressed, U.S. government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industry associations, retailers, and other private organizations began addressing worker rights issues in overseas factories. For example, the International Labor Organization, a United Nations specialized agency that formulates international policies and programs to help improve working and living conditions, has endorsed four international labor principles: (1) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, (2) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, (3) the effective abolition of child labor, and (4) the elimination of discrimination in employment. Appendix II provides additional information on governmental agencies’, nongovernmental organizations’, and industry associations’ efforts to address worker rights in overseas factories. The military exchanges are separate, self-supporting instrumentalities of the United States located within the Department of Defense (DOD). The Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation supplement, and component supplements do not apply to the merchandise purchased by the exchanges and sold in their retail stores, since the purchases are not made with appropriated funds. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) is responsible for establishing uniform policies for the military exchanges’ operations. The exchanges are managed by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), the largest exchange, and by the Navy Exchange Service Command (Navy Exchange) and Marine Corps Community Services (Marine Corps Exchange). The exchanges operate retail stores similar to department stores selling apparel, footwear, household appliances, jewelry, cosmetics, food, and other merchandise. For the past several years, about 70 percent of the exchanges’ earnings from these sales revenues were allocated to morale, welfare, and recreation activities— libraries, sports programs, swimming pools, youth activities, tickets and tour services, bowling centers, hobby shops, music programs, outdoor facilities, and other quality of life improvements for military personnel and their families—and about 30 percent to new exchange facilities and related capital projects. The number of retail locations and the annual revenues and earnings reported by the exchange services for 1999 and 2000 are shown in table 1. The exchanges have created private label products, which generally carry their own name or a name created exclusively for the exchange. The exchanges began creating private labels in the mid-1980s to provide lower prices for customers, to obtain higher earnings margins for the exchanges, and to remain competitive with major discount retailers. Private labels are profitable for retailers because their costs do not include marketing, product development, or advertising, which are used by companies to position national brands in the marketplace and to maintain the market share. In 2000, AAFES reported purchases of $44.8 million in private label merchandise from overseas companies, and the Navy Exchange reported purchases of $11.6 million in private label merchandise from importers.The Marine Corps Exchange only recently created its private label and did not purchase any private label merchandise from importers or overseas companies in 2000, but it reported purchases of about $350,000 of AAFES’ and the Navy Exchange’s private label merchandise for resale in its stores. The private label goods sold by the military exchanges are shown in table 2. The retailers we contacted in the private sector are more proactive about identifying working conditions than the military exchanges. They periodically requested that suppliers provide a list of overseas factories and subcontractors that they used to make the retailers’ private label merchandise, administered questionnaires on working conditions, visited factories, and researched labor issues in the countries where prospective factories are located. The military exchanges largely rely on their suppliers to identify and address working conditions in overseas factories that manufacture the exchanges’ private label merchandise. The exchanges generally did not maintain the names and locations of the relevant overseas factories. The exchanges assumed that their suppliers and other U.S. government agencies, such as U.S. Customs Service, ensured that labor laws and regulations that address working conditions and minimum wages were followed. The 10 leading private sector retailers we contacted are more active in identifying working conditions than the military exchanges for a variety of reasons, ranging from a sense of social responsibility to pressure from outside groups and a desire to protect the reputation of their companies’ product lines. These retailers periodically requested that overseas suppliers provide a list of factories and subcontractors that they used to make the retailers’ private label merchandise. Some retailers we contacted terminated a business relationship with suppliers that used a factory without disclosing it to the retailers. For example, JCPenney’s purchase contracts stipulate that failure by a supplier or one of its contractors to identify its factories and subcontractors may result in JCPenney’s taking the following actions: seeking compensation for any resulting expense or loss, suspending current business activity, canceling outstanding orders, prohibiting the supplier’s subsequent use of the factory, or terminating the relationship with the supplier. JCPenney officials told us that they have terminated suppliers for using unauthorized subcontractors. Some retailers that we interviewed, such as The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., JCPenney, and Liz Claiborne, Inc., developed a company questionnaire, which they had factory management complete. The questionnaire addressed health and safety issues and whether U.S. or foreign government agencies had investigated the factory. The retailers used the questionnaire to provide factories with feedback on their compliance with the retailers’ standards and for the retailer to provide the factory an opportunity to make improvements in working conditions before an inspection. The representatives of these retailers told us that they visited factories to verify the accuracy of the factories’ answers to the questionnaire before ordering merchandise. Each of the 10 retailers we contacted told us they also used information on human rights issues that was either developed internally or was available from government agencies and nongovernmental organizations to assess labor issues in the countries where the factories are located. This included the Department of State’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (a legislatively mandated report to Congress that covers worker rights issues in 194 countries), which the retailers frequently cited as a source for identifying labor issues in a particular country. Most retailers also used information obtained from the United Nations; U.S. Department of State; U.S. Customs Service; U.S. Department of Labor; and nongovernmental organizations, such as Amnesty International. The retailers we contacted used this information in their assessments of suppliers to avoid business arrangements with factories in areas with a higher risk of labor abuses. In addition, some of the retailers told us that their decisions to buy merchandise made in a particular country sometimes depended on whether they could improve factory conditions in a country. For example, companies such as Levi Strauss & Co. used only those Chinese factories that corrected problem conditions, an approach supported by the officials we met at the Departments of State and Labor. The military exchanges’ methods for identifying working conditions in overseas factories that manufacture their private label merchandise are not as proactive as the methods employed by companies in the private sector. Only the Army and Air Force Exchange knew the identity of the factories that manufactured its private label merchandise, and none of the exchanges knew the nature of working conditions in these factories. Instead, they assumed that their suppliers and other government agencies ensured good working conditions. While the exchanges have sent letters to some suppliers describing their expectations of compliance with labor laws and regulations that address working conditions and minimum wages in individual countries, they have not taken steps to verify that overseas factories are in compliance or otherwise acted to determine the status of employee working conditions; instead, they assumed that their suppliers and other government agencies ensured good working conditions. For example, the Navy Exchange and the Marine Corps Exchange do not routinely maintain the name and location of the overseas factories that manufactured their merchandise because they rely on brokers and importers to acquire the merchandise from the overseas factories. The AAFES Retail Business Agreement requires suppliers to promptly provide subcontractors’ name and manufacturing sites upon request. But because it had no program to address working conditions in overseas factories, AAFES has not requested this information, except for the suppliers it used for its private label apparel, and then only to check on the quality of the merchandise being manufactured. AAFES’ records show that in fiscal year 2000, its private label apparel was manufactured in 70 factories in 18 countries and territories, as shown in table 3. In some cases, the exchanges’ private label merchandise was manufactured in countries that have been condemned internationally for their human rights and worker rights violations. For example, at 9 of the 10 retailers we contacted, officials told us that they had ceased purchasing from Myanmar (formerly Burma) in the 1990s because of reports of human rights abuses documented by governmental bodies, nongovernmental organizations, and the news media; at one retailer we contacted, officials told us that they had ceased purchasing from Myanmar in 2000 for the same reasons. In contrast, during 2001, each exchange purchased private label apparel made in Myanmar. For the most part, the exchanges assume compliance with laws and regulations that address child or forced labor in the countries where their factories are located instead of determining compliance. In 1996, for example, following the much publicized El Monte, California, sweatshop incident, the Navy Exchange notified all of its suppliers by letter that it expected its merchandise to be manufactured without child or forced labor and under safe conditions in the workplace, but it did not attempt to determine whether these suppliers and their overseas factories were willing and able to meet these expectations. The Navy Exchange and Marine Corps Exchange relied solely on their suppliers to address working conditions in the factories. Similarly, AAFES’ management officials told us that they assumed that their suppliers were in compliance with applicable laws and regulations by virtue of their having accepted an AAFES purchase order. According to these management officials, when suppliers accept a purchase order, they certify that they are complying with their Retail Business Agreement. This agreement, distributed by letter to all suppliers in 1997, states that by supplying merchandise to AAFES, the supplier guarantees that it—along with its subcontractors—has complied with all labor laws and regulations governing the manufacture, sale, packing, shipment, and delivery of merchandise in the countries where the factories are located. According to AAFES officials, an AAFES contracting officer and a representative of the supplier are to sign the agreement. We reviewed the contracting arrangements between AAFES and nine of its suppliers of private label merchandise. Only four of the nine suppliers had signed the AAFES Business Agreement. AAFES management officials also told us that they rely on the reputation of their suppliers for assurance that overseas factories are in compliance with its business agreements. For example, these officials told us that they use only the overseas suppliers that have existing business relationships with other major U.S. retailers. The officials also stated that since many of these private retailers have developed and are using their own program to address working conditions in their overseas factories, the use of the same suppliers provided some degree of confidence that the suppliers are working within the laws of the host nation. However, some retailers we contacted said their programs addressed factory conditions only for the period that the factories were manufacturing the retailer’s merchandise and that the factories did not have to follow their program when they were manufacturing merchandise for another company. AAFES management officials also told us that they rely on the U.S. Customs Service to catch imported products that are manufactured under abusive working conditions. However, the Customs officials we interviewed told us that their agency encourages companies to be aware of the working conditions in supplier factories to further reduce their risk of becoming engaged in an import transaction involving merchandise produced with forced or indentured child labor. According to the Customs’ officials, the military exchanges—like retailers—are responsible for assuring that their merchandise is not produced with child or forced labor. A single industry standard for adequate working conditions does not exist, and the retailers we contacted did not believe that such a standard was practical because each company must address different needs, depending on the size of its operations, the various locations where its merchandise is produced, and the labor laws that apply in different countries. However, each of the retailers that we contacted had taken three key steps that could serve as a framework for the exchanges in promoting compliance with local labor laws and regulations in overseas factories. They involve (1) developing codes of conduct for overseas suppliers; (2) implementing their codes of conduct by disseminating expectations to their purchasing staff, suppliers, and factory employees; and (3) monitoring to better ensure compliance. The three steps taken by the retailers vary in scope and rigor, and they are evolving. We did not independently evaluate the effectiveness of these retailers’ efforts, but the retailers’ representatives told us that although situations could occur in which their codes of conduct are not followed, they believed that these steps provided an important framework for ensuring due diligence and helped to better assure fair and safe working conditions. The government agencies we visited and the International Labor Organization also recognized these three steps as key program elements and expressed a willingness to assist the exchanges in shaping a program to assure that child or forced labor was not used to produce their private label merchandise. Representatives of the 10 retailers we contacted believed that the three steps they have taken—developing codes of conduct for overseas suppliers; implementing their codes of conduct by disseminating expectations to their purchasing staff, suppliers, and factory employees; and monitoring to better ensure compliance—provide due diligence as well as a mechanism to address and improve working conditions in overseas factories. For example, officials at Levi Strauss & Co. told us that after they refused to do business with a prospective supplier in India because the supplier’s factory had wage violations and health and safety conditions that did not meet Levi Strauss & Co.’s guidelines, the supplier made improvements and requested a reassessment 4 months later. According to Levi Strauss & Co., the reassessment showed that the supplier had corrected wage violations and met health and safety standards. In addition, employee morale had also improved, as indicated by lower turnover, improved product quality, and higher efficiency at the factory. In 1991, Levi Strauss & Co. became the first multinational company to establish a code of conduct to convey its policies on working conditions in supplier factories, and subsequently such codes were widely adopted by retailers. According to the Department of Labor, U.S. companies have adopted codes of conduct for a variety of reasons, ranging from a sense of social responsibility to pressure from competitors, labor unions, the media, consumer groups, shareholders, and worker rights advocates. In addition, allegations that a company’s operations exploit children or violate other labor standards put sales—which depend heavily on brand image and consumer goodwill—at risk and could nullify the hundreds of millions of dollars a company spends on advertising. According to Business for Social Responsibility, a nongovernmental organization that provides assistance for companies developing and implementing corporate codes of conduct, adopting and enforcing a code of conduct can be beneficial for retailers because it can strengthen legal compliance in foreign countries, enhance corporate reputation/brand image, reduce the risk of negative publicity, increase quality and productivity, and improve business relationships. “when notified by the U.S. Department of Labor or any state or foreign government, or after determining upon its own inspection that a supplier or its subcontractor has committed a serious violation of law relating to child or forced labor or unsafe working conditions, Federated will immediately suspend all shipments of merchandise from that factory and will discontinue further business with the supplier.” An official from Federated Department Stores, Inc., said that the company would demand that the supplier factory institute the monitoring programs necessary to ensure compliance with its code of conduct prior to the resumption of any business dealings with that supplier. A variety of monitoring organizations, colleges, universities, and nongovernmental organizations have codes of conduct, and codes of conduct have now been widely adopted by the private sector. The International Labor Organization’s Business and Social Initiatives Database includes codes of conduct for about 600 companies. While the military exchanges’ core values oppose the use of child or forced labor to manufacture their merchandise, the military exchanges do not have codes of conduct articulating their views. Examples of Internet Web sites with codes of conduct are included in appendix III. Although retailers in the private sector implement their codes of conduct in various ways, officials of the retailers we contacted told us that they generally train their buying agents and quality assurance employees on their codes of conduct to ensure that staff at all stages in the purchasing process are aware of their company’s code. For example, an official at Levi Strauss & Co. stated that his company continually educates its employees, including merchandisers, contract managers, general managers in source countries, and other personnel at every level of the organization during the year. Officials of the retailers we contacted told us they also have distributed copies of their codes of conduct to their domestic and international suppliers and provided them with training on how to comply with the code. In addition, some retailers required suppliers to post codes of conduct and other sources of labor information in their factories in the workers’ native language. For example, The Walt Disney Company has translated its code of conduct into 50 different languages and requires each of its suppliers to post the codes in factories in the appropriate local language. Retailers such as Liz Claiborne, Inc., and Levi Strauss & Co. also work with local human rights organizations to make sure that workers understand and are familiar with their codes of conduct. Some retailers dedicate staff solely to implementing a code of conduct, while other retailers assign these duties to various departments—such as compliance, quality assurance, legal affairs, purchasing agents, and government affairs—as a collateral responsibility. Executives and officials from the retailers we contacted stated that the successful implementation of a code of conduct requires the involvement of departments throughout the supply chain, both internally and externally (including supplier and subcontractor factories). They also stated that the involvement of senior executives is critical because they provide an institutional emphasis that helps to ensure that the code of conduct is integrated throughout the various internal departments of the company. To help ensure that suppliers’ factories are in compliance with their codes of conduct, the retailers we contacted have used a variety of monitoring efforts. Retailer officials told us that the extent of monitoring varies and can involve internal monitoring, in which the company uses its own employees to inspect the factories; external monitoring, in which the company contracts with an outside firm or organization to inspect the factories; or a combination of both. The various forms of monitoring involve the visual inspection of factories for health and safety violations; interviewing management to understand workplace policies; reviewing wage, hour, age, and other records for completeness and accuracy; and interviewing workers to verify workplace policies and practices. The 10 retail companies we contacted did not provide a precise cost for their internal and external monitoring programs, but a representative of Business for Social Responsibility estimated that monitoring costs ranged from $250,000 to $15 million a year. Some retailers suggested that the military exchanges could minimize costs by joining together to conduct monitoring, particularly in situations where the exchanges are purchasing merchandise manufactured at the same factories. Companies that rely on internal monitoring use their own staff to monitor the extent to which supplier factories adhere to company policies and standards. According to an official with the National Retail Federation, the world’s largest retail trade association, retailers generally prefer internal monitoring because it provides them with first-hand knowledge of their overseas facilities. At the same time, representatives of the nongovernmental organizations we visited expressed their opinion that inspections performed by internal staff may not be perceived as sufficiently independent. According to information we obtained from the retailers we contacted, nearly all of them had an internal monitoring program to inspect all or some supplier factories; their internal monitoring staff ranged from 5 to 100 auditors located in domestic and international offices. Some retailers said they perform prescreening audits before entering into a contractual agreement, followed by announced and unannounced inspections at a later time. The frequency of audits performed at supplier factories depends on various factors, such as the rigor and size of the corporation’s monitoring plan, the location of supplier factories, and complaints from workers or nongovernmental organizations. Some retailers—along with colleges, universities, and factories—are also using external monitoring organizations that provide specially trained auditors to verify compliance with workplace codes of conduct. We visited four of these monitoring organizations—Fair Labor Association, Social Accountability International, Worker Rights Consortium, and Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production. More information on these monitoring organizations appears in appendix II. Each organization has different guidelines for its monitoring program, but typically, a program involves (1) a code of conduct that all participating corporations must implement and (2) the inspection of workplaces at supplier factories participating in the program by audit firms accredited by the organization. External monitoring organizations’ activities differ in scope. For example, under the Fair Labor Association’s program, companies use external monitors accredited by the Fair Labor Association for periodic inspections of factories. In contrast, in the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production’s program, individual factories are certified as complying with their program. Although differences in scope exist—and have led to debate on the best approach for a company—corporations that are adopting external monitors believe they are valuable for providing an independent assessment of factory working conditions. Some retailers we contacted offered to share their experiences in developing programs to address working conditions in overseas factories. The Departments of Labor and State, the U.S. Customs Service, and the International Labor Organization prepare reports that address working conditions in overseas factories. These organizations expressed a willingness to assist the military exchanges in shaping a program to assure that child or forced labor does not produce private label exchange merchandise. Furthermore, the International Labor Organization offered to provide advisory services, technical assistance, and training programs to help the military exchanges define and implement best labor practices throughout their supply chain. The military exchanges lag behind leading retailers in the practices they employ to assure that working conditions are not abusive in overseas factories that manufacture their private label merchandise. As a result, the exchanges do not know if workers in these factories are treated humanely and compensated fairly. The exchanges recently became more interested in developing a program to obtain information on worker rights and working conditions in overseas supplier plants, and the House Armed Services Committee Report for the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act requires them to do so. However, developing a program that is understood throughout the supply chain, lives up to expectations over time, and is cost-effective will be a challenge. Leading retailers have been addressing these challenges for as long as 10 years and have taken three key steps to promote adequate working conditions and compliance with labor laws and regulations in overseas factories—developing codes of conduct, implementing the codes of conduct by the clear dissemination of expectations, and monitoring to ensure that suppliers’ factories comply with their codes of conduct. Drawing on information and guidance from various U.S. government agencies and the International Labor Organization can facilitate the military exchanges’ development of such a program. Information available from these entities could be useful not only in establishing an initial program but also in implementing it over time, and the costs may be minimized by having the military exchanges pursue these efforts jointly. As the Secretary of Defense moves to implement the congressionally directed program to assure that private label exchange merchandise is not produced by child or forced labor, we recommend the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), require the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Naval Exchange Service Command, and Marine Corp Community Services to develop their program around the framework outlined in this report, including creating a code of conduct that reflects the values and expectations that the exchanges have of their suppliers; developing an implementation plan for the code of conduct that includes steps to communicate the elements of the code to internal staff, business partners, and factory workers and to train them on these elements; developing a monitoring effort to ensure that the codes of conduct are using government agencies, such as the Departments of State and Labor, retailers, and the International Labor Organization as resources for information and insights that would facilitate structuring their program; establishing ongoing communications with these organizations to help the exchanges stay abreast of information that would facilitate their implementation and monitoring efforts to assure that exchange merchandise is not produced by child or forced labor; and pursuing these efforts jointly where there are opportunities to minimize costs. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy) concurred with its conclusions and recommendations. The Assistant Secretary identified planned implementing actions for each recommendation and, where action had not already begun, established July 1, 2002, as the date for those actions to be effective. The Department’s written comments are presented in their entirety in appendix IV. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange Service; the Commander, Navy Exchange Service Command; the Commander, Marine Corps Community Services; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and interested congressional committees and members. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff has any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. To compare military exchanges with the private sector in terms of the methods used to identify working conditions at the overseas factories, we limited our work to the exchanges’ efforts related to private label suppliers and performed work at the military exchanges and leading retail companies. To determine the actions of the exchanges to identify working conditions in the factories of their overseas suppliers, we reviewed the policies and procedures governing the contract files, purchase orders, and contractual agreements at the exchanges’ headquarters offices and interviewed officials responsible for purchasing merchandise sold by the exchanges. For example, we reviewed the contracting arrangements between the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and nine of its suppliers of private label merchandise to determine if AAFES had requested information on working conditions in overseas factories and whether the suppliers had signed the contractual documents. For historical perspective, we reviewed the results of prior studies and audit reports of the military exchanges. We met with officials and performed work at the headquarters of AAFES in Dallas, Texas; the Navy Exchange Service Command (Navy Exchange) in Virginia Beach, Virginia; and the Marine Corps Community Services (Marine Corps Exchange) in Quantico, Virginia. To determine the actions of the private sector to identify working conditions in the factories of their overseas suppliers, we analyzed 10 leading private sector companies’ efforts to identify working conditions in overseas factories by interviewing the companies’ officials and the documentation they provided. We chose seven of the companies from the National Retail Federation’s list of the 2001 Top 100 Retailers (in terms of sales) in the United States. The retailers and their ranking on the Federation’s list follow: Federated Department Stores, Inc. (15); JCPenney (8); Kohl’s (36); Kmart (5); The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (64); Sears, Roebuck and Co. (4); and Wal-Mart (1). The remaining three companies— The Walt Disney Company, Levi Strauss & Co., and Liz Claiborne, Inc.— were chosen on the basis of recommendations from U.S. government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry associations as being among the leaders in efforts to address working conditions in overseas factories. These three companies generally refer to themselves as “manufacturers” or “licensing” organizations, but they also operate retail stores. We interviewed officials and reviewed documents from the Departments of State and Labor, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the International Labor Organization to gain a perspective on government and industry efforts to address factory working conditions. We also interviewed officials from industry associations and labor and human rights groups. To identify steps the private sector has taken to promote adequate working conditions at factories that could serve as a framework for the exchanges, we focused on the efforts of the 10 retailers. We documented the programs and program elements (e.g., codes of conduct, plans for implementing codes of conduct throughout the supply chain, and monitoring efforts) used by the 10 retailers that we contacted. We did not independently evaluate the private sector programs to determine the effectiveness of their efforts or to independently verify specific allegations of worker rights abuses. Rather, we relied primarily on discussions with retailers’ officials and the documentation they provided. We met with officials from government agencies and reviewed independent studies such as State and Labor Department and International Labor Organization reports, providing a perspective on government and industrywide efforts to address working conditions in overseas factories. We documented the procedures the exchanges used to purchase merchandise and interviewed headquarters personnel responsible for buying and inspecting merchandise made overseas. We also reviewed the exchanges’ policies, statements of core values, and oversight programs. To gain a perspective on the various approaches to address worker rights issues, we interviewed nongovernmental organizations and industry associations, including representatives from the National Labor Committee, National Consumers League, International Labor Rights Fund, Global Exchange, Investor Responsibility Research Center, Business for Social Responsibility, National Retail Federation, and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. In addition, we interviewed officials from four monitoring organizations—the Fair Labor Association; Social Accountability International; Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production; and Worker Rights Consortium—which inspect factories for compliance with codes of conduct governing labor practices and human rights. To collect information on government enforcement actions and funding for programs to address working conditions in overseas factories, we interviewed officials from the Department of State’s Office of International Labor Affairs, the Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs, the U.S. Customs Service’s Fraud Investigations Office, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative. For an international perspective on worldwide efforts, we visited the International Labor Organization’s offices in Washington, D.C., and Geneva, Switzerland. We performed our review from April through November 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The Customs Service’s Fraud Investigations Office and its 29 attaché offices in 21 countries investigate cases concerning prison, forced, or indentured labor. The Customs officials work with the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and nongovernmental organizations to collect leads for investigations. In some cases, corporations have told Customs about suspicions they have about one of their suppliers and recommended an investigation. In addition, private citizens can report leads they may have concerning a factory. The Forced Child Labor Center was established as a clearinghouse for investigative leads, a liaison for Customs field offices, and a process to improve enforcement coordination and information. Customs also provides a toll-free hotline in the United States (1-800-BE-ALERT) to collect investigative leads on forced labor abuses. Outreach efforts from the Customs Service involve providing seminars around the world for U.S. government agencies, foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations concerning forced and indentured labor issues. In December 2000, Customs published a manual entitled Forced Child Labor Advisory, which provides importers, manufacturers, and corporations with information designed to reduce their risk of becoming engaged in a transaction involving imported merchandise produced with forced or indentured child labor. Customs also publishes on its Internet Web site a complete list of outstanding detention orders and findings concerning companies that are suspected of producing merchandise from forced or indentured labor. Customs can issue a detention order if available information reasonably, but not necessarily conclusively, indicates that imported merchandise has been produced with forced or indentured labor; the order may apply to an individual shipment or to the entire output of a type of product from a given firm or facility. If, after an investigation, Customs finds probable cause that a class of merchandise is a product of forced or indentured child labor, it can bar all imports of that product from that firm from entering the United States. On June 5, 1998, the Department of the Treasury’s Advisory Committee on International Child Labor was established to provide the Treasury Department and the U.S. Customs Service with recommendations to strengthen the enforcement of laws against forced or indentured child labor, in particular, through voluntary compliance and business outreach. The Advisory Committee was established to support law enforcement initiatives to stop illegal shipments of products made through forced or indentured child labor and to punish violators. The Committee comprises industry representatives and child labor experts from human rights and labor organizations. Customs Service officials told us they have met with leading retailers to provide feedback on their internal monitoring programs to assure that their merchandise is not produced with forced child labor. Customs Service officials expressed a willingness to assist the exchanges in shaping a program to assure that child or forced labor does not produce private label exchange merchandise. The Department of Labor conducts targeted enforcement sweeps in major garment centers in the United States, but it does not have the authority to inspect foreign factories. In August, 1996, the Department of Labor called upon representatives of the apparel industry, labor unions, and nongovernmental organizations to join together as the Apparel Industry Partnership (later becoming the Fair Labor Association) to develop a plan that would assure consumers that apparel imports into the United States are not produced under abusive labor conditions. The Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor, has produced seven annual congressionally requested reports on child labor, entitled By the Sweat and Toil of Children, concerning the use of forced labor, codes of conduct, consumer labels, efforts to eliminate child labor, and the economic considerations of child labor. Other relevant reports on worker rights produced by the Bureau include the 2000 Report on Labor Practices in Burma and Symposium on Codes of Conduct and International Labor Standards. Since 1995, the Department of Labor has also contributed $113 million to international child labor activities, including the International Labor Organization’s International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor. In addition, the Department of Labor provided the International Labor Organization with $40 million for both fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for programs in various countries concerning forced labor, freedom of association, collective bargaining, women’s rights, and industrial relations in lesser-developed nations. The Department also provides any company that would like to learn how to implement an effective monitoring program with technical assistance, and Labor officials have expressed a willingness to assist the exchanges in shaping a program to assure that private label exchange merchandise is not produced by child or forced labor. On January 16, 2001, the Department of State’s Anti-Sweatshop Initiative awarded $3.9 million in grants to support efforts to eliminate abusive working conditions and protect the health, safety, and rights of workers overseas. The Anti-Sweatshop Initiative is designed to support innovative strategies to combat sweatshop conditions in overseas factories that produce goods for the U.S. market. Five nongovernmental and international organizations, such as the Fair Labor Association, International Labor Rights Fund, Social Accountability International, American Center for International Solidarity, and the International Labor Organization, received over $3 million. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development will administer an additional $600,000 for smaller grants in support of promising strategies to eliminate abusive labor conditions worldwide. The Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor publishes Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, a legislatively mandated annual report to Congress concerning worker rights issues, including child labor and freedom of association in 194 countries. Retailers and manufacturers stated they have utilized these reports to stay abreast of human and labor rights issues in a particular country and to make factory selections. The Department of State has expressed a willingness to assist the exchanges in shaping a program to assure that child or forced labor does not produce private label exchange merchandise. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative leads an interagency working group—the Trade Policy Staff Committee—which has the right to initiate worker rights petition cases under the Generalized System of Preferences. The Generalized System of Preferences Program establishes trade preferences to provide duty-free access to the United States for designated products from eligible developing countries worldwide to promote development through trade rather than traditional aid programs. A fundamental criterion for the Generalized System of Preferences is that the beneficiary country has or is taking steps to afford workers’ internationally recognized worker rights, including the right to association; the right to organize and bargain collectively; a prohibition against compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of children; and regulations governing minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. Under the Generalized System of Preferences, any interested party may petition the committee to review the eligibility status of any country designated for benefits. If a country is selected for review, the committee then conducts its own investigation of labor conditions and decides whether or not the country will continue to receive Generalized System of Preferences benefits. Interested parties may also submit testimony during the review process. In addition, U.S. Trade Representatives can express their concern about worker rights issues in a country to foreign government officials, which may place pressure on supplier factories to resolve labor conditions. (The general authority for duty-free treatment expired on September 30, 2001 . Proposed legislation provides for an extension with retroactive application similar to previous extensions of this authority. Authority for sub-Saharan African countries continues through September 30, 2008 [19 U.S.C. 2466b]). The International Labor Organization is a United Nations specialized agency that seeks to promote social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights. It has information on codes of conduct, research programs, and technical assistance to help companies address human rights and labor issues. Currently, the International Labor Organization is developing training materials to provide mid-level managers with practical guidance on how to promote each of its four fundamental labor principles both internally and throughout a company’s supply chain. The following are the four fundamental principles: (1) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, (2) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, (3) the effective abolition of child labor, and (4) the elimination of discrimination in employment. These principles are contained in the International Labor Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and were adopted by the International Labor Conference in 1998. To promote the principles, the U.S. Department of Labor is funding various projects pertaining to improving working conditions in the garment and textile industry and is addressing issues of freedom of association, collective bargaining, and forced labor in the following regions or countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, the Caribbean, Central America, Colombia, East Africa, East Timor, Kenya, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Nepal, Vietnam, southern Africa, and Ukraine. For fiscal years 2000 and 2001, these projects received about $40 million in funding. On January 16, 2001, the International Labor Organization was awarded $496,974 by the Department of State Anti-Sweatshop Initiative to research how multinational corporations ensure compliance with their labor principles. Another research project seeks to demonstrate the link between international labor standards and good business performance. A major product of the research will be a publication for company managers that looks at the relationship between International Labor Organization conventions and company competitiveness and that then examines how adhering to specific standards (i.e., health and safety, human resource development, and workplace consultations) can improve corporate performance. The International Labor Organization has also created the Business and Social Initiatives Database, which includes extensive information on corporate policies and reports, codes of conduct, accreditation and certification criteria, and labeling programs on its Web site. For example, the database contains an estimated 600 codes of conduct from corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and international organizations. From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2001, the Congress has appropriated over $113 million for the Department of Labor for international child labor activities including the International Labor Organization’s International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor. The program has estimated that the United States will pledge $60 million for the 2002-3 period. The United States is the single largest contributor to the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, which has focused on the following four objectives: Eliminating child labor in specific hazardous and/or abusive occupations. These targeted projects aim to remove children from work, provide them with educational opportunities, and generate alternative sources of income for their families. Bringing more countries that are committed to addressing their child labor problem into the program. Documenting the extent and nature of child labor. Raising public awareness and understanding of international child labor issues. The program has built a network of key partners in 75 member countries (including government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, media, religious institutions, schools, and community leaders) in order to facilitate policy reform and change social attitudes, so as to lead to the sustainable prevention and abolition of child labor. During fiscal years 2000-2003, the United States is funding programs addressing child labor in the following countries or regions: Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Mongolia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Romania, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zambia and Africa, Asia, Central America, Inter-America, and South America. Business for Social Responsibility, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a membership organization for companies, including retailers, seeking to sustain their commercial success in ways that demonstrate respect for ethical values, people, communities, and the environment. (Its sister organization, the Business for Social Responsibility Education Fund, is a nonprofit charitable organization serving the broader business community and the general public through research and educational programs.) In 1995, this organization created the Business and Human Rights Program to address the range of human rights issues that its members face in using factories located in developing countries. The Business and Human Rights Program provides a number of services; for example, it offers (1) counsel and information to companies developing corporate human rights policies, including codes of conduct and factory selection guidelines for suppliers; (2) information services on human rights issues directly affecting global business operations, including country-specific and issue-specific materials; (3) a means of monitoring compliance with corporate codes of conduct and local legal requirements, including independent monitoring; (4) a mechanism for groups of companies, including trade associations, to develop collaborative solutions to human rights issues; and (5) the facilitation of dialogue between the business community and other sectors, including the government, media, and human rights organizations. The Fair Labor Association, a nonprofit organization located in Washington, D.C., offers a program that incorporates both internal and external monitoring. In general, the Association accredits independent monitors, certifies that companies are in compliance with its code of conduct, and serves as a source of information for the public. Companies affiliated with the Association implement an internal monitoring program consistent with the Fair Labor Association’s Principles of Monitoring, covering at least one-half of all their applicable facilities during the first year of their participation, and covering all of their facilities during the second year. In addition, participating companies commit to using independent external monitors accredited by the Fair Labor Association to conduct periodic inspections of at least 30 percent of the company’s applicable facilities during its initial 2- to 3-year participation period. On January 16, 2001, the Fair Labor Association was awarded $750,000 by the Department of State’s Anti-Sweatshop Initiative to enable the organization to recruit, accredit, and maintain a diverse roster of external monitors around the world. The Fair Labor Association’s participating companies include the following: Adidas-Saloman A.G.; Nike, Inc.; Reebok International Ltd.; Levi Strauss & Co.; Liz Claiborne, Inc.; Patagonia; GEAR for Sports; Eddie Bauer; Josten’s Inc.; Joy Athletic; Charles River Apparel; Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation; and Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation. Global Exchange, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a nonprofit research, education, and action center dedicated to increasing global awareness among the U.S. public while building international partnerships around the world. Global Exchange has filed and supported class-action lawsuits against 26 retailers and manufacturers concerning alleged sweatshop abuse in Saipan’s apparel factories. As of September 2001, 19 of those corporations had settled for $8.75 million and have agreed to adopt a code of conduct and a monitoring program in Saipanese factories that produce their merchandise. The International Labor Rights Fund is a nonprofit action and advocacy organization located in Washington, D.C. It pursues legal and administrative actions on behalf of working people, creates innovative programs and enforcement mechanisms to protect workers’ rights, and advocates for better protections for workers through its publications; testimony before national and international hearings; and speeches to academic, religious, and human rights groups. The Fund is currently participating in various lawsuits against multinational corporations involving labor rights in Burma, Colombia, Guatemala, and Indonesia. In 1996, the International Labor Rights Fund and Business for Social Responsibility were key facilitators in establishing a monitoring program for a Liz Claiborne, Inc., supplier factory in Guatemala. The Guatemalan nongovernmental monitoring organization, Coverco, was founded from this process and has since published two public reports on the results of its meetings with factory management and factory workers. Officials at Liz Claiborne, Inc., stated that the monitoring initiative has been very effective in detecting and correcting problems and helpful in offering ideas for best practices and has provided enhanced credibility for the company’s monitoring efforts. In 2001, the International Labor Rights Fund was awarded an Anti- Sweatshop Initiative grant from the Department of State in the amount of $152,880. The Fund plans to undertake a project to work with labor rights organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to build a global campaign for national and international protections for female workers. The Fund will conduct worker surveys and interviews in Africa and the Caribbean to determine the extent of the problem. In addition, the Fund and its nongovernmental organization partners will develop an educational video to help alert women workers in these countries about the problem of sexual harassment. The Investor Responsibility Research Center, located in Washington, D.C., is a research and consulting organization that performs independent research on corporate governance and corporate responsibility issues. The Center contributed to the University Initiative Final Report, which collected information on working conditions in university-licensed apparel factories in China, El Salvador, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Thailand, and the United States. The report addresses steps the universities can implement to address poor labor conditions in licensee factories and ongoing efforts by government and nongovernmental organizations to improve working conditions in the apparel industry. The report is based on factory visits and interviews with nongovernmental organizations, labor union officials, licensees, factory owners and managers, and government officials. The National Consumers League is a nonprofit organization located in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to identify, protect, represent, and advance the economic and social interests of consumers and workers. Created in 1899, the National Consumers League is the nation’s oldest consumer organization. The League worked for the national minimum wage provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (passed in 1938) and has helped organize the Child Labor Coalition, which is committed to ending child labor exploitation in the United States and abroad. The Child Labor Coalition comprises more than 60 organizations representing educators, health groups, religious and women’s groups, human rights groups, consumer groups, labor unions, and child labor advocates. The Coalition works to end child labor exploitation in the United States and abroad and to protect the health, education, and safety of working minors. National Labor Committee
The National Labor Committee is a nonprofit human rights organization located in New York City. Its mission is to educate and actively engage the U.S. public on human and labor rights abuses by corporations. Through education and activism, the committee aims to end labor and human rights violations. The committee has led “Corporate Accountability Campaigns” against major retailers and manufactures to improve factory conditions. In El Salvador, the National Labor Committee has facilitated an independent monitoring program between (1) The GAP, the retailer; (2) Jesuit University in San Salvador, the human rights office of the Catholic Archdiocese; and (3) the Center for Labor Studies, a nongovernmental organization. The committee advocates that corporations should disclose supplier factory locations and hire local religious or human rights organizations to conduct inspections in factories. Social Accountability International, founded in 1997, is located in New York City, New York. It is a nonprofit monitoring organization dedicated to the development, implementation, and oversight of voluntary social accountability standards in factories around the world. In response to the inconsistencies among workplace codes of conduct, Social Accountability International developed a standard, named the Social Accountability 8000 standard, for workplace conditions and a system for independently verifying compliance of factories. The Social Accountability 8000 standard promotes human rights in the workplace and is based on internationally accepted United Nations and International Labor Organization conventions. Social Accountability 8000 requires individual facilities to be certified by independent, accredited certification firms with regular follow-up audits. As of November 2001, 82 Social Accountability 8000 certified factories were located in 21 countries throughout Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. U.S. and international companies adopting the Social Accountability 8000 standard are Avon, Cutter & Buck, Eileen Fisher, and Toys R Us. In 2001, Social Accountability International was awarded an Anti-Sweatshop Initiative grant from the Department of State of $1 million for improving social auditing through research and collaboration; capacity building; and consultation with trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, and small and medium-sized enterprises; and consumer education. These projects will take place in several countries, including Brazil, China, Poland, and Thailand, and consumer education will be focused on the United States. Worker Rights Consortium
Worker Rights Consortium, a nonprofit monitoring organization located in Washington, D.C., provides a factory-based certification program for university licensees. University students, administrators, and labor rights activists created Worker Rights Consortium to assist in the enforcement of manufacturing codes of conduct adopted by colleges and universities; these codes are designed to ensure that factories producing goods bearing college and university logos respect the basic rights of workers. The Worker Rights Consortium investigates factory conditions and reports its findings to universities and the public. Where violations are uncovered, the Consortium works with colleges and universities, U.S.-based retail corporations, and local worker organizations to correct the problem and improve conditions. It is also working to develop a mechanism to ensure that workers producing college logo goods can bring complaints about code of conduct violations, safely and confidentially, to the attention of local nongovernmental organizations and the Worker Rights Consortium. As of November 2001, 92 colleges and universities had affiliated with the Worker Rights Consortium, adopting and implementing a code of conduct in contracts with licensees. The Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production, a nonprofit monitoring organization located in Washington, D.C., monitors and certifies compliance with socially responsible standards for manufacturing and ensures that sewn products are produced under lawful, humane, and ethical conditions. The basis for creating the monitoring and certification program came from apparel producers that requested that the American Apparel & Footwear Association address inconsistent company standards and repetitive monitoring. The program is a factory certification program that requires a factory to perform a self-assessment followed by an evaluation by a monitor from the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production Certification Program. On the basis of this evaluation, the monitor will either recommend that the facility be certified or identify areas where corrective action must be taken before such a recommendation can be made. Following a satisfactory recommendation from the monitor, the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production Certification Board will review the documentation of compliance and decide upon certification. The Certification Program was pilot tested in 2000 at apparel manufacturing facilities in Central America, Mexico, and the United States. As of November 2001, 500 factories in 47 countries had registered to become certified. The American Apparel & Footwear Association, a national trade association located in Washington, D.C., represents roughly 800 U.S. apparel, footwear, and supplier companies whose combined industries account for more than $225 billion in annual U.S. retail sales. The Association was instrumental in creating the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production monitoring program. The Association’s Web site states that “members are committed to socially responsible business practices and to assuring that sewn products are produced under lawful, humane, and ethical conditions.” The American Apparel & Footwear Association has also created a Social Responsibility Committee, in which various manufacturers meet to discuss their programs to address worker rights issues. National Retail Federation
As the world’s largest retail trade association, National Retail Federation, located in Washington, D.C., conducts programs and services in research, education, training, information technology, and government affairs to protect and advance the interests of the retail industry. The Federation’s membership includes the leading department, specialty, independent, discount, and mass merchandise stores in the United States and 50 nations around the world. It represents more than 100 state, national, and international trade organizations, which have members in most lines of retailing. The National Retail Federation also includes in its membership key suppliers of goods and services to the retail industry. The Federation has a Web site link entitled, “Stop Sweatshops,” which provides information on the retail industry’s response to sweatshops, including forms of monitoring and a brief history of U.S. sweatshops. The Federation also has an International Trade Advisory Council, comprising retail and sourcing representatives, which discusses various issues pertaining to international labor laws; international trade; and customs matters, both in the legislative and regulatory areas. The codes of conduct for the retailers we visited that have posted their codes on the Internet are at the Internet Web sites shown in table 4. In addition to those named above, Nelsie Alcoser, Jimmy Palmer, and Susan Woodward made key contributions to this report. | The military exchanges operate retail stores similar to department stores in more than 1,500 locations worldwide. The exchanges stock merchandise from many sources, including name-brand companies, brokers and importers, and overseas firms. Reports of worker rights abuses, such as child labor and forced overtime, and antilabor practices have led human rights groups and the press to scrutinize working conditions in overseas factories. GAO found that the military exchanges are not as proactive as private sector companies in determining working conditions at the overseas factories that manufacture their private label merchandise. Moreover, the exchanges have not sought to verify that overseas factories comply with labor laws and regulations. A single industrywide standard for working conditions at overseas factories was not considered practical by the 10 retailers GAO contacted. However, these retailers have taken the following three steps to ensure that goods are not produced by child or forced labor: (1) developing workplace codes of conduct that reflect their expectations of suppliers; (2) disseminating information on fair and safe labor conditions and educating their employees, suppliers, and factory workers on them; and (3) using their own employees or contractors to regularly inspect factories to ensure that their codes of conduct are upheld. |
Three weeks before Election Day, Republicans are on the brink of winning the Senate. But their advantage is so slight that a morale-sapping defeat is still very much possible.
That's the state of play in the latest edition of National Journal Hotline's Senate race rankings. At this point, it looks like Republicans have the inside track on taking over six red states currently represented by Democrats, and two of this year's rock-star GOP nominees also have Democrats on the ropes in a pair of swing states, Iowa and Colorado. Those states could give Republicans some breathing room if a state such as Alaska surprises when the returns come in. But late-breaking trouble in Kansas, of all places, has opened the door to continued Democratic control a little bit wider.
Democrats currently control 55 seats in the Senate, meaning the GOP has to win six to take over the chamber. As we've said before, the best way to think about the Senate landscape is in tiers: The top three states look very likely to flip; the GOP appears to have smaller advantages in the next three states; the next bloc of three look like something close to pure toss-ups; and the incumbent party is favored in the races after No. 9. The races in our list are ordered by the likelihood of the seat flipping between the parties.
1. Montana (Open D, Sen. John Walsh retiring) (Previous ranking: 3)
Montana Democrats are on their third candidate of the cycle at this point (fourth, if you count Brian Schweitzer's planned-then-canceled bid) after Walsh withdrew following graduate-school plagiarism revelations. That, in a nutshell, shows why the state has been the Democrats worst Senate race of 2014. It's almost hard to remember that last year, most analysts believed either Sen. Max Baucus or the former Gov. Schweitzer would hold the seat for their party. Now, GOP Rep. Steve Daines is nearly certain to win against Democratic state Rep. Amanda Curtis, which will mark the first time a Republican will hold the seat in more than 100 years.
ADVERTISEMENT
2. West Virginia (Open D, Sen. Jay Rockefeller retiring) (Previous: 2)
Democratic Secretary of State Natalie Tennant hasn't done badly at all in this race, but GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito is just too strong and the state too conservative. This race has never really been on the radar, despite some late July spending by Senate Majority PAC—which just happened, coincidentally we're sure, to almost match the $250,000 Rockefeller donated to the Democratic super PAC this year.
3. South Dakota (Open D, Sen. Tim Johnson retiring) (Previous: 1)
Almost overnight, this race has risen from the dead. Make no mistake: Former GOP Gov. Mike Rounds is still the favorite here. But a coalition of outside groups has been hammering Rounds on his involvement in a visa scandal, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said its internal polls showed a close-enough race to prompt a late $1 million TV blitz that started this week. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is responding with $1 million of its own. But with Rounds, Democrat Rick Weiland, and former Sen. Larry Pressler—a former Republican-turned-Obama-praising independent—splitting votes, each side faces a puzzling question of where to direct its firepower. While Rounds still solidly holds control of this race, Republicans are lamenting a lack of effort from what should have been a sure-thing campaign, forcing them to spend money in an unexpected place while other races around the country remain tightly contested.
4. Louisiana (D, Sen. Mary Landrieu) (Previous: 4)
The last few months have dulled some of the shine on Landrieu's vaunted political operation. First were a series of damaging stories about billing taxpayers for private plane rides, followed by news that her campaign manager was being replaced just a month before Election Day. Both have increased the palpable sense that the Bayou State's three-term senator is an underdog in her fight against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy. Polls show the Republican physician, whose own campaign hasn't blown anyone away, with a slight edge on Landrieu. Still, this race is headed to a Dec. 6 runoff, and it's impossible to predict what that one-month contest will look like. (For example, whether the Senate majority is still at stake would have a major effect on the campaign.)
5. Arkansas (D, Sen. Mark Pryor) (Previous: 6)
This race is swinging back the way Republicans had always planned, a battle that has less to do with two-term Sen. Pryor's personal qualities and everything to do with an unpopular national Democratic agenda. Considering how inhospitable the state has become, Pryor may actually be exceeding expectations by keeping the race within a few points all summer. The Democrat has done everything he can to paint conservative superstar Tom Cotton as out of step with Arkansas. But Cotton's military background has come in handy as voters' attention shifted to foreign policy late this year.
(RELATED: The Hotline's House Race Rankings: The 30 Districts Most Likely to Change Hands in November)
6. Alaska (D, Sen. Mark Begich) (Previous: 7)
At the end of the summer, Begich had Alaska Republicans positively alarmed. The incumbent was running possibly the best Senate campaign in the country, the GOP primary was dragging on, and Begich's backup from outside groups was compounding Republican Dan Sullivan's problems. But things changed pretty quickly once Sullivan locked up the nomination. Begich is still running a formidable campaign (though he caught serious criticism for an ad that used a murder and sexual assault case from Sullivan's time as state attorney general despite complaints from the victims' lawyer), but the polls haven't been kind to him since then—last week, the first independent live-caller polls in Alaska this year both gave Sullivan small leads. But the race isn't over, even though Sullivan appears to have the upper hand right now. Not only is polling notoriously difficult in the state, Begich has constructed an unrivaled field program stretching far into remote rural areas that could boost Alaska Native turnout.
7. Iowa (Open D, Sen. Tom Harkin retiring) (Previous: 8)
It says a lot about this race that the Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll that showed Democrat Bruce Braley in a statistical dead heat with Republican Joni Ernst (he trailed by one point, 47 percent to 46 percent) counts as good news for Democrats. Previous surveys painted a much more pessimistic picture for the congressman. Ernst shares some flaws that have proven fatal to past GOP Senate campaigns— her suggestion that privatizing Social Security is an "option," for instance, might have been the best thing to happen to Braley in months. But the state senator has also turned one of her early weaknesses into a huge strength, collecting an incredible $6 million in the last quarter after struggling to raise money at the beginning of her campaign. This is a race where both candidates have flaws—and whoever's flaws voters judge to be worse will lose what is one of the year's tightest contests.
8. Kansas (R, Sen. Pat Roberts) (Previous: Not Ranked)
New to our list, this race is perhaps the most perplexing, because a loss by Roberts doesn't necessarily place a win in either party's column. Independent Greg Orman, who now goes head-to-head with Roberts following Democrat Chad Taylor's withdrawal from the ballot, has not said which side he would join in the Senate if elected—only that he'd likely go with whoever had the majority. Republicans have sent in a new campaign team to overhaul Roberts's sleepy operation, and GOP-aligned outside groups have slowly but surely come to his aid against the wealthy Orman, attacking the independent's business records and Democratic connections. Roberts's biggest problem remains damage sustained in his difficult primary campaign; the polls that have shown him still viewed negatively have him trailing badly, while he was at least tied in recent ones where respondents viewed him more neutrally. But, if Roberts and friends can define Orman quickly and give voters pause about the political newcomer, Roberts still stands a good chance of righting the ship.
9. Colorado (D, Sen. Mark Udall) (Previous: 9)
Just because this race stayed in the same place on the list doesn't mean nothing changed. Republican hopes in both Iowa and Colorado have been rising for months now, and Cory Gardner moved into the lead in public polls and Republican internals. Democrats say they think the race is a dead-even heat right now, and what's more, they think that makes Udall a favorite, thanks to the party's vaunted ground game in the Rocky Mountain State. That will have a slightly different twist this year, the first time that every active voter will receive a mail ballot from the state. The Denver Post, the state's largest newspaper, rolled out its endorsement of Gardner over the weekend just before voting is set to start. Udall's campaign focus on birth control and contraception has helped open a big gender gap in the race, but the Post and others say he hasn't paid enough attention to other issues.
10. North Carolina (D, Sen. Kay Hagan) (Previous: 5)
Not many would have picked Kay Hagan to be the Democrats' strongest red-state incumbent when the cycle began, or, for that matter, after a winter spending barrage from Americans for Prosperity sent her poll numbers tumbling. But the first-term senator, once lightly regarded, has clawed her way back to a small advantage in recent polls, thanks in part to a spending binge from her own campaign and allies. GOP nominee Thom Tillis even trails in his campaign's own internal survey. The Tar Heel State has become the capital of the gender gap in 2014: Even as surveys show Tillis winning men by wavelike proportions, Hagan's advantage among women has canceled that out. Now, Hagan has to prove that the revelation she skipped an Armed Services Committee hearing for a fundraiser won't knock her off stride, though it certainly put her on the defensive in last week's final debate. And she has to hope that the Libertarian candidate, pizza deliveryman Sean Haugh, doesn't bleed all of his support to Tillis between now and Election Day.
11. New Hampshire (D, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen) (Previous: 13)
Scott Brown has closed the gap, but can he finish the job? The Republican transplant from Massachusetts still trails Shaheen in most polls, though he's done well enough to attract a seven-figure investment in the race from American Crossroads. Brown's biggest impediment at this point, after heavy advertising against him from Democrats, may be that while Shaheen remains popular, more people say they dislike him than like him in poll after poll. (Many more, in the case of the most recent WMUR poll, though CNN found a smaller spread.) Even in a state like New Hampshire that tends to feel national political trends strongly, that's not a good foundation for progress.
12. Georgia (Open R, Sen. Saxby Chambliss retiring) (Previous: 11)
This race was always going to be tough for former nonprofit CEO Michelle Nunn, especially when Republicans rejected three current lawmaker candidates in their primary, making a planned insider-versus-outsider campaign more difficult. Since then, both candidates have suffered some of the most notable opposition hits of the election cycle: a leaked Nunn campaign memo that detailed her own weaknesses and David Perdue's embrace of outsourcing in a deposition, which played right into one of Nunn's main lines of attack. Republican outside groups' reluctance to spend here defending a Republican seat has played in Nunn's favor, but the NRSC is coming to town for the last few weeks. Even Nunn's strong fundraising may not be enough to defend her in this red state, though it's changing enough that she might be able to force Perdue into a January runoff by holding him under 50 percent of the vote in November.
13. Kentucky (R, Sen. Mitch McConnell) (Previous: 10)
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman was on an island through much of the early fall when his internal surveys showed Democratic client Alison Lundergan Grimes leading Republican incumbent McConnell. And then the state's automated Bluegrass Poll showed the Democrat up 2 points, 46 percent to 44 percent. McConnell's campaign quickly pointed out, correctly, that the survey was an outlier, but it still suggested Grimes's campaign wasn't dead and buried yet (despite calls from some local Democrats to shake up her organization and a string of painful-to-watch encounters with reporters). But don't get us wrong: McConnell is still the strong favorite in this race, and it would take an immense anti-incumbent wave against the Senate minority leader for that to change.
14. Michigan (Open D, Sen. Carl Levin retiring) (Previous: 12)
This is possibly the one state in the country where Democrats have been on a consistent upward trajectory all year long. Despite a lot of spending to beat down Democratic Rep. Gary Peters and raise up Republican Terri Lynn Land, two things have always stood in the GOP's way. Michigan is just more naturally Democratic-leaning than the other big Senate battlegrounds of 2014, and Land hasn't been a strong enough candidate to deal with that effectively, despite good fundraising. Meanwhile, Peters's polling lead has grown steadily as more and more voters got to know him, making him a big favorite.
15. Virginia (D, Sen. Mark Warner) (Previous: 15)
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie has made progress this year as he transitioned from political operative to political candidate, but Warner has held steady as a strong favorite all along. There is a small chance, though, that an "October surprise" could change all that: The Washington Post reported last weekend that Warner "discussed the possibility of several jobs, including a federal judgeship," for the daughter of a Virginia state senator "in an effort to dissuade him from quitting the evenly divided state Senate" earlier this year, according to what the former legislator's son told federal investigators. Is that enough to put Warner in jeopardy? Perhaps not. But it could nudge things a little closer than otherwise—and who knows if there might be other revelations about the episode.
16. Minnesota (D, Sen. Al Franken) (Previous: 14)
This race has been talked about for months as a potential sleeper, but three weeks from Election Day, it's still dozing. National money has completely skipped over the state, and per usual, Franken has been a fundraising machine, spending quickly as he goes, while businessman Mike McFadden has failed to make any breakthroughs. Franken has never trailed, or even come close to it, in a public poll—even one recently released by the state GOP. Franken's first race was the closest in the country, but there's going to be less drama this time around.
17. Oregon (D, Sen. Jeff Merkley) (Previous: 16)
As one columnist wrote for the Portland Oregonian, Republican Monica Wehby has hit the "trifecta" of campaign pitfalls: embarrassing personal revelations, a plagiarized website (twice), and refusals to debate or sit down with the media. The moderate pediatric neurosurgeon once had Republicans giddy about their chances of expanding the map into solidly blue Oregon, but the campaign hasn't been kind to her. Merkley's lead has never looked to be in jeopardy, and it'd take something pretty extraordinary for this race to come into contention late.
Could This Be the New Republican Stance on Same-Sex Marriage?
This article appears in the October 14, 2014 edition of NJ Daily. ||||| DUBUQUE COUNTY — The wife of Doug Butzier confirmed Tuesday morning that it was Butzier who crashed his plane near the Dubuque Regional Airport around 11 p.m. Monday.
A release from Lynn Lunsford with the Federal Aviation Administration's public affairs office said a single-engine Piper PA-46 crashed about a mile north of the Dubuque airport runway after taking off around 10 p.m. from Ankeny Regional Airport. Key West Fire Chief Brian Arnold said the plane crashed near the 8700 block of Military Road.
Dalsing said the plane missed its first approach to the runway and crashed while approaching for a second time. Around an inch and a half of rain fell in the Dubuque area throughout the day and into the night Monday, though Dalsing said it wasn't clear if weather played a role in the crash.
FAA and NTSB investigators are on their way to investigate the crash.
Butzier worked as an emergency room physician at Mercy Medical Center in Dubuque. He was also running for U.S. Senate as the Libertarian candidate.
Here are statements released in response to Butzier's death:
From U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Bruce Braley — “I'm shocked and saddened to hear of the sudden and tragic death of Doug Butzier. I have enormous respect for anyone who puts their name forward as a candidate for public office. Carolyn and I send our thoughts and prayers to Dr. Butzier's wife and family during this difficult time.”
From U.S. Senate Republican candidate Joni Ernst — “I am deeply saddened to learn the tragic news about Dr. Doug Butzier. I appreciated Doug's willingness to contribute to this important election. In addition to representing Libertarians in this campaign, Doug served his community as an ER doctor and medical leader. Gail and I will keep Doug's family in our thoughts and prayers as they mourn their untimely loss.”
From Mercy Medical Center in Dubuque — “Dr. Butzier was one of the pillars of the emergency department for the past 17 years,” said Russell Knight, Mercy President and CEO. “His influence was felt throughout the hospital, as he led one of our key quality-improvement teams with skill, knowledge, and enthusiasm, helping to produce the outstanding results Mercy has become known for. He was a leader among his peers, and we will all miss his strong, intelligent, thoughtful presence, and we express our collective condolences to Doug's family, friends, and colleagues.” ||||| Story highlights Iowa Libertarian Senate candidate Doug Butzier dies in a plane crash Monday
He was a medical doctor at Mercy Medical Center-Dubuque
The cause of the crash is still unknown
Butzier's name will remain on the ballot in the November election
A medical doctor-turned Libertarian Senate candidate in Iowa died when a plane he was piloting crashed around 11 p.m. Monday.
Doug Butzier, 59, was earning less than 2% of the vote in the competitive statewide race between Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley and Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst to replace retiring veteran Sen. Tom Harkin.
"He was a leader among his peers," said Russell Knight, the president of Mercy Medical Center-Dubuque, the hospital where Butzier worked. "We will all miss his strong, intelligent, thoughtful presence, and we express our collective condolences to Doug's family, friends, and colleagues."
Butzier was a practicing emergency medicine doctor and president of the medical staff at the hospital, according to his campaign website.
JUST WATCHED First lady messes up name at rally Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH First lady messes up name at rally 01:04
JUST WATCHED Tea party favorite trying to win in Iowa Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Tea party favorite trying to win in Iowa 03:36
Information about the cause of the crash has not been publicly released, although the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration will investigate.
The plane failed in its first approach to land on the runway, and it crashed the second time, according to a local news report. It remains unclear if weather played a role in the crash, although it was raining during the day and into the night Monday.
Because the deadline for changing candidates has passed, Butzier's name will still appear on ballots in Iowa next month. Both Braley and Ernst released statements expressing condolences to Butzier's friends and family. He is survived by his wife and two sons. ||||| Buy Photo Doug Butzier (Photo: Register file photo)Buy Photo
Dr. Doug Butzier made a personal mark in medicine and in politics until a plane crash took the life of this year's Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate, colleagues said Tuesday.
Butzier was piloting a single-engine plane the crashed at about 11 p.m. Monday near Dubuque Regional Airport. He was the only occupant. The cause of the crash was not immediately known.
"He could get dressed up in a suit and talk in front of a big crowd, but at the end of the day he was just a man of the people," said Lee Hieb, the Libertarian candidate for Iowa governor. Hieb is also a physician. "Iowa and the cause of liberty are diminished by his passing."
Butzier served as president of the medical staff at Mercy Medical Center in Dubuque and as a member of the Mercy Board of Trustees.
"Dr. Butzier was one of the pillars of the emergency department for the past 17 years," said Russell Knight, Mercy president, in a news release. "His influence was felt throughout the hospital."
The Libertarian Party of Iowa said in a statement that "Doug was an outstanding person with a strong passion to help others."
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Lynn Lunsford said Butzier's Piper PA-46 crashed Monday while on approach to the airport, about a mile north of the runway.
Lunsford said the plane took off from Ankeny Regional Airport about an hour before the crash. The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate.
There are six candidates on the ballot to join the U.S. Senate from Iowa. Major-party candidates Joni Ernst and Bruce Braley issued statements about Butzier's death.
Ernst said she was "deeply saddened to learn the tragic news about Dr. Doug Butzier. I appreciated Doug's willingness to contribute to this important election. In addition to representing Libertarians in this campaign, Doug served his community as an ER doctor and medical leader. Gail and I will keep Doug's family in our thoughts and prayers as they mourn their untimely loss."
Braley said he was "shocked and saddened to hear of the sudden and tragic death of Doug Butzier. I have enormous respect for anyone who puts their name forward as a candidate for public office. Carolyn and I send our thoughts and prayers to Dr. Butzier's wife and family during this difficult time."
A spokesman from the Iowa secretary of state's office said Tuesday that Butzier's name will not be removed from ballots, since voting has already begun. When a Democrat or Republican running for office in Iowa dies before a general election, the vote is postponed and the party is allowed to nominate a new candidate — that happened in an Iowa Senate contest in 2012. But under Iowa law, there's no delay or replacement after the death of a candidate not running on a major-party ticket.
This story includes information from the Associated Press.
Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/1w5DfuS | The Libertarian candidate in Iowa's closely watched Senate race next month is dead after he crashed his single-engine plane near an airport in Dubuque last night, reports the Des Moines Register. Doug Butzier, a 59-year-old emergency room physician, was killed as he came in for a second attempt to land about 11pm. Butzier missed his first approach to the runway and went down on his second pass, reports KCRG. He was the sole occupant of the Piper PA-46, and it's not clear whether the area's heavy rain played a role in the crash. Butzier had stood no real chance of winning the election—he was polling at about 2%, reports CNN—but the high-profile race had given him a chance to spread his Libertarian message. Democratic candidate Bruce Braley and Republican candidate Joni Ernst each released statements praising Butzier and offering condolences to his wife and two sons. Braley and Ernst are vying to replace the retiring Tom Harkin, a Democrat, and they were most recently in a statistical dead heat, reports the National Journal. Butzier's name will remain on the ballot. |
NRC’s implementation of a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory approach for commercial nuclear power plants is complex and will require many years to fully implement. It requires basic changes to the regulations and NRC’s processes to ensure the safe operation of these plants. NRC faces a number of challenges to develop and to implement this process. For example, because of the complexity of this change, the agency needs a strategy to guide its development and implementation. We recommended such a strategy in March 1999. We suggested that a clearly defined strategy would help guide the regulatory transformation if it described the regulatory activities NRC planned to change to a risk-informed approach, the actions needed to accomplish this transformation, and the schedule and resources needed to make these changes. NRC initially agreed that it needed a comprehensive strategy, but it has not developed one. As one NRC Commissioner said in March 2000, “we really are . . . inventing this as we go along given how much things are changing, it’s very hard to plan even 4 months from now, let alone years from now.” NRC did develop the Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan, which includes guidelines to identify, set priorities for, and implement risk-informed changes to regulatory processes. The plan also identifies specific tasks and projected milestones. The Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan is not as comprehensive as it needs to be, because it does not identify performance measures, the items that are critical to achieving its objectives, activities that cut across its major offices, resources, or the relationships among the more than 40 separate activities (25 of which pertain to nuclear plants). For example, risk-informing NRC’s regulations will be a formidable task because they are interrelated. Amending one regulation can potentially affect other regulations governing other aspects of nuclear plant operations. NRC found this to be the case when it identified over 20 regulations that would need to be made consistent as it developed a risk- informed approach for one regulation. NRC expects that its efforts to change its regulations applicable to nuclear power plants to focus more on relative risk will take 5 to 8 years. NRC has compounded the complexity of moving to a new regulatory approach by deciding that compliance with such an approach will be voluntary. As a result, NRC will be regulating with two different systems— one for those utilities that choose to comply with a risk-informed approach and another for those that choose to stay with the existing regulatory approach. It is not clear how this dual system will be implemented. One part of the new risk-informed approach that has been implemented is a new safety oversight process for nuclear power plants. It was implemented in April 2000; and since then, NRC’s challenge has been to demonstrate that the new approach meets its goal of maintaining the same level of safety as the old approach, while being more predictable and consistent. The nuclear industry, states, public interest groups, and NRC staff have raised questions about various aspects of the process. For example, the industry has expressed concern about some of the performance indicators selected. Some NRC staff are concerned that that the process does not track all inspections issues and NRC will not have the information available, should the public later demand accountability from the agency. Furthermore, it is very difficult under the new process to assess those activities that cut across all aspects of plant operations— problem identification and resolution, human performance, and safety conscious work environment. In June 2001, NRC staff expect to report to the Commission on the first year of implementation of the new process and recommend changes, where warranted. NRC is facing a number of difficulties inherent in applying a risk-informed regulatory approach for nuclear material licensees. The sheer number of licensees—almost 21,000—and the diversity of the activities they conduct—converting uranium, decommissioning nuclear plants, transporting radioactive materials, and using radioactive material for industrial, medical, or academic purposes—increase the complexity of developing a risk-informed approach that would adequately cover all types of licensees. For example, the diversity of licensees results in varying levels of analytical sophistication; different experience in using risk- informed methods, such as risk assessments and other methods; and uneven knowledge about the analytical methods that would be useful to them. Because material licensees will be using different risk-informed methods, NRC has grouped them by the type of material used and the regulatory requirements for that material. For example, licensees that manufacture casks to store spent reactor fuel could be required to use formal analytical methods, such as a risk assessment. Other licensees, such as those that use nuclear material in industrial and medical applications, would not be expected to conduct risk assessments. In these cases, NRC staff said that they would use other methods to determine those aspects of the licensees’ operations that have significant risk, using an approach that considers the hazards (type, form, and quantity of material) and the barriers or physical and administrative controls that prevent or reduce exposure to these hazards. Another challenge associated with applying a risk-informed approach to material licensees is how NRC will implement a new risk-informed safety and safeguards oversight process for fuel cycle facilities. Unlike commercial nuclear power plants, which have a number of design similarities, most of the 10 facilities that prepare fuel for nuclear reactors perform separate and unique functions. For example, one facility converts uranium to a gas for use in the enrichment process, two facilities enrich or increase the amount of uranium-235 in the gas, and five facilities fabricate the uranium into fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. These facilities possess large quantities of materials that are potentially hazardous (i.e., explosive, radioactive, toxic, and/or combustible) to workers. The facilities’ diverse activities makes it particularly challenging for NRC to design a “one size fits all” safety oversight process and to develop indicators and thresholds of performance. In its recently proposed new risk-informed safety oversight process for material licensees, NRC has yet to resolve such issues as the structure of the problem identification, resolution, and corrective action program; the mechanics of the risk- significance determination process; and the regulatory responses that NRC would take when changes in performance occur. NRC had planned to pilot test the new fuel cycle facility safety oversight process in fiscal year 2001, but staff told us that this schedule could slip. NRC also faces challenges in redefining its role in a changing regulatory environment. As the number of agreement states increases beyond the existing 32, NRC must continue to ensure the adequacy and consistency of the states’ programs as well as its own effectiveness and efficiency in overseeing licensees that are not regulated by the agreement states. NRC has been working with the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (primarily state officials) and the Organization of Agreement States to address these challenges. However, NRC has yet to address the following questions: (1) Would NRC continue to need staff in all four of its regional offices as the number of agreement states increases? (2) What are the appropriate number, type, and skills for headquarters staff? and (3) What should NRC’s role be in the future? Later this month, a NRC/state working group expects to provide the Commission with its recommended options for the materials program of the future. NRC wants to be in a position to plan for needed changes because in 2003, it anticipates that 35 states will have agreements with NRC and that the states will oversee more than 85 percent of all material licensees. Another challenge NRC faces is to demonstrate that it is meeting one of its performance goals under the Government Performance and Results Act— increasing public confidence in NRC as an effective regulator. There are three reasons why this will be difficult. First, to ensure its independence, NRC cannot promote nuclear power, and it must walk a fine line when communicating with the public. Second, NRC has not defined the “public” that it wants to target in achieving this goal. Third, NRC has not established a baseline to measure the “increase” in its performance goal. In March 2000, the Commission rejected a staff proposal to conduct a survey to establish a baseline. Instead, in October 2000, NRC began an 18-month pilot effort to use feedback forms at the conclusion of public meetings. Twice a year, NRC expects to evaluate the information received on the forms to enhance its public outreach efforts. The feedback forms that NRC currently plans to use will provide information on the extent to which the public was aware of the meeting and the clarity, completeness, and thoroughness of the information provided by NRC at the meetings. Over time, the information from the forms may show that the public better understands the issues of concern or interest for a particular plant. It is not clear, however, how this information will show that public confidence in NRC as a regulator has increased. This performance measure is particularly important to bolster public confidence as the industry decides whether to submit a license application for one or more new nuclear power plants. The public has a long history with the traditional regulatory approach and may not fully understand the reasons for implementing a risk-informed approach and the relationship of that approach to maintaining plant safety. In a highly technical and complex industry, NRC is facing the loss of a significant percentage of its senior managers and technical staff. For example, in fiscal year 2001, about 16 percent of NRC staff are eligible to retire, and by the end of fiscal year 2005, about 33 percent will be eligible. The problem is more acute at the individual office level. For example, within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, about 42 percent of the technical staff and 77 percent of senior executive service staff are eligible for retirement. During this period of potentially very high attrition, NRC will need to rely on that staff to address the nuclear industry’s increasing demands to extend the operating licenses of existing plants and transfer the ownership of others. Likewise, in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 49 percent of the staff are eligible to retire at the same time that the nuclear industry is considering building new plants. Since that Office plays a key role in reviewing any new plants, if that Office looses some of its highly-skilled, well-recognized research specialists to retirement, NRC will be challenged to make decisions about new plants in a timely way, particularly if the plant is an untested design. In its fiscal year 2000 performance plan, NRC identified the need to maintain core competencies and staff as an issue that could affect its ability to achieve its performance goals. NRC noted that maintaining the correct balance of knowledge, skills, and abilities is critical to accomplishing its mission and is affected by various factors. These factors include the tight labor market for experienced professionals, the workload as projected by the nuclear industry to transfer and extend the licenses of existing plants, and the declining university enrollment in nuclear engineering studies and other fields related to nuclear safety. In October 2000, NRC’s Chairman requested the staff to develop a plan to assess the scientific, engineering, and technical core competencies that NRC needs and propose specific strategies to ensure that the agency maintains that competency. The Chairman noted that maintaining technical competency may be the biggest challenge confronting NRC. In January 2001, NRC staff provided a suggested action plan for maintaining core competencies to the Commission. The staff proposed to begin the 5-year effort in February 2001 at an estimated cost of $2.4 million, including the costs to purchase software that will be used to identify the knowledge and skills needed by NRC. To assess how existing human capital approaches support an agency’s mission, goals, and other organizational needs, we developed a human capital framework, which identified a number of elements and underlying values that are common to high-performing organizations. NRC’s 5-year plan appears to generally include the human capital elements that we suggested. In this regard, NRC has taken the initiative and identified options to attract new employees with critical skills, developed training programs to meets its changing needs, and identified legislative options to help resolve its aging staff issue. The options include allowing NRC to rehire retired staff without jeopardizing their pension payments and to provide salaries comparable to those paid in the private sector. In addition, for nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, NRC expects to implement an intern program in fiscal year 2002 to attract and retain individuals with scientific, engineering, and other technical competencies. It has established a tuition assistance program, relocation bonuses, and other inducements to encourage qualified individuals not only to accept but also to continue their employment with the agency. NRC staff say that the agency is doing the best that it can with the tools available to hire and retain staff. Continued oversight of NRC’s multiyear effort is needed to ensure that it is being properly implemented and is effective in achieving its goals. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. | This testimony discusses the challenges facing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as it moves from its traditional regulatory approach to a risk-informed, performance-based approach. GAO found that NRC's implementation of a risk-informed approach for commercial nuclear power plants is a complex, multiyear undertaking that requires basic changes to the regulations and processes NRC uses to ensure the safe operation of these plants. NRC needs to overcome several inherent difficulties as it seeks to apply a risk-informed regulatory approach to the nuclear material licensees, particularly in light of the large number of licensees and the diversity of activities they conduct. NRC will have to demonstrate that it is meeting its mandate (under the Government Performance and Results Act) of increasing public confidence in NRC as an effective regulator. NRC also faces challenges in human capital management, such as replacing a large percentage of its technical staff and senior managers who are eligible to retire. NRC has developed a five-year plan to identify and maintain the core competencies it needs and has identified legislative options to help resolve its aging staff problem. |
Medicare is a federal health insurance program that helps its beneficiaries pay for health services. The program does not cover every type of health service, and beneficiaries are responsible for deductibles and coinsurance. Medigap insurance, which is designed to supplement Medicare’s benefits, is regulated by federal and state law. Insurers must meet federal and state requirements to market policies as Medigap insurance. Section 1882 of the Social Security Act established federal requirements for the marketing, benefits, and performance of Medigap policies. Starting in 1992, Medigap policies were required to conform to 1 of 10 standardized sets of benefits, referred to as plans A through J. For example, standard policy A covers Medicare coinsurance; policy C covers Medicare coinsurance and inpatient deductibles; and policy J covers these cost-sharing components as well as several services not covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs. These are the only Medigap plans that can be sold in most states. Companies are not required to offer all 10 plans, and many do not. (See app. II for a description of the items covered under each of the 10 plans.) The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 authorized the Medicare SELECT program, a 3-year demonstration project in 15 states. Medicare SELECT policies combine certain managed care concepts with the 10 standard Medigap policies. SELECT policies require the insured to use the doctors and hospitals on the plan’s provider panel or pay higher cost-sharing amounts. The SELECT program was extended to June 30, 1998, and expanded to all states by Public Law 104-18. Federal law guarantees that, for a period of 6 months from the date a Medicare beneficiary both enrolls in Medicare part B and is age 65 or older, the beneficiary has a right to buy the Medigap policy of his or her choice regardless of any health problems the beneficiary may have. The Medigap open enrollment period at age 65 is also available to all disabled and kidney failure beneficiaries who have previously enrolled in Medicare part B. Thus, Medigap policies are required to be “guaranteed issue” during the 6-month period. Once the 6-month Medigap open enrollment period starts, it cannot be extended or repeated. Beneficiaries are informed of the 6-month open enrollment period when they enroll in Medicare. Insurers who sell Medigap policies outside the open enrollment period are allowed to use medical underwriting. Prospective policyholders usually must complete an application form that includes several questions about their health and habits. A “yes” response to any question can trigger a rejection of the application. Enrollment in an HMO with a Medicare risk contract can be viewed as a substitute for a Medigap policy. Like Medigap policies, HMOs often fill some of the gaps in Medicare coverage. In return for a fixed monthly payment from Medicare for each beneficiary enrolled, the HMO must provide or arrange for all services covered by Medicare. HMO enrollees generally must use the HMO’s doctors and hospitals for all their care, except in emergencies. Services obtained outside the HMO network generally will not be paid for by either the HMO or Medicare. The HMO cannot reject an application because of bad health, except for permanent kidney failure. Some HMOs charge the beneficiary a premium for the benefits not otherwise covered by Medicare, while other HMOs do not. Employer-sponsored retiree health insurance also acts as a Medigap policy for some Medicare beneficiaries. Although these plans generally provide benefits similar to those of Medigap policies, they are not regulated as Medigap insurance. Nor is limited-benefit insurance, such as hospital indemnity plans, long-term care policies, and cancer insurance, regulated as Medigap insurance. Medigap insurers are permitted to use medical underwriting after an individual’s 6-month open enrollment period has closed, and many of them do. However, Medicare beneficiaries who wish to change Medigap policies have at least one alternative that does not involve medical underwriting and, depending on where they live, may have several alternatives. Although currently there are alternatives for Medigap policyholders to switch policies, federal law does not guarantee that those alternatives will continue in the future. Under the Medicare SELECT program, NAIC’s model regulation guarantees policyholders the ability to switch to at least the lowest-benefit Medigap plan if they decide to go back to a regular Medigap policy and if the SELECT insurer offers Medigap policies. Also, federal law requires risk-contract HMOs to offer an annual open enrollment during which all must be accepted in the order they apply up to the HMO’s beneficiary enrollment limit. Of the largest 25 Medigap insurers, 11 companies used medical underwriting for applicants who wished to purchase a Medigap policy after their 6-month open enrollment period expired. Five companies used medical underwriting for applicants for some policies, especially policies with prescription drug coverage, while offering other policies as guaranteed issue. The remaining nine companies offered all their policies as guaranteed issue. (See app. III for a list and selected characteristics of the 25 companies we reviewed.) All 16 companies that used medical underwriting gathered information on applicants’ medical history and health status on the Medigap application form. For example, applicants could be asked if they had had cancer. For 11 of the 16 companies, a “yes” response to any health question would lead to rejection of the Medigap application. The other five companies told us they would consider additional factors. For example, if an applicant indicated having had an illness during the last 5 years, one company would compare the illness with a list of deniable medical conditions before a determination was made. Twelve of the 14 insurers that offered at least one policy as guaranteed issue were Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies, which had market areas generally limited to one state. Prudential, which sold its Medigap insurance through an arrangement with the AARP, offered 7 of the 10 Medigap standard plans as guaranteed-issue policies to AARP members, and membership was open to all elderly. Eleven of the 14 companies that sold at least one guaranteed-issue policy offered only the less comprehensive Medigap plans—those without prescription drug coverage—on a guaranteed-issue basis. The other three companies offered plans with prescription drug coverage. The various medical underwriting practices of the 25 companies are summarized in table 1. Six of the 16 companies that used medical underwriting were able to provide us with information on the number of applications they rejected. In 1995, the rejection rates for these companies ranged from 1 percent to 54 percent. The two highest rejection rates were from companies that required medical underwriting on policies with drug coverage but offered all other policies as guaranteed issue. One of the lower rejection rates, 2 percent, was reported by a company that requires underwriting for all policies. In 1995, this company received 83,000 applications from individuals whose 6-month open window had closed and rejected 1,096 applications for medical reasons. The reason most frequently cited by companies for rejecting an application was medical problems. The majority of Medicare beneficiaries have policies issued before Medigap policies were standardized into 10 policy forms in 1992. These prestandardized policies can no longer be sold to new customers. Twelve of the 16 companies that submitted some or all of their applications to medical underwriting allowed their policyholders to switch from a prestandardized Medigap policy to a standardized Medigap policy without medical underwriting, if the benefits were comparable with or less comprehensive than those of the prestandardized policy. Two other companies allowed their prestandardized policyholders to switch into any standardized policy without medical underwriting. All 16 companies allowed a policyholder to switch from one standardized policy to a lesser-benefit standardized policy without medical underwriting. A switch to a policy that provided more benefits, in most cases, was subject to medical underwriting. Federal law requires insurers to offer Medicare beneficiaries who want to leave the Medicare SELECT program the option of purchasing a traditional Medigap policy. States have interpreted this requirement differently. However, the NAIC model regulations require SELECT insurers to offer a standard Medigap policy, if the insurer sells them, to those individuals who wish to drop their SELECT policy. The policy offered must have comparable or lesser benefits and must be available regardless of the individual’s health. A recent report on the Medicare SELECT program found that most of the original 15 demonstration states determined that offering the basic Medigap plan “A” meets this requirement. HMOs with Medicare risk contracts often have lower cost-sharing than the fee-for-service program—or no cost-sharing at all—and also often cover additional services. Thus, HMOs with Medicare risk contracts can be viewed as an alternative to Medigap insurance. However, by enrolling in an HMO, a beneficiary agrees to relinquish the right to choose providers of care. Also, if the beneficiary decides to return to the fee-for-service program, Medigap insurers can use medical underwriting to determine whether to sell the person a policy. Under their agreements with Medicare, risk-contract HMOs must accept all eligible Medicare applicants in order of application, during an annual open enrollment period, except those enrolled in a hospice plan and those who have been diagnosed with permanent kidney failure. Medicare HMOs serve areas in 37 states and the District of Columbia, although they currently are concentrated in relatively few states. Over 45 percent of the 223 risk-contract HMOs are located in five states and enrolled over 65 percent of the 3.7 million Medicare HMO enrollees as of July 1996. Most other states had few risk-contract HMOs, and 13 states had no risk-contract HMO. While the availability to beneficiaries of HMOs across the country is far from uniform, risk-contract HMOs are available in states where a large number of Medicare beneficiaries reside. Most elderly Medicare beneficiaries do not replace their private health insurance coverage but many do add to existing coverage. HCFA’s Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data show that about 99 percent of the 19.5 million beneficiaries who had private insurance in 1991 and were alive in 1994 had the same plans in 1994. The remaining 1 percent of these beneficiaries either switched plans, dropped plans, or made other changes during the 1991-94 period. About 25 percent of the 19.5 million added plans to supplement those they had in 1991 (see table 2). In addition, over 1 million beneficiaries who did not have a private supplemental policy in 1991 had obtained one or more by the end of 1994. The data allowed us to compare only coverage by plan name, and we could not identify those instances in which the beneficiary switched coverage within the same plan. For example, we could not identify a case where a beneficiary switched from Medigap plan C to Medigap plan F if the plan name was Blue Cross/Blue Shield in both 1991 and 1994. For purposes of HCFA’s survey, private insurance included individually purchased plans (primarily Medigap policies); health plans from former employers; and other plans that might cover hospital, physician, or drug charges. HCFA’s survey excluded long-term care, hospital indemnity, and specified disease insurance from the private insurance category, but it is possible that beneficiaries reported these types of limited-benefit plans as individually purchased plans. Between 1991 and 1994, about 4.8 million beneficiaries added private health insurance plans to their existing coverage. Of these beneficiaries, about 4 million had only one policy in 1991; added coverage resulted in their owning multiple policies in 1994. Table 3 shows that in 1994 over 1.3 million beneficiaries had multiple Medigap policies and 1.4 million had multiple employer-sponsored plans. One reason why beneficiaries can be covered by multiple employer-sponsored plans is that both spouses can have plans that also cover the other spouse. Federal law prohibits an insurer from selling a beneficiary a second Medigap policy unless the beneficiary states in writing that he or she intends to cancel the first policy after the replacement policy goes into effect. Because so many beneficiaries reported purchasing Medigap policies when they already owned one, it appears that the law may not actually be preventing beneficiaries from owning multiple policies. Since 1993, NAIC has maintained a central database of formal complaints made to state insurance departments. This system has a category for underwriting complaints but it does not break the category into components such as medical underwriting. According to NAIC’s data, underwriting was the basis for 18 percent of the formal Medigap complaints to state insurance departments in 1994 and 1995. In 1994, 3 out of a total of 391 Medigap complaints relating to underwriting cited “refusal to insure after open enrollment period” as the reason for the complaint; in 1995, 1 out of 316 gave this reason. According to NAIC data, over 50 percent of the underwriting complaints in both 1994 and 1995 cited premium and rating method concerns. Insurance department officials from the 10 states with the largest Medicare populations said their departments received few Medigap complaints, and even fewer complaints relating to medical underwriting, in the last few years. Officials in five states attributed the current low volume of Medigap complaints to the changes made under OBRA 1990, which increased consumer protections and required that Medigap policies be standardized. Several officials also commented that it is not surprising that few formal complaints about medical underwriting are made because that practice is permissible and people are told as much at the informal telephone contact stage. The six consumer groups we contacted believed that Medigap medical underwriting practices resulted in some individuals’ being unable to obtain or change coverage, but the groups did not have statistical data describing the magnitude of the problem. These groups noted that although Medigap medical underwriting after the 6-month open enrollment period was a matter of concern, Prudential offered a continuous open market for Medigap policies through its arrangement with AARP. Because the current alternatives for avoiding medical underwriting are not required by law to be available, the situation could change in the future. One way to ensure that medical underwriting does not become a problem in the future would be to require Medigap insurers to offer policies with comparable benefit packages on a guaranteed-issue basis to individuals who have been continuously covered under Medigap. In this case, however, concerns might arise that because individuals can always buy a guaranteed-issue policy they might be encouraged to postpone purchase until they know they are likely to use the policy. However, if a condition for access to guaranteed-issue policies is continuous coverage under a similar policy, this concern is no longer an issue. Another potential problem is that individuals could seek to upgrade to more benefit-rich policies if they expected to use one of the new benefits. Again, this would not be a problem if insurers had to offer only policies with benefits comparable with the individual’s current policy. Employer-sponsored retiree health plans and HMOs with Medicare contracts can be viewed as substitutes for Medigap policies. Problems with maintaining Medicare supplement coverage can also occur if beneficiaries choose or are forced to change from these Medigap substitutes. We previously reported on potential problems in obtaining Medigap policies for those beneficiaries covered by employer-sponsored plans if their plan is terminated or benefits are downgraded. Beneficiaries can be forced to discontinue HMO enrollment for such reasons as relocating to an area where no HMO participates in Medicare. Also, some beneficiaries want to discontinue HMO coverage but feel that they cannot do so. The HHS Office of Inspector General reported that, in 1994, 10 percent of beneficiaries who were enrolled in HMOs (almost 94,000 people) wanted to end their enrollment but felt that they could not because of financial reasons, which could include concern about the availability of a Medigap policy. Beneficiaries with substitutes for Medigap who seek Medigap policies could be protected from medical underwriting under the legislative option discussed above if continuous coverage under a Medigap policy is defined to include enrollment in employer-sponsored health plans and in HMOs with Medicare contracts. Most beneficiaries obtain private insurance to supplement Medicare when they become eligible for the program at age 65. Few beneficiaries subsequently decide to change their policies, and those that do have at least one alternative for changing without being subject to medical underwriting. However, these alternatives are not guaranteed by federal law, and it is possible that circumstances could change in the future. Federal Medigap law (section 1882 of the Social Security Act) could be amended to furnish such a guarantee to beneficiaries who have been continuously covered by Medigap. Such a change should not have any major effect because it would not alter beneficiary incentives for Medigap coverage. If the Congress is concerned that the current alternatives available to Medicare beneficiaries who wish to change Medigap policies might not exist in the future, the Congress could amend federal Medigap law. Such an amendment could require insurers to offer Medicare beneficiaries who have been continuously covered by Medigap insurance guaranteed-issue policies with benefit packages comparable with those of the policy they currently hold. The Congress may also wish to consider extending this protection to beneficiaries whose employer-sponsored retiree health plans are terminated or curtailed and who must or choose to leave their HMOs. In commenting on a draft of this report, NAIC representatives agreed with our factual presentation and our conclusions. NAIC did offer some technical suggestions, which we incorporated where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to NAIC, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other interested congressional committees and individuals. We will make copies available to others on request. If you have any questions, please call me on (202) 512-6806 or Tom Dowdal, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-6588. Other contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. We obtained from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) their computerized database of insurance companies’ Medigap annual experience exhibits for 1994. The database identified 354 insurance companies and reported total earned premiums of $12.6 billion. We limited our review of medical underwriting to the 25 largest sellers of Medigap insurance. These companies had earned premiums of about $8.3 billion, or over 65 percent of the total. We did not test the accuracy of the database but our prior work has shown these databases to be highly accurate. To identify the extent to which medical underwriting is used in the Medigap market, we interviewed knowledgeable officials from the 25 largest sellers of Medigap insurance on their underwriting practices. To determine how frequently Medicare beneficiaries change private health plans, we obtained access to the computerized results of round 1 and round 10 of the Health Care Financing Administration’s (HCFA) Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, a continuous, multipurpose survey of a representative sample of the Medicare population. Round 1 and round 10 interviews were conducted in the last 4 months of calendar years 1991 and 1994, respectively. These interviews captured baseline information on a sample of Medicare beneficiaries (12,677 in 1991), including information on supplemental coverage from private insurance and Medicaid. For purposes of HCFA’s survey, private insurance included an individually purchased plan (that is, a Medigap policy); health plans from former employers; and other plans that might cover hospital, physician, or drug charges. HCFA’s survey excluded long-term care, hospital indemnity, and specified disease insurance from this insurance category. We compared, by plan name, the private insurance that Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older had in 1991 with the plans these same beneficiaries had in 1994 and identified and analyzed differences. We did not verify the accuracy of the information in the computerized file. To assess whether elderly Medicare beneficiaries are complaining about Medigap medical underwriting practices, we obtained from NAIC’s complaint data system a computerized file of Medigap complaints in 1994 and 1995. The NAIC data system is developed from information provided by state insurance departments on closed complaints. We analyzed the data on the 2,110 Medigap complaints identified in 1994 and the 1,732 identified in 1995. We supplemented these data by interviewing officials from the insurance departments of the 10 states with the largest elderly populations and by interviewing officials from 6 consumer/advocacy groups. We did not verify the accuracy of the information in the computerized file. Data reported in tables 2 and 3 are derived from the computerized results of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Because these data are derived from a sample, each estimate has a sampling error associated with it. The size of the sampling error reflects the precision of the estimate: The smaller the sampling error, the more precise the estimate. We computed sampling errors for tables 2 and 3 at the 95-percent confidence level. This means that the chances are about 95 out of 100 that the actual number or percentage being estimated falls within the range defined by our estimate, plus or minus the sampling error. Tables I.1 and I.2 show the sampling errors for tables 2 and 3, respectively. In addition, other beneficiary estimates presented in the report have the following sampling errors: for the 19.5 million beneficiaries who had private insurance, the sampling for the more than 1 million beneficiaries who did not have a private supplemental policy in 1991 but had at least one in 1994, the sampling for the 4.8 million beneficiaries who added private health insurance plans, the sampling error was – .3 million. In 1991, the NAIC approved the following 10 standardized benefit combinations (plans A through J) for Medicare supplement policies. Forty-four states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands approved all 10 plans. Pennsylvania and Vermont approved seven; Delaware approved six; and Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin had alternative simplification programs in effect and have waivers that exempt them from these standard plans. Benefits included in a plan are marked by “X.” Basic benefits pay the beneficiary’s Medicare part B coinsurance (generally 20 percent of Medicare-approved charges after the $100 annual deductible), part A coinsurance for the 61st-90th day of a Medicare-covered hospital stay, part A coinsurance during the use of a beneficiary’s 60 lifetime reserve days, eligible expenses after a beneficiary’s hospital benefits are exhausted up to a lifetime maximum of 365 days, and parts A and B blood deductible (3 pints). Part B excess charges are the difference between the actual charge for a service or item and the Medicare-allowed charge for that service or item. Medicare prohibits charging more than 115 percent of the Medicare-allowed charge. Primary method for calculating premiums$2,525,855,458 A through J 555,536,690 A, B, and H 519,636,376 A, B, C, D, F, 365,244,297 A, B, C, and H Single 305,529,121 A, B, C, D, 254,696,911 A, B, D, E, 203,832,750 A, B, C, F, I, 183,430,118 A, C, F, and I Multiple 180,965,855 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and I (continued) Primary method for calculating premiums180,200,050 A, B, C, D, F, 179,058,000 A, C, F, and I 157,659,892 A, C, E, F, 155,410,958 A, C, and H 154,283,955 A, B, C, D, F, 151,782,693 A, B, C, and F Multiple 134,673,000 A, C, and F 130,848,816 A,B,C, and H Single (continued) Thomas Dowdal, Assistant Director, (202) 512-6588 William Hamilton, Evaluator-in-Charge Michael Piskai Robert DeRoy 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 legislative requirement, GAO reviewed Medigap policies, focusing on: (1) the extent to which Medicare beneficiaries are subject to medical underwriting when they change Medigap policies; and (2) options for modifying federal Medigap requirements to ensure that medical underwriting is not a problem in such cases. GAO found that: (1) 11 of the 25 largest Medigap insurers use medical underwriting to determine whom they will insure, 5 sell some policies without medical underwriting, and 9 sell all of their policies without medical underwriting; (2) the American Association of Retired Persons' (AARP) insurer accepts all Medicare beneficiaries who are AARP members without medical underwriting for certain Medigap policies; (3) some Medicare beneficiaries can obtain supplemental insurance from local Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans depending on where they reside; (4) federal law requires Medicare SELECT program insurers to offer participants who want to drop their SELECT policy the option of purchasing a traditional Medigap policy without medical underwriting; (5) some beneficiaries have the option of enrolling in health maintenance organizations (HMO) with Medicare risk contracts; (6) about 99 percent of Medicare beneficiaries do not change their private health insurance, but about 25 percent supplement their existing coverage; (7) few beneficiaries have made formal complaints to their state insurance departments about Medigap underwriting practices; and (8) insurers may discontinue the few policies that do not require medical underwriting in the future, since federal law does not require these insurers to offer such policies. |
Terry Smith, an 11-year-old autistic boy, has been missing since Saturday.
Terry Dewayne Smith Jr., 11, an autistic boy, went missing from his Menifee, Calif., home on July 6. (Photo: Courtesy Riverside County Sheriff's Department) Story Highlights Police say body of a boy matching Terry Smith's description was found
Brother, 16, was the last to see the 11-year-old
Police have not confirmed that the remains found are Terry's
MENIFEE, Calif. -- The 16-year-old brother of an 11-year-old autistic boy who disappeared over the weekend from his Southern California home was arrested Wednesday on a murder charge, police said.
During a news conference Wednesday, Capt. John Hill said the body of a boy who fits the description of 11-year-old Terry Smith was found overnight in a "shallow grave containing partially exposed human remains."
Investigators were still working to confirm the identity of the remains found Wednesday afternoon.
The Riverside County District Attorney's Office is waiting for investigators to forward the criminal case to prosecutors for review, spokesman John Hall said. He did not know how quickly that could happen.
The teen, whose name was not released, was the last one to see Terry near his Menifee, Calif., home Saturday, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department previously said.
"The brother was walking away from their residence, turns back, sees that Terry's following him and tells Terry, 'Hey, go home,'" Deputy Albert Martinez told The Desert Sun this week.
The half-brother — who has the same mom as Terry — has been "questioned several times by investigators," Martinez said Tuesday afternoon.
"He's been cooperative throughout the whole time," the deputy said.
Earlier Wednesday, investigators halted their search and returned to Terry's home to search for human remains at about 1:30 a.m.
Riverside County Sheriff's deputies have closed Helen Lane on July 10 in Menifee, Calif. Authorities searched for possible human remains at the home of an 11-year-old autistic boy who disappeared over the weekend. (Photo: Frank Bellino AP)
It was the fourth day of a widespread search for the boy, who was identified by police as an autistic boy who was last seen Saturday.
Investigators found "possible human remains" in the dirt not far from the house, and a search warrant was issued at the house late Wednesday morning, said Sgt. Lisa McConnell.
Investigators initially said that Terry "was discovered missing from his residence" sometime between 7:30 p.m. Saturday and 10:30 a.m. Sunday.
<!--iframe-->
Terry lived on a short stretch of road in a rural area of Menifee, a city of about 80,000 in southwestern Riverside County, Calif., which is about 80 miles southeast of Los Angeles.
They were "able to verify" Monday that Terry was last seen between 7:30 and 9 p.m. Saturday outside his home, McConnell said.
As the search went on and temperatures peaked above 100 degrees each day, more than 1,000 law enforcement, search and rescue personnel and volunteers flooded into the city to help search.
Searchers canvassed by ATV, bicycle and foot and distributed thousands of fliers. Coordinators set up a Find Terry Smith page on Facebook that garnered more than 25,000 fans.
The volunteer coordinators initially held out hope they would find Terry but announced they called off the search and would now enter a "time of grieving."
"We want to thank everyone who is following our efforts here and for the thousands of volunteers and businesses that have helped this incredible search effort," the page administrator posted Wednesday.
"PLEASE REMEMBER that our focus has always been on Terry Smith, an 11 year old boy. Our focus is still on that boy and the memory." ||||| A memorial for Terry Smith grew in Menifee on Thursday, a day after a body was found in the backyard of the 11-year-old’s family home. A multiday search for the missing boy had drawn hundreds of volunteers. An NBC4 boy says the 16-year-old murder suspect is Terry’s half brother. Tony Shin reports from Menifee for the NBC4 News at Noon on July 11, 2013. (Published Thursday, July 11, 2013)
An unidentified 16-year-old family member has been arrested on suspicion of murder in the death of Menifee, Calif., boy Terry Smith, city Police Chief John Hill said Wednesday afternoon.
In the fourth day of a search for the 11-year-old that brought out hundreds of volunteers, Hill said partially exposed human remains had been found in a shallow grave of the backyard of the Smith home.
Hope Gives Way to Despair in Search for Missing Boy; Body Found, Relative Arrested
In Menifee, a search for a missing boy ended when authorities uncovered a boy's body and arrested a teenage relative. Beverly White reports for NBC4 News at 11 p.m. on Wednesday, July 10, 2013. (Published Thursday, July 11, 2013)
The remains are believed to be those of the boy, Hill said.
The occupants of the Smith home had been interviewed by investigators at the police station after investigators responded early Wednesday morning to a report of remains found, Hill said.
Hope Turns to Heartbreak for Menifee Search Volunteers
The news that a body was discovered Wednesday overwhelmed community volunteers who had spent the last three days searching for 11-year-old Terry Smith. Volunteers turned to prayer after hearing the heartbreaking news. Michelle Valles reports from Menifee for the NBC4 News at 5 p.m. on July 10, 2013. (Published Thursday, July 11, 2013)
"As a result of those interviews, a 16-year-old family member was arrested," Hill said.
Hill would not identify the family member or give any information about the suspect.
Body Found Near Missing Menifee Boy’s Home
The search for a missing boy in Menifee was halted Wednesday, as investigators confirmed that a body had been found behind a market near the boy’s home. Authorities revealed they arrested a member of the boy’s family for murder. Tony Shin reports from Menifee for the NBC4 News at 5 and 6 p.m. on July 10, 2013. (Published Thursday, July 11, 2013)
Riverside County Sheriff's Department officials had said earlier Wednesday that the boy's mother, Shawna Smith, her partner and a 16-year-old half brother were questioned at the sheriff's station.
An NBC4 source says the suspect is Terry's half brother.
Search for Menifee Boy Ends With Body Found
Terry's father, Terry Smith, Sr., said he wasn't surprised at the news of the arrest.
Reached by NBC4 at his home in West Virginia, Smith said his son feared his 16-year-old half brother, who he said had anger issues.
Search for Missing Menifee Boy Who Has Autism Wears On
Hundreds of volunteers were desperately searching in triple-digit temperatures for a boy with autism who went missing over the weekend. Beverly White reports from Menifee for NBC4 News at 11 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9, 2013. (Published Thursday, July 11, 2013)
"It didn't come as a surprise with his past," Smith said.
Further complicating the story, Smith said his son did not have autism. Terry's mother, Shawna Smith, told reporters that the boy did.
“Nope, nope, nope," Terry Smith, Sr., said. "In fact, when everyone in West Virginia heard that, they all flipped because they know better. He was a hyper little boy, he might have had ADHD.”
Earlier on Wednesday, investigators had served a search warrant at the Smith home and authorities had been attempting to determine whether remains found behind the residence were those of the missing child, according to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The department patrols Menifee under contract; Hill is the acting police chief.
"We conducted multiple searches of the property and were diligent about doing so. Search dogs were used at the property, volunteers and personnel on multiple occasions," Hill said Wednesday afternoon. "Sometimes it takes a while for us to put all the puzzle pieces together in a circumstance like this."
Law enforcement agents suspended their search for missing 11-year-old Terry Smith Wednesday morning as investigators blocked off the area with yellow crime scene tape.
Aerial video showed investigators with a rake, shovel and other hand tools in a large dirt field behind the property. The dig area was along a fenceline next to a large pepper tree behind the Smith residence.
Authorities placed what appeared to be a body on a gurney.
Terry was last seen Saturday at the family home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane (map) in Menifee, about 80 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.
Despite suspension of the law enforcement search for Terry early Wednesday, volunteers continued the search late into the morning. Some searchers clasped hands in prayer as deputies were digging.
"We're still holding out hope," said volunteer searcher Bill Gillette. "That's all we have to go with, right now. There wasn't anything specific enough for us to stop looking."
Riverside County Sheriff's Department and forensics services vehicles were at the family's home.
"He's alive. I know he is," his mother, Shawna Smith, told NBC4 Tuesday. "Mommys' hearts don't lie. He's still here — he's somewhere; we just need to find him."
On Tuesday, Menifee police said investigators had no leads after speaking to registered sex offenders in the area about the case.
At about 7:30 p.m. Saturday, the boy's mother went out to play pool with some friends and left Terry with his older half brother. When their mother checked in on them at about 1 a.m., she thought they were asleep.
In the morning, Shawna Smith discovered Terry was missing when she went into the bedroom to give him his medication. She reported him missing at 10:30 Sunday morning.
Terry's half brother said he last saw the boy walking on Helen Lane Saturday night near the family home.
"It's just sadness," said volunteer searcher Angeles Adams, a teacher. "We've lost one of our students."
A vigil was held at about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at Menifee Market, where a civilian search team was stationed.
There, Smith's family released an unsigned statement:
"Our family would like to ask for the public and the media to allow us to grieve in peace," the statement said. "This has been a devastating week for our family and for everybody involved in the search. We are not prepared to provide an interview at this present time. Allow us to heal and pull ourselves together. This community has been amazing and we appreciate all the support. Our family can't thank each of you enough."
Terry Smith, Sr., said that just months ago, his son told him he wanted to go live with him in West Virginia.
"That was one of the last things I heard my son tell me," Smith said, "that 'I want to move back because my brother and sister there treat me like a brother and not like a step.'"
Anyone with information in the case can contact authorities in Menifee at (951) 210-1000 or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department dispatch line at (951) 776-1099.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story previously described Terry Smith's half brother as his "stepbrother." The boy's mother, Shawna Smith, described the two as half brothers. The story has been updated to reflect this.
More Southern California Stories: ||||| The partially exposed remains of a child's body matching the description of Terry Dewayne Smith, a missing 11-year-old autistic boy, were found in a shallow grave near his family’s home in Menifee, authorities said.
A 16-year-old family member has been arrested on suspicion of murder, said Capt. John Hill of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Authorities refused to identify the suspect or the family relationship.
Terry had been missing since Saturday night or Sunday morning and hundreds of volunteers had been searching the area.
He was last seen by his older brother, who was watching him while his mother spent the night out.
Terry's older brother told authorities that between 7:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Saturday, he walked to a nearby market, Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Alberto Martinez said. During the walk, the brother said, he turned back and saw Terry following him and told him to go home.
That was the last time anyone saw the youth, Martinez said.
The body was found buried about 75 feet from the home in clothing that matched the description of what Terry was last seen wearing, sources said.
Menifee Mayor Scott Mann said the body was found about 12:55 a.m. on Wednesday.
The search area around the home had expanded to 55 square miles by Sunday afternoon, but became "rapidly smaller" as the days went by, Mann said.
Volunteers gathered in a prayer circle Wednesday as rumors spread that the hunt for Terry had taken a dramatic turn and that investigators were focusing on a search for remains.
“We will find a way to remember him in our hearts,” said Jenny Smith, who was one of his fourth-grade teachers.
Dallal Harb, the owner of the Menifee Market where the volunteer search has been coordinated, said she is close to the boy’s family and used to take him home from school.
“I just don’t want to believe it,” she said. “I see what’s going on. But I just don’t want to believe it.”
ALSO:
Man plows car through gate at Bob Hope Airport
Man guilty of posing as officer, seeking sex with victim's wife
Redlands teacher who bore child pleads not guilty to abusing 3 boys
Twitter: @palomaesquivel
[email protected] ||||| Translate this page
Chief of Police John Hill speaks to the press and public during a press conference on July 10 in regards to the case of Terry Smith. A group of volunteers gathered to say a prayer for Smith and his safe return home. Volunteers going out on routes to find a trace of Smith. Two young girls holding up signs with information about 11-year-old Smith. One of numerous cars with the information about missing 11-year-old Smith. A group of volunteers gathered to say a prayer. Captain John Hill, who serves as Menifee's Chief of Police, addressing and taking questions from the press about the missing boy. A concerned citizen on the side of the road holding out a sign to drivers passing by about missing Terry Smith. Scott Mann, City of Menifee Mayor, addressing the various press members about the current state of the search for missing 11-year-old, Terry Smith. (Right) Shawna Smith, mother of Terry, speaking with the Menifee Sheriff Department and volunteers. The Riverside County Sheriff Department and the six mounted horseman preparing to look for Terry west of Murrieta Road. Menifee citizen Bill Gilette and CoMenifee citizen Bill Gilette and Councilman Fuhrman coordinate the routes that the civilian search parties will cov... 11-year-old Terry Smith Volunteer searchers heading out to continue on their search for Smith. Bill Gilette, coordinator of civilian search efforts, telling a group of volunteers where they can go to search for Smith. Bill Gilette addressing the crowd of volunteers about updates from the Sheriff's department and safety concerns. A view of the canopies where officials were digging up a shallow grave on the property of the Smith household. The tents cover the area where a shallow grave was found with the remains of what is believed to be 11-year-old Terry Smith. Mayor of Menifee Scott Mann speaks to the public during a press conference on July 10. Chief of Police John Hill speaks to the press and public during a press conference on July 10 in regards to the case of Terry Smith. Yellow crime scene tape went up this morning closing off Helen Lane near the home of 11-year-old Terry Smith, who has not been seen since 7:30 pm Satu... Volunteers continuing to make signs to put up in Menifee and its surrounding cities. Citizens of Menifee balloons at the Candlelight Vigil for Smith. A little girl looking at the Memorial that was formed at the Vigil in dedication to Smith. A supporter of Terry Smith gathered at the Candlelight Vigil on Wednesday, July 10. Terry Smith Jr.'s mother's partner, hugging a friend at the Candlelight Vigil. A saxophonist played Ava Maria as the crowd gathered to remember Terry Smith Jr. Attendees of the Vigil lighting candles in remembrance of Smith. Attendees of the Vigil holding lit candles in remembrance of Smith. There were over 1,000 people in attendance at the Vigil that was held at the Menifee Market, where the volunteer homebase was located when the search ... The crowd at the Vigil looking up at the balloons remembering Terry Smith Jr. "Heaven gained an amazing angel" The memorial that was formed for Terry Smith Jr. in remembrance. Half-brother of Terry Smith arrested for murder; partially buried remains found by citizen volunteer
Wednesday, July 10th, 2013
Issue 28, Volume 17.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video. MENIFEE - The 16-year-old half-brother of an autistic 11-year-old boy who disappeared over the weekend was in custody this morning on suspicion of murder in the death of the child, who was allegedly hit in the head with a rock, then buried in a shallow grave behind his home in Menifee. It was a citizen volunteer who found the remains. Because of his age, Riverside County sheriff's officials did not release the name of the suspect, who was arrested Wednesday following an interview with detectives at the sheriff's Menifee station. "This was a domestic issue within that residence," according to Riverside County sheriff's Capt. John Hill, who serves as Menifee's chief of police. "There was no stranger in the city of Menifee who caused this to happen." Hill confirmed that human remains found early Wednesday in a partially dug grave "fit the description of Terry Smith," although a positive identification had not yet been made. A man identified as Terry Smith's father told KCAL9 that authorities believe the slain boy met a violent end. "From what I heard it's put down as a domestic because he hit him in the head with a rock," Terry Smith Sr., who lives in West Virginia, told the station. The 11-year-old was last seen Saturday night and had become the focus of a large-scale search effort covering 55 square miles and involving both volunteers and law enforcement personnel from several agencies. Menifee Mayor Scott Mann said that based on Wednesday's developments, the search had been "suspended indefinitely." According to authorities, volunteers helping scour the countryside stumbled upon a shallow grave containing partially exposed human remains about 75 feet behind the Smith home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane and notified deputies before 1 a.m. Wednesday. Hill acknowledged that "multiple searches of the property" had taken place previously without turning up any clues. "Sometimes it takes a while to put all the puzzle pieces together in circumstances like this," the police chief said. According to reports from the scene, Terry Smith's half-brother initially told investigators he had last seen the boy playing video games in the house Saturday night, but he recently changed his story, saying the youngster had tried to follow him to a nearby corner market after dark, prompting the older youth to order him back home. After the discovery of the remains, all members of the household were whisked away to the sheriff's station for questioning. The boy's mother was eventually released, according to broadcast reports. Terry Smith's father told KCAL9 that, from the beginning, he felt the circumstances under which his son disappeared were "fishy." He also said his son was not autistic and accused the boy's mother of trying to have the child diagnosed with the disorder so she could collect government benefits. One of the boy's teachers also told reporters that Terry Smith was not autistic. "The outpouring of love and support from the people of Menifee and our neighbors has been overwhelming," Mann said. "Volunteers worked round the clock, looking for Terry. The world tuned into this community for the last four days. I commend the men and women involved in this search." Hundreds of people held a prayer vigil Wednesday evening at a marketplace around the corner from the Smith residence. "We came out here to find a little boy," Menifee resident Pam Ragland told a local television station. "I was really hoping it wasn't him (found buried), that it was a mistake." Anyone with information about the case was urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000, or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776-1099. The following agencies assisted the Riverside Sheriff's Department/Menifee Police Department with the search for Terry Smith: Federal Bureau of Investigation National Center for Missing and Exploited Children California Office of Emergency Services - Chief Dennis Beene Riverside County Fire-Office of Emergency Services Cal Fire-Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County District Attorney's Office San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Orange County Sheriff's Department San Diego County Sheriff's Department Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Anaheim Police Department Irvine Police Department Garden Grove Police Department Long Beach Police Department, Search and Rescue Sierra Madre Search and Rescue Riverside Mountain Rescue Unit Desert Sheriff's Search and Rescue Riverside County Disaster Corps Riverside County Sheriff's Posse Citizen Emergency Response Teams from Menifee, Moreno Valley, Canyon Lake, Wildomar, Riverside, Temecula, and the Pass Area Riverside Amateur Civil Emergency Services (R.A.C.E.S.) Lake Elsinore, Perris, and Menifee Explorers City of Menifee The 16-year-old brother of Terry Smith, an 11-year-old autistic boy missing from his Menifee home since Saturday has been arrested, according to sheriff's officials. Human remains found near the family's home early this morning have not been positively identified as those of the missing boy, but a sheriff's official says the body generally matches the boy's description. STATEMENT FROM THE SHERIFF's DEPARTMENT - Investigators are currently serving a search warrant at the property where Terry Smith resides. Investigators have located possible human remains on the property and are currently trying to determine if, in fact, the remains are human. The investigators are actively processing the scene. MENIFEE- Human remains have been found on the property from which an 11-year-old autistic boy disappeared Saturday night, it was reported today. Detectives investigating the disappearance of Terry Smith went to a home on Helen Lane shortly after 1 a.m. today, based on evidence to indicate there may be a body on the property, according to Riverside County sheriff's Deputy Albert Martinez. A couple of hours later, yellow crime scene tape went up around the property, and news reports from the scene quoted sheriff's officials as saying that, while volunteers again would go out today to look for the boy, sheriff's personnel would not. The boy disappeared Saturday night from his family home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane in Menifee. According to relatives, the boy, who has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old, was last seen around 7:30 that evening. He was reportedly being babysat by a 16-year-old step-brother. Since then, massive search operations have taken place, with more than 700 people fanning out and looking for Terry at one time, wading through snake- infested scrub in the midday heat, shouting his name. "The strength and fabric of a community are never tested until an event such as this occurs," Menifee Mayor Scott Mann told reporters Tuesday. "We have volunteers from all quarters of the city -- neighbors, ranchers, members of our church family -- people from all walks of life, who have come out in overwhelming support of this search." Riverside County sheriff's Capt. John Hill, who serves as the Menifee police chief, said multiple agencies are taking part in the canvass, including the Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino County sheriff's departments, police Explorer units, Cal Fire and personnel from the Riverside County Office of Emergency Services. Search coordinator Bill Gillette told ABC7 on Tuesday that the search has taken on additional urgency because of the length of time Terry has been missing. Hill said law enforcement is focused on a 55-square-mile area around the child's home. "Terry's whereabouts and the circumstances under which he disappeared are unknown," the sheriff's captain said Tuesday, before reports of human remains on the Helem lane property. "We're doing everything possible to return him to his family." Hill was asked if Terry might have been abducted. "That's always a possibility," he replied. "We're looking at all possibilities." Terry is 4 feet 8 and 76 pounds, with blue eyes and dirty blonde hair, last seen wearing light blue basketball shorts and ankle socks. Anyone with information about the boy or his disappearance was urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000, or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776-1099. UPDATE: Police Call Off Their Official Search for 11-Year-Old Terry Smith Menifee - Law enforcement has officially called off their search for missing 11-year-old Autistic Terry Smith today, July 10. Law enforcement have started to concentrate their search at the child's home off of the 33000 Helen Lane in Menifee. The area has been deemed a crime scene and police have reason to believe that there are human remains on the property. Smith was first reported missing on Sunday when Riverside County Sheriff's deputies were dispatched at 10:33 a.m. where they were told that Smith went missing around 7:30 p.m. Saturday, according to Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. Lisa McConnell. Search for Missing Menifee Boy Enters Fifth Day MENIFEE - Amid a deepening sense of urgency and with officials unable to rule out kidnapping, volunteers and law enforcement personnel were gearing up today to continue scouring the Menifee area and points beyond in hopes of finding an autistic 11-year-old boy missing since Saturday night. "We pledge to continue this search effort until such time that circumstances dictate otherwise," Menifee Mayor Scott Mann told reporters Tuesday. "We will maintain our vigilance and continue searching. We will find Terry." Terry Dewayne Smith disappeared Saturday night from his family home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane in Menifee. According to relatives, the boy, who has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old, was last seen around 7:30 that evening. Since then, massive search operations have taken place, with more than 700 people fanning out and looking for Terry at one time, wading through snake- infested scrub in the midday heat, shouting his name. "The strength and fabric of a community are never tested until an event such as this occurs," Mann said. "We have volunteers from all quarters of the city -- neighbors, ranchers, members of our church family -- people from all walks of life, who have come out in overwhelming support of this search." Riverside County sheriff's Capt. John Hill, who serves as the Menifee police chief, said multiple agencies are taking part in the canvass, including the Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino County sheriff's departments, police Explorer units, Cal Fire and personnel from the Riverside County Office of Emergency Services. Search coordinator Bill Gillette told ABC7 on Tuesday that the search has taken on additional urgency because of the length of time Terry has been missing. Hill said law enforcement is focused on a 55-square-mile Advertisement
[ SANDAG ] area around the child's home. "Terry's whereabouts and the circumstances under which he disappeared are unknown," the sheriff's captain said. "We're doing everything possible to return him to his family." Hill was asked if Terry might have been abducted. "That's always a possibility," he replied. "We're looking at all possibilities." Terry is 4 feet 8 and 76 pounds, with blue eyes and dirty blonde hair, last seen wearing light blue basketball shorts and ankle socks. Anyone with information about the boy or his disappearance was urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000, or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776-1099. UPDATE: Search for Missing Menifee Boy Continues MENIFEE - Night 4 of the search for missing 11-year-old continues. Law enforcement asked that volunteers cancel their on foot search for tonight. Volunteer searchers and other residents of Menifee and its surrounding areas have continued to gather at Menifee Market and make posters, pray, and be together. Volunteers continue to canvas the area canvasing in cars and getting flyers in surrounding areas. Volunteers are encouraged to meet up at 8 am at the Menifee Market, Wednesday morning. Anyone with information about the boy is urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000, or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776-1099. MENIFEE - Hundreds of people fanned out in triple-digit heat to search for an 11-year-old special-needs boy who went missing over the weekend in Menifee. "We pledge to continue this search effort until such time that circumstances dictate otherwise," said Menifee Mayor Scott Mann during a news briefing. "We will maintain our vigilance and continue searching. We will find Terry." Terry Dewayne Smith disappeared Saturday night from his family home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane. According to relatives, the autistic youth, who has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old, was last seen around 7:30 that evening. The search effort has involved more than 700 people, some of whom have combed through snake-infested scrub in the midday heat as they shouted out the boy's name. "The strength and fabric of a community are never tested until an event such as this occurs," Mann said. "We have volunteers from all quarters of the city -- neighbors, ranchers, members of our church family -- people from all walks of life, who have come out in overwhelming support of this search." Riverside County sheriff's Capt. John Hill, who serves as the Menifee police chief, told reporters that multiple agencies are taking part in the canvass, including the Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino County Sheriff's Departments, police Explorer units, Cal Fire and personnel from the Riverside County Office of Emergency Services. Hill said law enforcement is focused on a 55-square-mile area around the child's home. "Terry's whereabouts and the circumstances under which he disappeared are unknown," the sheriff's captain said. "We're doing everything possible to return him to his family." When asked whether he thought Terry might have been abducted, Hill replied "That's always a possibility." "We're looking at all possibilities," he said. Terry is 4 feet 8 and weighs 76 pounds. He has blue eyes, dirty blond hair and was wearing light-blue basketball shorts and ankle socks. Anyone with information about the boy was urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000, or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776-1099. Authorities say there is still no sign this morning of the 11-year-old autistic boy who went missing from his Menifee home. MENIFEE - It was night three in the search for missing Menifee Austistic eleven-year-old, Terry Dewayne Smith where over 250 volunteer searchers relentlessly scoured Menifee and its surrounding areas into the late hours of the night. Smith was last seen Saturday evening at his home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane, in a rural area off Scott Road about two miles west of Interstate 215. The search for Smith came up empty once again but family, friends, and the community of Menifee are not giving up hope in finding him. Throughout the day, volunteers have posted and handed out flyers with Smith’s recent picture and description and searched on foot throughout the area hoping to find some trace of Smith and his whereabouts and tirelessly battled triple digit temperatures. There have been several potential sightings of Smith within the area, with the most recent being near Loma Linda Hospital in Murrieta. Within minutes of reporting of this sighting, volunteer rescuers got in their cars and rushed to the scene but it turned out to be a false lead. There are also official crews of Deputies and Menifee explorers actively searching the area. At this point in the investigation, deputies do not suspect any foul play, but they are not ruling it out entirely. Bill Gilette, a Menifee resident who has been assisting and coordinating the civilian search efforts, was not only concerned about Smith and his whereabouts, but was also concerned about the volunteers and encouraged them to stay within sight, staying out of fields and open spaces due to injury or snakes, or other various animals. Gilette also encourages anyone who wants to participate in the search for Smith to come to the Menifee Market on Tuesday, June 9 beginning at 7 am, to help comb through the surrounding areas. Finding Smith is of the utmost importance for search crews, official and volunteer, will not waiver until he is found. For more information on joining the search or donating food and water for the volunteer searchers visit the Menifee Market located at 26035 Scott Road, Menifee, CA. Anyone who spots Terry or knows his whereabouts is urged to call the sheriff’s Perris station at (951) 210-1000 or sheriff’s dispatch at (951) 776-1099. Hundreds of Volunteers from Menifee Help Local Law Enforcement in Search for Missing 11-Year-Old, Terry Smith MENIFEE - "Help me find my baby – he’s still missing! It’s been too long. He’s my baby boy who is afraid of the dark and must be scared out of his mind! Please help!" were the words of Shawna Smith, Terry’s mom, as she spoke with citizens of Menifee and the surrounding areas who have volunteered to help find Terry. Terry is an eleven-year-old Autistic boy that has been missing since Saturday night when he followed his older brother, 16-year-old, Skylor Atliano on a walk to Atliano’s friend’s house off of Haun Road. Immediately, when Atliano realized his brother was following him he told Terry that he needed to go back home and Atliano walked him back to their street not knowing that he wouldn’t make it back safely inside. Shawna reported Terry missing late Sunday morning reporting that he was last seen wearing blue jean shorts, no shirt or shoes and was last seen Saturday evening around 9 p.m. walking south on Daly Road. Tom Fuhrman, City of Menifee Councilman, has helped coordinate the search for Terry since Sunday, July 7 and has been back and forth between the Sheriff Command Post at the Fire Station and the Civilian Post, located at Menifee Market, 26035 Scott Road. "The Sheriffs and six mounted horseman are concentrating their search west of Murrieta Road and volunteers are focusing their search on the east side of Scott Road," Fuhrman said. Bill Gilette, Menifee resident, has stepped up and volunteered to assist Councilman Fuhrman by coordinating the civilian search efforts and feels that Terry is "within a mile of his home" located on Helen Road off of Murrieta Road. Gilette has advised volunteer searchers to look in open fields, abandoned cars and trucks, under trees in shaded areas, etc. "As far as we know Terry has not had any food or drink since Saturday evening and must be severely dehydrated and extremely scared," Gilette said to the volunteers. The temperature in Menifee will be over 100 degrees and finding Terry is at the top of the list. Volunteers have donated water and food to keep the search parties hydrated and fed. If you are interested in donating food and water for the searchers or interested in joining the search, please drop off items at or visit Menifee Market located at 26035 Scott Road, Menifee, CA. Anyone who spots Terry or knows his whereabouts is urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000 or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776- 1099. MENIFEE - Friends and relatives were searching through the night early today for an 11-year-old autistic boy who went missing from his Menifee home. Riverside County Sheriff's deputies were dispatched at 10:33 a.m. Sunday to a home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane, where they were told that Terry Dewayne Smith went missing around 7:30 p.m. Saturday, according to Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. Lisa McConnell. Deputies searched for Terry but couldn't find him in the area, even with a bloodhound, McConnell said. Terry is 4 feet 8, 76 pounds and has blond hair and blue eyes. He was last seen wearing blue basketball shorts. Anyone who spots Terry or knows his whereabouts is urged to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000 or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776- 1099. 11-year-old autistic boy missing from Menifee MENIFEE - Sheriff's officials are searching for an 11-year-old autistic boy who went missing overnight from his Menifee home, a sergeant said today. Sheriff's deputies were dispatched at 10:33 a.m. today to a home in the 33000 block of Helen Lane. They learned that Terry Dewayne Smith went missing on Saturday at 7:30 p.m., according to Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. Lisa McConnell. Deputies searched for Terry but couldn't find him in the area, even with a bloodhound, McConnell said. Terry is 4 feet 8 inches tall, weighs 76 lbs. and has blonde hair and blue eyes. He was last seen wearing blue basketball shorts. Deputies urge anyone who has seen Terry or knows about his whereabouts to call the sheriff's Perris station at (951) 210-1000 or sheriff's dispatch at (951) 776-1099.
33 comments
Julie
Comment #1 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:33 am Please no. :(
Sad
Comment #2 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:41 am I'm sure the little guy is in a good place now.
Missey Lightfoot
Comment #3 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:48 am This its so sad and wish this isn't the way it would end my heart and prayers go out to Terry just so sad
Praying
Comment #4 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:49 am I'm praying lots and lots for him...if the remains are his he is in heaven...
Puzzled
Comment #5 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:18 pm Search over a 55 mile radius and no one looked in the backyard of his home?
Suzy
Comment #6 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40 pm Oh NOOOOO! Please GOD No...
Reality Checker
Comment #7 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm Coyotes possibly? Are there coyotes in Menifee?
PRAYING
Comment #8 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm From a mother words just can't describe.
Fallbrook res.
Comment #9 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:23 pm @#5. I agree, one would have hoped they looked close to home, with a dog to smell him.
observer
Comment #10 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm @Puzzled - from what I understand the mother would not let them search the property and they had to obtain a search warrant to do so. The whole story did not add up. If this is the boy, it is so tragic on so many levels. My first thought was heat exhaustion, but then I read there was actually a shallow grave but they are still determining identity of the remains and it does not look good. I am waiting to hear some sort of info on the results. Truth will be revealed, justice will be had.
Fallbrook Mom
Comment #11 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:19 pm searchers are stealing from neighbors properties also. tweekers are henious
Menifee Resident
Comment #12 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm Ton's of coyotes. Big cats too. That wasn't Terry's problem.
Suspicious
Comment #13 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm I'm sure there's more to come out from this. What kind of a mother leaves her 11yo autistic boy at home alone while she is "out playing pool"? It seems to me that Terry may have cramped his "mothers" style...just saying.
Saddened....
Comment #14 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:50 pm It is just so tragic that this poor child had to go through whatever it is he did the last day of his life. It is even worse that we have "parents" and "siblings" who claim they know nothing about his disappearance. Someone isn't telling the truth. He didn't just magically appear in his backyard. What is this world coming to?
To all the people who donated, helped, came together as a community and put in all the efforts, you should be so proud of who you are and what you did! :)
Hugs to you all and may god bless you!
This sweet little boy can rest now.
Miss Lynn
Comment #15 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm I am not sure but I heard his half-brother (16-yrs old) is a suspect for the murder of his half-brother. This is so sad. Parents hug your children and let them know you love them. You never know what can happen in your own home. Prayers to all involved. Searchers you did a good deed. God will reward you. Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Miss Lynn
Comment #16 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm Pray for the family.
bluemoone
Comment #17 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:19 pm I am so hoping he is found, have a grand son that is autistic 11 years old hope this is not deliberate so sad
sadd
Comment #18 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:30 pm ****HALF BROTHER ARRESTED**** :(0
@smiths
Comment #19 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm Worst nightmare just got worse....I can't even begin to fathom!!
Resident
Comment #20 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:49 pm Oh dear God.
sad in PA
Comment #21 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm This is a terrible thing to happen to any child. My heart goes out to his family as they grieve this loss.
itssosad
Comment #22 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:27 pm terry smith sounded so nice
mija
Comment #23 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:45 pm That's so sad.
so sad from wildomar
Comment #24 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:55 pm im just so sad if the boy is autistic when the mother got home orthe brother why didnt they check on him when i go out even tothe store when i get home i always checkon my kids evenif its after 8 pm they in bed a sleep i check on them ..no matter how scared you are if some thing bad has happen always tell the truth
saddd
Comment #25 | Wednesday, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:44 pm Why mom refused LE to search her home when SHE WAS WORRIED about her missing son??? LE had to get a search warrant!!!! IF ANY OF MY FAMILY GOES MISSING I WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED ABOUT A WARRANT!!!!! Iread that dad and teachers said he was not autistic, also that Skylor wrote bad things about family on his fb? I don't know but all this sounds fishy :( poor kid Hopefully LE also arrest the murderer of Dylan Dedwine (Colorado) & many other cases are solved :( why "god" takes good people?
unknown
Comment #26 | Thursday, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:22 am may the young boy rest in peace it hurts to know people will spill their own family blood and yet people say Mexicans are the criminals
Armando Quintero
Comment #27 | Thursday, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:32 am The moms story sounds really fishy to me leaving the kids alone and not checking up on them once she came home. And Notice him missing the next day. I wouldn't doubt if she gets arrested soon for having a part to do with this. In my opinion I think she might of known something!
anonymous
Comment #28 | Thursday, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:03 am I APPLAUD THE VALLEY NEWS FOR THE CONSTANT UPDATE ON THIS TRAGIC AND HORRIFIC STORY. I WAS AT THE VOLUNTEER HOMESITE MANY TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAYS AND THE GIRLS WHO COVERED IT WERE THERE EVERY NIGHT, SUPPORTING THE VOLUNTEERS AND OF COURSE TERRY. THE GIRLS ALWAYS WERE READY TO GIVE A HELPING HAND AND EVEN WERE OUT THERE MAKING SIGNS AND FLYERS AND ON FOOT SEARCHING FOR HIM. THEY DID A WONDERFUL JOB AS DID THE COMMUNITY. I AM SO PROUD TO SAY THAT I AM A MEMBER OF A COMMUNITY THAT CARES SO MUCH AND BELIEVES IN THE GOOD OF PEOPLE SO MUCH - EVEN WHEN WE SHOULDN'T.
Temeku Mom
Comment #29 | Thursday, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:03 am This has had such a terrible, tragic ending. My prayers for the little angel who is now in heaven. May you rest in peace in God's Glory little one. It's VERY suspicious that the mother would not let police search the property. If your child is missing, you do EVERYTHING possible to find them ASAP. Police had to get a judge to issue a search warrant to in order to search the family's property? What was the mother afraid they would find...the child's body in a shallow grave? Perhaps she did have a role in trying to cover up the murder in order to protect her older son. She didn't report the child missing until late Sunday morning. Who does that? When your kids are missing you are in a panic trying to finding them! A BIG "Thanks" to all the volunteers and LE who searched in the sweltering heat for days. Your help was indispensable to resolving the case so quickly...God Bless all of you.
js
Comment #30 | Friday, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:51 pm Am heartbroken, didn't know the boy or family but when I saw a autistic boy was missing in Menifee kept looking 2 see if he was found. Prayed he would be found safe. Story sounded a litlle off initially but u never know sometimes people wander off but when I saw the heartfelt & devastated reactions on the news when they said he was dead & his brother was arrested I cried 4 that little boy. His life had 2 of been hard from looking @ the tidbits from the brothers FB page. The brother posted his couldn't take it in that house anymore he needed 2 get out imagine if the brother posted that perhaps Terry's life was that much more difficult! As a person of faith I don't get it such a horrific, tragic end 4 this boy why? May he rest in peace & may that family get the help they need
@ Sadd
Comment #31 | Saturday, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:37 am "God" did not take this sweet child, a person did it. PEOPLE hurt each other. I pray this poor child is in His arms.
@ comment #30
Comment #32 | Saturday, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:07 pm Your comment is positive, but stop the "trying to be cool" with replacing simple words with numbers. It so ANNOYING to read.
So many questions
Comment #33 | Monday, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:57 am This is so tragic for all involved, two boys lost, one dead one in custody, a mother, father and family lost both sons.
Everyone seems ready to judge Skylor. Already the news is reporting that there is a push to have the 16 year old tried as an adult. I have three sons, the younger ones are 16 and 14, the 14 year old has autism. The 16 year old has a deeper understanding and compassion because of the difficult situation he has grow with, he will advocate for those with disabilities and stand up to peers against bullying, however they are both kids, they cannot process information like an adult as they are NOT ADULTS in no way shape or form. They are best of friends and worst enemies at any given moment as I suspect most brother are. Kids fight, make bad decisions and as adults and parents we need to protect and keep them safe.
There are so many questions unanswered, so many cries for help! Why was the mom playing pool instead of taking care of her boys? Why was Skylor left in charge when he obviously did not along with his brother and had apparent emotional problems he did not know how to deal with?
I am not trying to blame anyone just wondering if the whole thing could have been avoided with some common sense. The important thing is to learn from this tragic sequence of events and try to understand why with compassion for all involved and prevent it from happening again in our homes.
Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Valley News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.
| Police and volunteers by the hundreds have been combing the "snake-infested scrub" around Menifee, California, for days searching for an autistic 11-year-old last seen Saturday night, reports MyValleyNews. Now it's beginning to look like Terry Smith never got far from home. Police today found a body matching his description in a shallow grave behind the family home, reports the Los Angeles Times. They have arrested a 16-year-old suspect who was initially identified only as a family member; USA Today now reports that the person arrested is Smith's half-brother, and he is being held on a murder charge. The half-brother was the last person to see Smith alive. The teenager was babysitting Terry Saturday night when the boys' mother went out, and he told authorities that he last saw the boy walking on a road near the family's home, reports NBC Los Angeles. "The brother was walking away from their residence, turns back, sees that Terry's following him and tells Terry, 'Hey, go home,'" a deputy explains. Terry's mom didn't realize he was missing until she went to check on him Sunday morning. “We will find a way to remember him in our hearts,” said one volunteer searcher after news of the discovered remains became public. |
Share This
In the northern part of the Biosphere Reserve of Calakmul, Campeche, archaeologists discovered what appear to be two ancient Mayan cities: Lagunita, which remained covered by lush vegetation for decades; and another unregistered urban center called Tamchén (“Deep Well”), named after the large number of “chultunes” (wells, or water holes) found in the area, some up to 13 meters deep.
These two inaccessible sites, hidden in the jungle, were found by an expedition led by Ivan Sprajc, of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC Sazu).
According to information provided by the Academy, the most striking feature of Lagunita is a zoomorphic monument depicting the gaping maw of a Mayan earth monster, which was associated with the underworld, water and fertility. There are also several monumental buildings, a Maya ball game court and a pyramid temple nearly 20 meters high, along with 10 trails that connect the various buildings and the three altars.
In Tamchén archaeologists found a concentration of chultunes throughout the civic and ceremonial center, some of which were reported as unusually deep. A pyramidal temple with a stela and an altar at the base supports substantial portions of the upper sanctuary.
Financing
The expedition, which was supported by the National Institute of Anthropology and History, was also supported by funding from the following persons and organizations: KJJ Charitable Foundation, Ken and Julie Jones (USA); Villas Firms (Austria); Ars Longa and Adria Kombi (Slovenia); Hotel Rio Bec Dreams (Mexico), and Martin and Aleš Obreza Hobel.
Working the ruins are Atasta archaeologists Octavio Esparza Flores Esquivel Olguin, architect Arianna Campiani, PhD students of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and Aleš Marsetic, surveyor of ZRC Sazu.
The facade of Lagunita is in good condition and can be compared with those at Chicanná, Hormiguero, and Hochob, as well as other archaeological sites in Campeche. Some of the monuments are well preserved and show hieroglyphic inscriptions. According to the preliminary reading of specialist Octavio Esparza, inscriptions on Lagunita’s Stela number 2 notes that the monument was erected in 711 AD by the ruler known as “Lord Katunes 4th”.
Discovery
http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2014/06/ancient-mayan-city-chactun-was-discovered-one-year-ago-in-campeche/), which extends over three thousand square miles between Rio Bec and Chenes, in the eastern part of the state of Campeche. Like Chactún, the Mayan city recently discovered by the same team of researchers (See the article published by the Yucatan Times on June 5th, 2014:Tamchén and Lagunita are located at the southern end of a large territory “unknown” from an archaeological point of view,
Its regional significance is determined by its architectural features and sculpted monuments, as well as by the large concentration of dwellings in the area.
According to the data gathered by the researchers, Tamchén and Lagunita had their heyday in the Late and Terminal Classic period (600-1000 AD).
Background
The site of Lagunita was visited in 1970 by American archaeologist Eric von Euw, but the results of his work were never published. In the Peabody Museum at Harvard University, sketches of zoomorphic sculpture, facade and some monuments were preserved, but the site location was unknown.
Atasta Archaeologists examined aerial photographs of the area and were able to identify Lagunita, comparing the monuments with Von Euw drawings that were provided by the Austrian researcher Karl Herbert Mayer.
Like Chactún, which was discovered last year, Lagunita and Tamchén have several “unusual” features that make them unique, and, in the opinion of researchers, this represents a challenge for future exploration in eastern Campeche.
Corpofaciales
Comments
comments ||||| The ancient city of Lagunita, deep in the Yucatan jungle. (Courtesy of Ivan Sprajc)
In the 1970s, an American explorer named Eric Von Euw ventured into unexplored forest at the base of the Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula near the border of Guatemala. Called the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, it’s a sweeping expanse of trees and river that extends 2,800 square miles. What Von Euw returned with was remarkable. He had drawn images of an “extraordinary facade with an entrance representing open jaws of the earth monster,” as would later be written of it.
Von Euw would never publish the drawings. And despite several attempts to once again locate the “open jaws of the earth monster,” no one ever could. The site and the city that held it — which came to be known as “Lagunita” — was lost. It would become, according to Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, “a mystery.”
Now, four decades later, another explorer has ventured into the Yucatan jungle to find Lagunita. After a two-month expedition, archaeologist Ivan Sprajc of the Slovenian Academy emerged from the jungle with more than drawings. He had pictures. Along with another previously unknown city he named Tamchen, Sprajc had rediscovered Lagunita. Upon closer inspection, it appeared to have been “the seat of a relatively powerful polity,” a researcher said.
Why had it remained hidden for so long? “The information about Lagunita were vague and totally useless,” he told Discovery News. “In the jungle you can be as little as 600 feet from a large site and do not even suspect it might be there. Small mounds are all over the place, but they give you no idea about where an urban center might be.”
Though his expedition trudged into the forests with machetes, trucks and tortillas, a bird’s eye view is what discovered Lagunita. “We found the site with the aid of aerial photographs,” he explained in a statement, “but were able to identify it with Lagunita only after we saw the facade and the monuments and compared them with Von Euw’s drawings.”
Researchers: “Note the stylized eye of the earth monster and fangs along the doorway jamb.” (Courtesy of Ivan Sprajc)
The discoveries make for Sprajc’s second recent find in the region, which is still virtually unexplored and extremely difficult to traverse. Wearing what appears to be an adventure hat, the Slovenian explorer landed upon the ancient Mayan city of Chactun in 2013. Before that discovery, almost nothing was known about the archaeological treasures contained in the forests between the Rio Bec and Chenes regions, which boast architecture dating back to 600 A.D.
Aspects of Lagunita and the other ancient city of Tamchén — which means “deep well” in Yucatan Mayan — reflect the same architectural designs of the broader region, Sprajc said. Both appear to have been abandoned around 1000 A.D., and the most miraculous find was the “profusely decorated facade with a monster-mouth doorway,” the Slovenia Academy of Sciences and Arts said in a statement. They represent “the gaping maws of the earth and fertility deity.”
That sounds fairly profound. But what does it mean? “It represents a Maya earth deity related with fertility,” Sprajc explained in his interview with Discovery News. “These doorways symbolize the entrance to a cave and, in general, to the watery underworld, place of mythologized origin of maize and abode of ancestors.”
The abode of ancestors. Yes, that.
Just six kilometers away from Lagunita lay Tamchen. It’s home to several plazas rimmed by “voluminous buildings,” an “acropolis” and a pyramid-type temple. Some of the findings there signify that the city was first inhabited as long ago as 300 B.C., researchers contend. There were also more than 30 chultuns — chambers as deep as 43 feet that collected rainwater.
The archaeologists said both ancient cities are ripe for further research — as is the greater forest.
“Only future research in the extensive archaeologically unsurveyed region to the north may reveal whether such characteristics, which at the moment appear to be rather unique, were in fact common in a wider area,” the Slovenian Academy said. ||||| Like in Laguinita, plazas were surrounded by large buildings. These include the remains of an acropolis supporting a courtyard with three temples on its sides, and a pyramid temple with a well preserved sanctuary on top and a stela (pictured above). An altar at its base was also unearthed. Ancient Maya Buried Relatives, Artifacts Under Homes
More than 30 chultuns were found at the site. These are bottle-shaped underground chambers, largely intended for collecting rainwater. "Several chultuns were unusually deep, going down as far as 13 meters (43 feet)," Sprajc said.
Similarly imposing was the other city unearthed by Sprajc. The previously unknown city was named Tamchen, which means "deep well" in Yucatec Maya. Ancient Mayan Theater Was Political Tool
An inscription on one of these stelae reveals the stone was engraved on Nov. 29, 711 A.D. by a "lord of 4 k'atuns (20-year periods)." Unfortunately, the remaining text, which included the name of the ruler and possibly of his wife, is heavily eroded.
The archaeologists also found 10 stelae (tall sculpted stone shafts) and three altars (low circular stones) which featured well-preserved reliefs and hieroglyphic inscriptions. Unearthed Mayan Tablet Tells of Power Struggle
Sprajc and his team also found the remains of a temple pyramid almost 65 feet high, a ball court and several massive palace-like buildings arranged around four major plazas. Giant Mayan Frieze Tells Ancient Guatemala Story
One of the cities featured an extraordinary facade with an entrance representing the open jaws of an earth monster. "It represents a Maya earth deity related with fertility. These doorways symbolize the entrance to a cave and, in general, to the watery underworld, place of mythological origin of maize and abode of ancestors," expedition leader Ivan Sprajc, of the Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU), told Discovery News.
Archaeologists have discovered two ancient Maya cities in the tropical forest of central Yucatan. The team unearthed stone monuments, inscriptions, temple pyramids and the remains of massive structures. Photos: Mayan City Remains Found in Forest
The monster mouth doorway at Lagunita. Note the stylized eye of the earth monster and fangs along the doorway jamb.
A monster mouth doorway, ruined pyramid temples and palace remains emerged from the Mexican jungle as archaeologists unearthed two ancient Mayan cities.
Found in the southeastern part of the Mexican state of Campeche, in the heart of the Yucatan peninsula, the cities were hidden in thick vegetation and hardly accessible.
"Aerial photographs helped us in locating the sites," expedition leader Ivan Sprajc, of the Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU), said.
Play Video What Ancient Wine Tasted Like France is famous for its wine, and for good reason ... they've been making wine longer than anyone else! DCI
Sprajc and his team found the massive remains as they further explored the area around Chactun, a large Maya city discovered by the Slovenian archaeologist in 2013.
No other site has so far been located in this area, which extends over some 1800 square miles, between the so-called Rio Bec and Chenes regions, both known for their characteristic architectural styles fashioned during the Late and Terminal Classic periods, around 600 - 1000 A.D.
One of the cities featured an extraordinary facade with an entrance representing the open jaws of an earth monster.
The site was actually visited in the 1970s by the American archaeologist Eric Von Euw, who documented the facade and other stone monuments with yet unpublished drawings.
However, the exact location of the city, referred to as Lagunita by Von Euw, remained lost. All the attempts at relocating it failed.
"The information about Lagunita were vague and totally useless," Sprajc told Discovery News.
"In the jungle you can be as little as 600 feet from a large site and do not even suspect it might be there; small mounds are all over the place, but they give you no idea about where an urban center might be," he added.
Laguinita was identified only after the archaeologists compared the newly found facade and monuments with Von Euw's drawings.
The monster-mouth facade turned to be one of the best preserved examples of this type of doorways, which are common in the Late-Terminal Classic Rio Bec architectural style, in the nearby region to the south.
"It represents a Maya earth deity related with fertility. These doorways symbolize the entrance to a cave and, in general, to the watery underworld, place of mythological origin of maize and abode of ancestors," Sprajc said.
He also found remains of a number of massive palace-like buildings arranged around four major plazas. A ball court and a temple pyramid almost 65 ft high also stood in the city, while 10 stelae (tall sculpted stone shafts) and three altars (low circular stones) featured well-preserved reliefs and hieroglyphic inscriptions.
According to preliminary reading by epigrapher Octavio Esparza Olguin from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, one of the stelae was engraved on November 29, A.D. 711 by a "lord of 4 k'atuns (20-year periods)."
Unfortunately, the remaining text, which included the name of the ruler and possibly of his wife, is heavily eroded.
"To judge by both architectural volumes and monuments with inscriptions, Lagunita must have been the seat of a relatively powerful polity, though the nature of its relationship with the larger Chactun, lying some 10 km to the north, remains unclear," Esparza Olguin said.
Similar imposing was the other city unearthed by Sprajc. Previously unknown, the city was named Tamchen, which means "deep well" in Yucatec Maya.
Indeed, more than 30 chultuns were found at the site. These are bottle-shaped underground chambers, largely intended for collecting rainwater.
"Several chultuns were unusually deep, going down as far as 13 meters," Sprajc said.
Like in Laguinita, plazas were surrounded by large buildings. These include the remains of an acropolis supporting a courtyard with three temples on its sides. A pyramid temple with a rather well preserved sanctuary on top and a stela and an altar at its base was also unearthed.
Tamchen appears to have been contemporaneous with Lagunita, although there is evidence for its settlement history going back to the Late Preclassic, between300 B.C. and 250 A.D.
"Both cities open new questions about the diversity of Maya culture, the role of that largely unexplored area in the lowland Maya history, and its relations with other polities," Sprajc said.
The work is a follow-up to the study of Archaeological Reconnaissance in Southeastern Campeche, Mexico. Directed by Sprajc since 1996, the 2014 campaign was supported by the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), Mexico. Lead funding was provided by Ken and Julie Jones from their KJJ Charitable Foundation (USA); additional financial support was granted by private companies Villas (Austria), Hotel Río Bec Dreams (Mexico) and Ars longa and Adria Kombi (Slovenia), as well as by Martin Hobel and Aleš Obreza.
In June 2014, the southern part of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, where Sprajc discovered most of the currently known archaeological sites, was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list as a mixed natural and cultural property. ||||| *** A well-preserved monster-mouth façade and a number of stone monuments with hieroglyphic inscriptions were found at the site of Lagunita, rediscovered after having been lost for four decades.
*** The two ancient cities, each with various plazas surrounded by ruined pyramid temples and massive palaces, reached their climax during the Late and Terminal Classic periods (c. AD 600 – 1000).
*** Unusual features pose a challenge for future research.
In the tropical forest of central Yucatan peninsula, two large Maya sites have been discovered by an archaeological expedition led by Ivan Šprajc, of the Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU). While not very far from the modern towns of Xpujil and Zoh Laguna, in the southeastern part of the Mexican state of Campeche, the two sites are located in the northern zone of the depopulated and hardly accessible Calakmul Biosphere Reserve.
One of the two sites had been visited in the 1970s by the American archaeologist Eric Von Euw, who documented several stone monuments and an extraordinary façade with an entrance representing open jaws of the earth monster, but the results of his work have never been published. His drawings, kept in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, USA, have been known to some specialists, but the exact location of the site, referred to as Lagunita by Von Euw, was a mystery. In spite of several attempts at relocating it, Lagunita remained lost until a few weeks ago, when rediscovered by Dr. Šprajc and his team.
“We found the site with the aid of aerial photographs,” Šprajc explains, “but were able to identify it with Lagunita only after we saw the façade and the monuments and compared them with Von Euw’s drawings, which the renowned Maya expert Karl Herbert Mayer made available for me.”
The other site located during the recently accomplished fieldwork had never before been reported. The archaeologists baptized it with the name Tamchén, which means “deep well” in Yucatec Maya, in allusion to the presence of more than 30 chultuns (bottle-shaped underground chambers, largely intended for collecting rainwater), some of them as deep as 13 m.
During the two-month field season, Šprajc was assisted by geodesist Aleš Marsetič, researcher at ZRC SAZU, archaeologists Atasta Flores Esquivel and Octavio Esparza Olguín, and architect Arianna Campiani, Ph. D. students at the Mexican National Autonomous University (UNAM), as well as several local workers.
Lagunita and Tamchén are situated in the southern portion of a vast, archaeologically unexplored territory in central Yucatan lowlands. Except for Chactún, the large Maya city discovered by Šprajc’s team in 2013, no other site has so far been located in this area, which extends over some 3000 sq. km, between the so-called Río Bec and Chenes regions, both known for their characteristic architectural styles in vogue during the Late and Terminal Classic periods (c. A.D. 600 – 1000).
Aside from a ball court and a temple pyramid almost 20 m high, the core area of Lagunita has a number of massive palace-like buildings arranged around four major plazas. The most spectacular feature is a profusely decorated façade with a monster-mouth doorway. Representing the gaping maws of the earth and fertility deity, these zoomorphic portals characterize both Chenes and Río Bec architectural styles, most prominent examples being those at Chicanná, Hormiguero, Hochob and Tabasqueño. “The Lagunita façade is very well preserved, and we accurately documented all the details using 3D photo scanning technique,” Arianna Campiani commented.
Also found at Lagunita were 10 stelae and three altars, some of them with well-preserved reliefs, including hieroglyphic inscriptions. “The date on Stela 2 corresponds to A.D. 711, suggesting that Lagunita flourished contemporarily with the nearby Chactún, where we also found monuments with dates falling in the eighth century,” says project epigrapher Octavio Esparza. “To judge by both architectural volumes and monuments with inscriptions, Lagunita must have been the seat of a relatively powerful polity, though the nature of its relationship with the larger Chactún, lying some 10 km to the north, remains unclear.” The importance of Lagunita is further attested by the great density of residential mounds, terraces, albarradas (low dry walls) and other settlement remains in the surrounding area.
Similarly imposing is the site of Tamchén, located about 6 km northeast of Lagunita: there are several plazas surrounded by voluminous buildings, including a pyramid temple with a rather well preserved sanctuary on top and a stela and an altar at its base, as well as an acropolis supporting a courtyard with three temples on its sides. While Tamchén seems to have been largely contemporaneous with Lagunita, both the triadic compound and surface ceramics indicate its settlement history goes back to the Late Preclassic (c. 300 B.C. – A.D. 250).
Just like Chactún, Lagunita and Tamchén have a number of aspects that make them very promising for future research. The zoomorphic façade at Lagunita does not come as a surprise, considering that Becán, the largest site in the Río Bec zone, is only 15 km away. What has not been expected, however, is the presence of so many pyramid temples and monuments with inscriptions, which are rare in the Río Bec región. Both Tamchén and Lagunita appear to have been largely abandoned around A.D. 1000, sharing the fate of other lowland Maya polities, but a few stelae were modified some time after they had been originally erected, and Postclassic offerings were found at others. These facts obviously reflect continuities and ruptures in cultural traditions, but their significance for understanding political geography and history of the region is yet to be explained.
Particularly interesting are various elements that have not been known elsewhere in the Maya area. Two altars of Lagunita have a curious nail-head shape. The third one is rectangular and has a series of Ajaw glyphs on its sides, with coefficients evidently referring to successive k’atun (20-year period) endings; such records are common in codices, but not on stone monuments. Whereas hieroglyphic texts normally appear in an even number of columns, the inscription on Stela 2 of Lagunita has three, and the Long Count date is incomplete. At Tamchén, dozens of chultuns are scattered in two plazas; some are partially collapsed or filled-in with material accumulating through centuries, but others are even nowadays 10 or more meters deep. Whereas chultuns are common at Maya sites, their depths and high concentration within the civic and ceremonial center of the ancient settlement represent a peculiarity of Tamchén. Only future research in the extensive archaeologically unsurveyed region to the north may reveal whether such characteristics, which at the moment appear to be rather unique, were in fact common in a wider area.
Representing a follow-up of the project of Archaeological Reconnaissance in Southeastern Campeche, Mexico, directed by Ivan Šprajc since 1996, the 2014 field season was approved and supported by the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), Mexico. Lead funding was provided by Ken and Julie Jones from their KJJ Charitable Foundation (USA); additional financial support was granted by private companies Villas (Austria), Hotel Río Bec Dreams (Mexico) and Ars longa and Adria Kombi (Slovenia), as well as by Martin Hobel and Aleš Obreza.
In June 2014, the southern part of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, where most of the currently known archaeological sites were discovered in field surveys headed by Šprajc in recent years, was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list as a mixed natural and cultural property.
Preliminary 3D model of Tamchén, looking north (by Aleš Marsetič)
Tamchén, Structure 1, north side
Tamchén, Structure 1, remains of upper sanctuary
Tamchén, Stela 1
Tamchén, chultún
Camp near Tamchén
Preliminary 3D model of Lagunita, looking northeast (by Aleš Marsetič)
Lagunita, zoomorphic portal, left side, looking east. Note the stylized eye of the earth monster and fangs along the doorway jamb
Lagunita, zoomorphic portal, right side, looking southeast
Lagunita, zoomorphic portal, looking northeast. A wooden lintel is partially preserved above the monster's eye
Lagunita, Stela 1, front
Lagunita, Stela 2, front
Lagunita, Stela 4, lower fragment, front
Lagunita, Stela 4, gornji fragment, leva stran
Lagunita, Stela 4, upper fragment, left side
Lagunita, Altar 1, west face with glyphs 4 Ajaw and 2 Ajaw
Lagunita, Structure 1, north side
Field vehicle upon finishing fieldwork | Archaeologists have long known of a "lost" Mayan city boasting an incredible "earth monster" facade—and now someone has found it. Slovenian explorer Ivan Sprajc came out of the Yucatan jungle in Mexico with photos of the city, Lagunita, and a second, previously unknown city he's calling Tamchen, the Washington Post reports. Both were apparently abandoned around 1,000 AD along with other cities in the area. But only Lagunita has the "profusely decorated facade with a monster-mouth doorway," as the Slovenia Academy of Sciences and Arts puts it. The facade depicts "the gaping maws of the earth and fertility diety." Which diety is that, again? "A Maya earth deity related with fertility," Sprajc tells Discovery News. "These doorways symbolize the entrance to a cave and, in general, to the watery underworld, place of mythologized origin of maize and abode of ancestors." An American explorer spotted the city (and its famous mouth) in the 1970s, but no one had been able to retrace his steps in the dense jungle. Now we have Lagunita, with its "monumental buildings," game court for Maya ball, and roughly 65-foot-high pyramid, the Yucatan Times reports. Judging by its buildings and inscriptions on monuments, "Lagunita must have been the seat of a relatively powerful polity," says an expert on the project. (A monster mouth, sure, but there's no sign this time of the evil eye.) |
Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story
JERUSALEM — Israeli warplanes carried out a strike deep inside Syrian territory on Wednesday, American officials reported, saying they believed the target was a convoy carrying sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry on the outskirts of Damascus that was intended for the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon.
The American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel had notified the United States about the attack, which the Syrian government condemned as an act of “arrogance and aggression.” Israel’s move demonstrated its determination to ensure that Hezbollah — its arch foe in the north — is unable to take advantage of the chaos in Syria to bolster its arsenal significantly.
The predawn strike was the first time in more than five years that Israel’s air force had attacked a target in Syria. While there was no expectation that the beleaguered Assad government had an interest in retaliating, the strike raised concerns that the Syrian civil war had continued to spread beyond its border.
Photo
In a statement, the Syrian military denied that a convoy had been struck. It said the attack had hit a scientific research facility in the Damascus suburbs that was used to improve Syria’s defenses, and called the attack “a flagrant breach of Syrian sovereignty and airspace.”
Israeli officials would not confirm the airstrike, a common tactic here. But it came after days of intense security consultations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the possible movement of chemical and other weapons around Syria, and warnings that Jerusalem would take action to thwart any possible transfers to Hezbollah.
Thousands of Israelis have crowded gas-mask distribution centers over the last two days. On Sunday, Israel deployed its Iron Dome missile defense system in the north, near Haifa, which was heavily bombed during the 2006 war with Lebanon.
Syria and Israel are technically in a state of war but have long maintained an uneasy peace along their decades-old armistice line. Israel has mostly watched warily and tried to stay out of Syria’s raging civil war, fearful of provoking a wider confrontation with Iran and Hezbollah. In November, however, after several mortars fell on Israel’s side of the border, its tanks struck a Syrian artillery unit.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Several analysts said that despite the increased tensions, they thought the likelihood of retaliation for the airstrike was relatively low.
“It is necessary and correct to prepare for deterioration — that scenario exists,” Danny Yatom, a former chief of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, told Ynet, a news Web site. “But in my assessment, there will not be a reaction, because neither Hezbollah nor the Syrians have an interest in retaliating.”
Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, “is deep in his own troubles,” Mr. Yatom said, “and Hezbollah is making a great effort to assist him, in parallel with its efforts to obtain weapons, so they won’t want to broaden the circle of fighting.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
In the United States, the State Department and Defense Department would not comment on reports of the strike.
The episode illustrated how the escalating violence in Syria, which has already killed more than 60,000, is drawing in neighboring states and threatening to destabilize the region further.
Iran has firmly allied itself with Mr. Assad, sending personnel from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force to Syria and ferrying military equipment to Syria through Iraqi airspace.
Photo
Hezbollah, which plays a decisive role in Lebanese politics and has supported Mr. Assad during the uprising by providing training and logistical support to his forces, has long relied on Syria as both a source of weapons and a conduit for weapons flowing from Iran. Some analysts think Hezbollah may be trying to stock up on weapons in case Mr. Assad falls and is replaced by a leadership that is hostile to the militia.
One American official said the trucks targeted on Wednesday were believed to have been carrying sophisticated SA-17 antiaircraft weapons. Hezbollah’s possession of such weapons would be a serious worry for the Israeli government, said Matthew Levitt, a former intelligence official who is at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“Israel is able to fly reconnaissance flights over Lebanon with impunity right now,” Mr. Levitt said. “This could cut into its ability to conduct aerial intelligence. The passing along of weapons to Hezbollah by the regime is a real concern.”
While some analysts said the Assad government might be providing the weapons to Hezbollah as a reward for its support, others were skeptical that Syria would relinquish such a sophisticated system.
Hezbollah has boasted that it has replenished and increased its weapons stocks since the 2006 war with Israel. During that war, Israeli bombardments destroyed some of its arms, and other missiles were used in a barrage that killed Israelis as far south as Haifa and that drove residents of northern Israel into shelters.
The Syrian statement, carried by state television, said an unidentified number of Israeli jets flying below radar had hit the research facility in the Jimraya district, killing two people and causing “huge material damage.” It cast the attack as “another addition to the history of Israeli occupation, aggression and criminality against Arabs and Muslims.”
“The Syrian government points out to the international community that this Israeli arrogance and aggression is dangerous for Syrian sovereignty,” the statement said, “and stresses that such criminal acts will not weaken Syria’s role nor will discourage Syrians from continuing to support resistance movements and just Arab causes, particularly the Palestinian issue.”
The Lebanese Army said in a statement on Wednesday that Israeli warplanes had carried out two sorties, circling over Lebanon for hours on Tuesday and before dawn on Wednesday, but made no mention of any attacks.
Israel has long maintained a policy of silence on pre-emptive military strikes. In October, officials refused to discuss an accusation by Sudan that Israeli airstrikes had destroyed a weapons factory in Khartoum, its capital. Israel also never admitted to the bombing of a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007; Syria kept mum about that attack, too, and the ambiguity allowed the event to pass without Damascus feeling pressure to retaliate.
Amnon Sofrin, a retired brigadier general and former Israeli intelligence officer, told reporters here on Wednesday that Hezbollah, which is known to have been storing some of its more advanced weapons in Syria, was now eager to move everything it could to Lebanon. He said Israel was carefully watching for convoys transferring weapons systems from Syria to Lebanon.
Israel has made it clear that if the Syrian government loses control over its chemical weapons or transfers them to Hezbollah, Israel will feel compelled to act. Avi Dichter, the minister for the home front, told Israel Radio on Tuesday that options to prevent Syria from using or transferring the weapons included deterrence and “attempts to hit the stockpiles.”
“Everything will have ramifications,” Mr. Dichter said. “The stockpiles are not always in places where operative thinking is possible. It could be that hitting the stockpiles will also mean hitting people. Israel has no intention of hitting residents of Syria.” ||||| BEIRUT/AMMAN Israeli warplanes bombed a convoy near Syria's border with Lebanon, sources told Reuters, apparently targeting weapons destined for Hezbollah in what some called a warning to Damascus not to arm Israel's Lebanese enemy.
Syrian state television accused Israel of bombing a military research center at Jamraya, between Damascus and the nearby border, but Syrian rebels disputed that, saying their forces had attacked the site. No source spoke of a second Israeli strike.
"The target was a truck loaded with weapons, heading from Syria to Lebanon," said one Western diplomat, echoing others who said the convoy's load may have included anti-aircraft missiles or long-range rockets. Several sources ruled out the presence in the convoy of chemical weapons, about which Israel has also raised concerns.
Diplomatic sources from three countries told Reuters that chemical weapons were believed to be stored at Jamraya, and that it was possible that the convoy was near the large site when it came under attack early on Wednesday.
However, there was no suggestion that the vehicles themselves had been carrying chemical weapons.
The raid followed warnings from Israel that it was ready to act to prevent the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad leading to Syria's chemical weapons and modern rockets reaching either his Hezbollah allies or his Islamist enemies.
A source among Syrian rebels said an air strike around dawn (0430 GMT) blasted a convoy near the border. "It attacked trucks carrying sophisticated weapons from the regime to Hezbollah," the source said, adding that it took place inside Syria.
Syrian state television said two people were killed in a dawn raid on the military site at Jamraya, which lies in the 25-km (15-mile) strip between Damascus and the Lebanese border. It described it as a scientific research centers "aimed at raising the level of resistance and self-defense".
It did not mention specific retaliation but said "these criminal acts" would not weaken Syria's support for Palestinians and other groups engaged in "resistance" to Israel.
Several rebel sources, however, including a commander in the Damascus area, accused the authorities of lying and said the only attacks at Jamraya had been mortar attacks by insurgents.
A regional security source said Israel's target was weaponry given by Assad's military to fellow Iranian ally Hezbollah.
"This episode boils down to a warning by Israel to Syria and Hezbollah not to engage in the transfer of sensitive weapons," the source said. "Assad knows his survival depends on his military capabilities and he would not want those capabilities neutralized by Israel - so the message is this kind of transfer is simply not worth it, neither for him nor Hezbollah."
With official secrecy shrouding the event, few details were corroborated by multiple sources. All those with knowledge of the events - from several countries - spoke anonymously.
"MOCK RAIDS"
There was no comment from Hezbollah or the Israeli government. Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV said only that Israeli warplanes had carried out "mock raids" over southern Lebanon on Wednesday night, close to the Syrian border.
Israel's ally the United States declined all comment. A Lebanese security source said its territory was not hit, though the army also reported a heavy presence of Israeli jets through the night after days of unusually frequent incursions.
Such a strike or strikes would fit Israel's policy of pre-emptive covert and overt action to curb Hezbollah and does not necessarily indicate a major escalation of the war in Syria. It does, however, indicate how the erosion of the Assad family's rule after 42 years is seen by Israel as posing a threat.
Israel this week echoed concerns in the United States about Syrian chemical weapons, but its officials say a more immediate worry is that the civil war could see weapons that are capable of denting its massive superiority in airpower and tanks reaching Hezbollah; the group fought Israel in 2006 and remains a more pressing threat than its Syrian and Iranian sponsors.
Israeli officials have said they feared Assad may be losing his grip on some chemical weapons, including around Damascus, to rebel groups which are also potentially hostile to Israel. U.S. and European security sources told Reuters they were confident that chemical weapons were not in the convoy which was bombed.
Wednesday's action could have been a rapid response to an opportunity. But a stream of Israeli comment on Syria in recent days may have been intended to limit surprise in world capitals.
The head of the Israeli air force said only hours before the attack that his corps, which has an array of the latest jet bombers, attack helicopters and unmanned drones at its disposal, was involved in a covert "campaign between wars".
"This campaign is 24/7, 365 days a year," Major-General Amir Eshel told a conference on Tuesday. "We are taking action to reduce the immediate threats, to create better conditions in which we will be able to win the wars, when they happen."
On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, set for a new term after an election, told his cabinet that Iran and turmoil in Arab states meant Israel must be strong: "In the east, north and south, everything is in ferment, and we must be prepared, strong and determined in the face of all possible developments."
Israel's refusal to comment on Wednesday is usual in such cases; it has, for example, never admitted a 2007 air strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear site despite U.S. confirmation of it.
By not acknowledging that raid, Israel may have ensured that Assad did not feel obliged to retaliate. For 40 years, Syria has offered little but bellicose words against Israel.
(Additional reporting by Mariam Karouny and Oliver Holmes in Beirut, Myra MacDonald in London, Mark Hosenball in Washington and Reuters bureaux; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by David Stamp) ||||| (CNN) -- Israeli fighter jets struck a Syrian convoy suspected of moving weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.
Fighter jets struck the vehicles because they were carrying SA-17 missile parts, a Russian-made, medium-range delivery system, and other equipment that could have been used to attack Israel, another source told CNN.
Lebanon's state-run NNA news agency dismissed the report. "The news circulated by media about an Israeli raid on the Lebanese-Syrian borders are sheer rumors," it said.
Syria, meanwhile, reported an Israeli strike targeting a research facility near the capital city of Damascus. State-run media said the attack killed two workers and injured five others.
"Israeli warplanes penetrated our airspace at dawn today and directly bombed one of the scientific research centers responsible for raising the level of resistance and self-defense in the area of Jimraya in the Damascus countryside," the military said in a statement aired on state-run TV Wednesday. "This comes after multiple failed attempts over months by terrorist groups to enter and seize the mentioned site."
It was not certain whether the U.S. and Syrian accounts of Israeli attack referred to the same or different incidents.
Israeli military and government officials declined to comment.
World leaders seek $1.5 billion in aid for Syrians
A former high-ranking Israeli Intelligence official told CNN that Hezbollah likely wants to take hold of all the weapons it can in the event that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is forced to flee. Should al-Assad ultimately decide to leave, he may choose to further arm Hezbollah ahead of time so that militants could better attack Israel, the official said.
On Thursday, Hezbollah's TV station aired a statement condemning Israel's attack and calling it "barbaric."
"But, as usual, the international community has their tongue tied ... and will stay silenced without taking any further steps to condemn the attack or taking any serious position when Israel is the aggressor," the statement said.
In recent years, Syria transferred Scud missiles to Hezbollah that are capable of carrying chemical weapon warheads. But the senior U.S. official said American authorities do not believe the strike was linked to growing concerns about chemical weapons.
"We see no nexus," the official said Wednesday. The strike is thought to have hit a "target of opportunity," he said.
"Whether it was an attack against a supply convoy or a terrorist leader, it's not particularly surprising," senior Brookings fellow Michael O'Hanlon said. "At first glance, it likely won't be seen as a large escalation -- though there's still a possibility for retaliation."
Envoy calls for Security Council to act
The move came days after Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said al-Assad's hold on power was "slipping away."
Russia, a power broker in the nearly 2-year-old conflict, has criticized Western powers, including the United States, that have recognized the opposition as Syria's rightful leadership.
There have been concerns about the security of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, as well as the security of its larger conventional weapons.
Last month, NATO said Syria's government was "approaching collapse" and urged al-Assad to stop fighting and accommodate a political transfer of power.
The United States has provided more than $200 million in humanitarian aid and other funding to the Syrian opposition. On Tuesday, President Barack Obama approved another $155 million in aid.
The United States has pressed the Syrian opposition to establish a leadership structure amid a conflict that has claimed the lives of about 60,000 people, according to a United Nations estimate.
But Washington has been circumspect about its involvement in Syria. "We want to make sure that not only does it enhance U.S. security, but also that it is doing right by the people of Syria and neighbors like Israel that are going to be profoundly affected by it," Obama told CBS News' "60 Minutes."
Escaping Syria in the middle of night
CNN's Saad Abedine contributed to this report. | Israeli jets have struck a target inside Syria for the first time in more than five years, reports the New York Times and Reuters. Reports are conflicting on what they hit: Syria says the jets struck a scientific research center, but sources tell Reuters they hit a convoy of trucks bound for Lebanon with weapons. CNN agrees, reporting that the trucks were carrying sophisticated missile weaponry. Israel, as per usual in situations like this, isn't saying a word one way or the other. "This episode boils down to a warning by Israel to Syria and Hezbollah not to engage in the transfer of sensitive weapons," says one of Reuters' sources. "Assad knows his survival depends on his military capabilities and he would not want those capabilities neutralized by Israel—so the message is this kind of transfer is simply not worth it, neither for him nor Hezbollah." |
Has an attorney engaged in unethical conduct when he or she secretly records a conversation? The practice is unquestionably unethical when it is done illegally; its status is more uncertain when it is done legally. The issue is complicated by the fact that the American Bar Association (ABA), whose model ethical standards have been adopted in every jurisdiction in one form or another, initially declared surreptitious recording unethical per se and then reversed its position. Moreover, more than a few jurisdictions have either yet to express themselves on the issue or have not done so for several decades. A majority of the jurisdictions on record have rejected the proposition that secret recording of a conversation is per se unethical even when not illegal. A number endorse a contrary view, however, and an even greater number have yet to announce their position. Federal and state law have long outlawed recording the conversation of another. Most jurisdictions permit recording with the consent of one party to the discussion, although a few require the consent of all parties to the conversation. Both the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 1-102(A)(3)) and its successor, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 8.4(b)), broadly condemn illegal conduct as unethical. They also censure attorney conduct that involves "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." In 1974, the ABA concluded in Formal Opinion 337 that the rule covering dishonesty, fraud, and the like "clearly encompasses the making of recordings without the consent of all parties." Thus, "no lawyer should record any conversation whether by tapes or other electronic device, without the consent or prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation." The Opinion admitted the possibility that law enforcement officials operating within "strictly statutory limitations" might qualify for an exception. Reaction to the Opinion 337 was mixed. The view expressed by the Texas Professional Ethics Committee was typical of the states that follow the ABA approach: In February 1978, this Committee addressed the issue of whether an attorney in the course of his or her practice of law, could electronically record a telephone conversation without first informing all of the parties involved. The Committee concluded that, although the recording of a telephone conversation by a party thereto did not per se violate the law, attorneys were held to a higher standard. The Committee reasoned that the secret recording of conversations offended most persons' concept of honor and fair play. Therefore, attorneys should not electronically record a conversation without first informing that party that the conversation was being recorded. The only exceptions considered at that time were "extraordinary circumstances with which the state attorney general or local government or law enforcement attorneys or officers acting under the direction of a state attorney general or such principal prosecuting attorneys might ethically make and use secret recordings if acting within strict statutory limitations conforming to constitutional requirements," which exceptions were to be considered on a case by case basis. ... [T]his Committee sees no reason to change its former opinion. Pursuant to Rule 8.04(a)(3), attorneys may not electronically record a conversation with another party without first informing that party that the conversation is being recorded. Supreme Court of Tex as Prof essional Eth ics Comm ittee Opinion No. 514 (1996). A second group of states—Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee—concurred, but with an expanded list of exceptions, for example, permitting recording by law enforcement personnel generally, not just when judicially supervised; or recording by criminal defense counsel; or recording statements that themselves constitute crimes, such as bribery offers or threats; or recording confidential conversations with clients; or recordings made solely for the purpose of creating a memorandum for the files; or recording by a government attorney in connection with a civil matter; or recording under other extraordinary circumstances. A third group of jurisdictions refused to adopt the ABA unethical per se approach. In one form or another the District of Columbia, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin suggested that the propriety of an attorney surreptitiously recording his or her conversations where it was otherwise lawful to do so depended upon the other circumstances involved in a particular case. In 2001, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 01-422 and rejected Opinion 337 's broad proscription. Instead, Formal Op inion 01-422 concluded that: 1. Where nonconsensual recording of conversations is permitted by the law of the jurisdiction where the recording occurs, a lawyer does not violate the Model Rules merely by recording a conversation without the consent of the other parties to the conversation. 2. Where nonconsensual recording of private conversations is prohibited by law in a particular jurisdiction, a lawyer who engages in such conduct in violation of that law may violate Model Rule 8.4, and if the purpose of the recording is to obtain evidence, also may violate Model Rule 4.4. 3. A lawyer who records a conversation without the consent of a party to that conversation may not represent that the conversation is not being recorded. 4. Although the Committee is divided as to whether the Model Rules forbid a lawyer from recording a conversation with a client concerning the subject matter of the representation without the client's knowledge, such conduct is, at the least, inadvisable. There seems to be no dispute that where it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all of the participants, it is unethical as well. Recording requires the consent of all parties in 10 states: California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Only two states, Colorado and South Carolina, have expressly rejected the approach of the ABA's F ormal Opinion 01-422 since its release. Yet a number of other states have yet to withdraw earlier opinions that declared surreptitious records ethically suspect: Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Kentucky. A substantial number of states, however, agree with the ABA's F ormal Opinion 01-422 that a recording with the consent of one, but not all, of the parties to a conversation is not unethical per se unless it is illegal or contrary to some other ethical standard. This is the position of the bar in Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. In four other states—Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—comparable opinions appeared before the ABA's F ormal Opinion 01-422 was released and have never withdrawn or modified. Yet even among those that now believe that secret recording is not per se unethical, some ambivalence seems to remain. Nebraska, for example, refers to full disclosure as the "better practice." New Mexico notes that the "prudent New Mexico lawyer" hesitates to record without the knowledge of all parties. And Minnesota cautions that surreptitiously recording client conversations "is certainly inadvisable" except under limited circumstances. Although the largest block of states endorse this view, whether it is a majority view is uncertain because a number of jurisdictions have apparently yet to announce a position, for example, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Besides Rule 8.4's prohibition on unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive conduct, the Code of Professional Conduct also condemns making a false statement of material fact or law. As a consequence even when surreptitious recording is not considered a per se violation, it will be considered unethical if it also involves a denial that the conversation is being recorded or some similar form of deception. While illegality and false statements exist as exceptions to a general rule that permits surreptitious recording, evidence gathering is an exception to a general rule that prohibits such recordings. The earlier ABA opinion conceded a possible exception when prosecuting attorneys engaged in surreptitious recording pursuant to court order. Various jurisdictions have expanded the exception to include defense attorneys as well as prosecutors. Some have included use in the connection with other investigations as well. Other circumstances thought to permit a lawyer to record a conversation without the consent of all of the parties to the discussion in one jurisdiction or another include instances when the lawyer does so in a matter unrelated to the practice of law; or when the recorded statements themselves constitute crimes such as bribery offers or threats; or when the recording is made solely for the purpose of creating a memorandum for the files; or when the "the lawyer has a reasonable basis for believing that disclosure of the taping would significantly impair pursuit of a generally accepted societal good." | In some jurisdictions, it is unethical for an attorney to secretly record a conversation even though it is not illegal to do so. A few states require the consent of all parties to a conversation before it may be recorded. Recording without mutual consent is both illegal and unethical in those jurisdictions. Elsewhere the issue is more complicated. In 1974, the American Bar Association (ABA) opined that surreptitiously recording a conversation without the knowledge or consent of all of the participants violated the ethical prohibition against engaging in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The ABA conceded, however, that law enforcement recording, conducted under judicial supervision, might breach no ethical standard. Reaction among the authorities responsible for regulation of the practice of law in the various states was mixed. In 2001, the ABA reversed its earlier opinion and announced that it no longer considered one-party consent recording per se unethical when it is otherwise lawful. Today, this is the view of a majority of the jurisdictions on record. A substantial number, however, disagree. An even greater number have yet to announce an opinion. An earlier version of this report once appeared as CRS Report 98-251. An unabridged version of this report is available with the footnotes and attachment as CRS Report R42650, Wiretapping, Tape Recorders, and Legal Ethics: An Overview of Questions Posed by Attorney Involvement in Secretly Recording Conversation. |
Public education evolved from primarily single-gender (boys’) education to primarily coeducation before the turn of the 20th century. In colonial America, formal public education was primarily available to boys; girls were typically educated informally and in the home. Gradually, girls began to be integrated into the public elementary or “common” schools and, by the middle of the 19th century, almost as many girls as boys were attending these schools. Most of the common schools were small and located in rural areas where the economy of educating boys and girls together may have played a part in the coeducational model. Coeducational schools also thrived, however, in urban areas where population density made separate schools a more practical alternative. During the 1800s, the desirability of coeducation in secondary schools was debated, and opponents cited the need to protect girls both from danger to their health and from boys. In addition, considerable discussion centered on the appropriate curriculum, including differences in abilities and learning styles of boys and girls and whether they should learn the same subjects in school. By 1890, coeducation was clearly the most common model for public schools; in a survey of 628 U.S. school superintendents, only 41 reported having single-gender schools. Reviewing the findings of this survey, the U.S. Office of Education and the National Education Association’s Committee on the Education of Girls concluded at that time that the debate over the preferability of coeducation had been settled. Nevertheless, some single-gender schools existed. In 1972, nondiscrimination legislation was passed to protect students from discrimination in education on the basis of gender. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits school districts from discriminating against students on the basis of sex and sets legal limits to single-gender public education. In addition, several court cases in recent years have challenged single-gender public education under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the last 2 years, at least three bills with single-gender education components were introduced in the Senate. In 1994, the Senate passed the Danforth Amendment to the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. The amendment would have allowed a limited number of single-gender classrooms as demonstration projects; however, the demonstration projects were eliminated from the bill in conference. On May 15, 1995, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced S. 829, a bill to provide limited waivers from Title IX and other statutes to permit single-gender classes to enable researchers to collect data on the effectiveness of such classes for low-income educationally disadvantaged children. It was referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. On September 6, 1995, Senator Dan Coats introduced S. 1205, the Mentor Schools Act. The purposes of the proposed bill are to (1) award grants to local education agencies for establishing same-gender schools for low-income students; (2) determine whether same-gender schools make a difference in the educational achievement and opportunities of low-income, educationally disadvantaged individuals; (3) improve academic achievement and persistence in school; and (4) involve parents in the educational options and choices of their children. The bill authorizes an appropriation of $300 million for fiscal year 1996 and additional sums as necessary for 1997 to 2000 to carry out the act. As of May 1996, this bill was in committee. Educators and other experts with whom we spoke view single-gender programs as a way to address (1) high dropout rates, low academic achievement, and other problems faced by many urban males— particularly minorities—and (2) girls’ low academic performance in advanced mathematics and science; general lack of confidence, competence, and leadership skills; and narrow views of potential careers. The distraction that boys and girls may cause each other when in the same classrooms further contributes to problems for coeducation settings. The concept of classrooms and schools that provide students male role models and cultural and social awareness enjoys popularity among many educators who see such settings as opportunities to combat high dropout rates, low academic achievement, and other problems faced by many urban males—particularly minorities. These programs typically provide mentoring, tutoring, field trips, and other personal and academic enrichment activities. They emphasize self-esteem building and responsibility to the community. Recent research on the academic achievement of young girls suggests that they defer to boys in coeducational classrooms, are called on less than boys, and are less likely than boys to study advanced mathematics and science. Some educators believe that single-gender settings can improve girls’ academic performance and attitude toward these subjects. Such settings typically emphasize enhancing confidence, competence, and leadership skills as well as expanding their views of potential careers. Finally, some educators report that single-gender settings reduce the distraction that boys and girls create for each other. They believe all-boy or all-girl classes provide calmer classrooms with lower risk for educational failure. The middle school years are the most distracting for students, according to some educators. Many educators are convinced of the value of single-gender settings for urban minority males. Several program officials we spoke with reported improved test scores, better attendance, or improved behavior among students in single-gender settings. Although public school single-gender programs have not been rigorously researched, some studies of minority students in private single-gender schools suggest academic gains for both boys and girls. The most commonly cited studies are those by Cornelius Riordan of Providence College, who showed that African American and Hispanic students of both sexes do better in single-gender schools on all tests and score nearly a year above their counterparts in coeducational schools. In a more recent study of single-gender schools in four countries (Belgium, New Zealand, Thailand, and Japan), however, Riordan concluded that single-gender schools do not have uniform and consistent effects and their effects are conditional. That is, single-gender schools are most effective when they are atypical: “The more that these schools remain rare and special, the more effective they will be for those minority of students who select them.” Moreover, he points out that the most important factor contributing to the observed gains may be the parents’ and students’ making what he calls a “proacademic choice,” not the single-gender setting. Officials we spoke with from all-girl programs were enthusiastic about the girls’ performance. As evidence of success they cited increased competence and confidence, development of leadership qualities, and better focus on academics than girls in coeducational classes. Some recent studies have focused on gender bias against girls; they have viewed problems arising from such bias in coeducational settings compared with control groups of girls in single-gender settings. For example, a 1992 report by the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women for the American Association of University Women analyzed more than 1,200 research studies on girls and boys in public schools. It found, among other things, that girls receive significantly less teacher attention than boys, the gender gap in science has not declined and may be increasing, and many standardized tests contain elements of sex bias. In addition, the work of Myra and David Sadker explores and documents the gender bias girls face in coeducational classrooms and its adverse effects on their academic and career aspirations and self-esteem. Also in 1992, the Department of Education’s Office of Education Research and Improvement convened a group of researchers and practitioners to share their views and findings about single-gender education. The conferees reviewed and discussed various research studies and agreed that some studies support the assertion that single-gender schools may provide benefits. They also noted, however, that all single-gender schools are not equal in providing a productive learning environment and many factors contributing to the success of effective single-gender schools are fundamental to effective schools regardless of their gender policy: a small student body, strong emphasis on academics, and commitment to the school’s mission and values. Although single-gender settings may help avoid gender bias and the distractions of coeducational classrooms, some experts question whether they are the best remedy. They acknowledge the urgent problems single-gender programs are meant to solve; they also express concerns, however, about the risk of a separate and unequal allocation of education resources and the reinforcement of stereotypes that certain groups are low achievers and need extra help. Some experts caution that a program focusing on providing special services to urban minority males may not acknowledge that urban minority females share some of the same social and academic problems. Some experts who are not proponents of single-gender education as a strategy noted that research has not conclusively identified single-gender education as the desired solution to gender bias in coeducational settings. Some believe that successful strategies used in single-gender settings— smaller classes and more individual attention—can be just as effective in coeducational settings. They believe teacher training in diversity and equity can also contribute to a bias-free coeducational classroom. Finally, some experts caution that separating the sexes should not be viewed as a simple solution to complex problems and that program goals, content, and desired outcomes must be carefully scrutinized. Whatever the effectiveness and desirability of single-gender programs, single-gender public elementary and secondary education is limited by law. Restricting enrollment in a public school program to either gender may discriminate on the basis of gender and, thus, be contrary to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It may also violate the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Although Title IX does not govern admissions practices at the elementary and secondary school level except for vocational schools, it does require that school districts provide comparable facilities, courses, and services to boys and girls. Thus, Title IX does not preclude a school district from having single-gender schools. Title IX as implemented by the Department of Education regulation, however, generally prohibits single-gender classrooms in coeducational schools. The regulation has some exceptions; for example, single-gender classes are permitted for portions of physical education classes when students are playing contact sports or portions of classes on human sexuality. It may also be possible for a school to have single-gender classrooms as a remedy for past discrimination or as a form of affirmative action under certain specific conditions. (See app. I for a complete list of exceptions.) Officials at the Department of Education’s OCR, which enforces Title IX, state they have had relatively few complaints or requests for guidance on either single-gender schools or single-gender classrooms in the last 10 years. In each instance in which a complaint about a single-gender program has been filed with OCR, the school district and OCR have resolved the matter. Single-gender public elementary and secondary schools may violate Title IX if the school districts do not provide comparable facilities, courses, and services to both boys and girls. OCR has investigated complaints against two allegedly single-gender public schools but concluded that neither of them violated Title IX. In 1992, OCR investigated complaints in Philadelphia and Baltimore alleging that the school districts maintained single-gender public high schools for girls only—Baltimore’s Western High School and Philadelphia High School for Girls. OCR examined whether the school districts were excluding anyone on the basis of gender from the districts’ schools. School officials of both schools stated that they did not deny admission to boys and the schools were open to both boys and girls. Philadelphia High School for Girls traces its inception to the Model School, which opened as a coeducational teacher’s training school in 1818 and became the Girl’s Normal School in 1848. A school district official reported that the school offers an academic enrichment curriculum and the usual extracurricular activities such as sports and music. Currently, about 1,500 girls attend the school, which includes grades 9 through 12. According to school officials, the school draws students from all over the city, and—reflecting school district demographics—about 44 percent of the students are from families below the poverty line. They told us that the school targets for admission students with high academic performance and good attendance and report that about 98 percent of its graduates attend college. In 1992, the school was one of nine magnet high schools in the city. During OCR’s investigation, district officials stated that all students are encouraged to apply to these magnet schools and are provided with booklets that describe the high school programs. OCR found that district officials had no policy of excluding males from this school so the district had not violated Title IX. Baltimore’s Western High School was founded in 1844 to provide girls an opportunity to receive an education beyond the elementary level. School officials told us that the school became college preparatory in the 1960s; about 96 percent of the current graduates go to college. From the beginning it offered a liberal arts curriculum as it does today; it also provides the typical after-school programs such as sports and clubs. Western is 1 of 10 citywide high schools in Baltimore and draws qualified students from the entire city. To be accepted for admission, students must have a B average, and, to remain at the school, they must maintain a C average. Total enrollment in grades 9 through 12 is about 1,250. Students at the school come from about 30 national and ethnic groups, and about 80 percent are African American. During a review of Western’s policies and curriculum, OCR found that other citywide high schools also offered programs to both sexes similar to those offered at Western. District officials stated that the booklets the guidance staff distribute have no language indicating that Western is for girls only and applications are evaluated on merit and ranked in order without regard to sex. OCR found that the district did not exclude male students from applying or attending Western and was therefore in compliance with Title IX. Typical requests for guidance and complaints brought against school districts involving single-gender classrooms, which are generally prohibited under the Title IX regulation, include single-gender physical education classes, segregated technology classes, single-gender math classes for math-phobic girls, and single-gender mentoring clubs. Complaints were resolved in a variety of ways. Complaints against single-gender physical education classes are among the most common. OCR states that schools segregate the sexes, unaware that in most cases this is not permissible under the Title IX regulation, although the regulation does permit portions of classes when students are playing contact sports to be separated by gender. These complaints are generally resolved by changing the physical education classes to coeducational classes. Merely adding coeducational classes while maintaining single-gender classes does not resolve the violation. Schools must discontinue segregating their physical education classes on the basis of gender to comply with the Title IX regulation. Another type of complaint OCR has received alleges single-gender mathematics classes for girls. For example, in Ventura, California, the school district piloted a program to see if math sections composed primarily of girls who were math phobic or otherwise reluctant math students could, with support from adults, increase the girls’ enrollment in higher level math courses. Some boys also fit this profile and were enrolled in the pilot classes. In response to a complaint filed with OCR, the district modified its procedures for counseling, registering, and recruiting students for the pilot math classes to reflect academic need rather than gender. The classes are therefore described as providing a supportive environment for students who are math phobic or doubtful about their ability to succeed in challenging mathematics courses; all students regardless of gender who fit these categories can be targeted and encouraged to enroll. The Connecticut Department of Education also sought OCR’s guidance on a new introductory technology course to be offered in two formats, an all-girl class and a mixed-gender class. After discussion with OCR, Connecticut revised the format so that it had a “regular class and a second class targeted for female students but accessible to all students regardless of sex.” Both classes were to be open to all students, and OCR noted that the revised proposal did not appear to raise concerns of discrimination under Title IX. Concern for at-risk males has led some school districts to experiment with a separate educational program for minority males. One such school in Brooklyn, New York, operated a separate third grade class for at-risk minority students, which was alleged to separate students by race and gender. OCR’s investigation did not support the allegation of race segregation since the school was 100-percent minority; however, it did find that students were separated on the basis of gender. Regarding separation by gender, the New York Public School system agreed that if it decided to have a special program for at-risk students, it would submit criteria to OCR for placing at-risk students in a gender-neutral manner, document the reason each student was chosen for the class, and keep a record of the gender of each student in the class. According to OCR, the program was a 2-year pilot program and was not renewed. Another program, which targeted young African American males with no male role models at home, was the object of a request for OCR guidance from Dade County Public Schools in Florida. Dade County wanted to evaluate the effect of having a gender- and race-segregated class with a male teacher for young African American males in kindergarten and first grade. OCR found that such division by race would violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and such division by gender would violate Title IX. OCR determined that the proposal to assign students on the basis of gender, even though voluntary on the part of the boys who would participate, is not allowed under the Title IX regulation and does not fit into the rationale for the stated exceptions to the regulation. Mentoring is another area in which OCR has received a complaint. The complaint alleged that Prince George’s County Public Schools in Maryland sponsored single-gender mentoring clubs for boys. Upon investigation, OCR found that the district operated a multimillion dollar program of single-gender clubs for boys and operated a significantly smaller program of single-gender clubs for girls. At least one of these clubs for boys is operating at all of the county’s 176 schools, and, at some of the schools, the district also funds community-based clubs for boys only. OCR found that the district operates only 31 clubs for girls. The need for mentoring activities through single-gender clubs was articulated by the district in a report on African American male achievement recommending that the district strengthen its efforts to provide students with mentors and experiences that forge ties between academics and the work world. OCR noted that single-gender clubs would comport with Title IX in meeting affirmative action standards only if (1) those who have experienced conditions resulting in a limited opportunity to participate in the district’s programs due to their gender are the targeted beneficiaries, (2) less discriminatory alternatives have been considered and rejected, and (3) the evidence demonstrates that comparable gender-neutral means could not be reasonably expected to produce the results desired. OCR found that despite the laudable goals of the district’s program, it did not appear that the means to achieve those goals had been tailored to comply with the Title IX regulation. In response, the district opened all district-sponsored programs, clubs, and activities to all qualified students regardless of gender (excluding such usual Title IX exemptions as football and other contact sports). The district also agreed to ensure that female students are informed of and are welcomed into the district’s formerly all-male mentoring programs and male students are informed of and are welcomed into the district’s formerly all-female mentoring programs. Single-gender public education could also be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that a state may not deny anyone its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of single-gender elementary or secondary schools. Several cases, however, such as Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, and Garrett v. Board of Education of School District of Detroit, may provide guidance for policy decisions being made on single-gender schools. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of a single-gender college in Hogan in 1982. A male student sought admission to a state-supported professional nursing program at Mississippi State University for Women (MSU). He was denied admission solely on the basis of gender because MSU has been limited to women since it was created by Mississippi statute in 1884. Hogan claimed that the admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with Hogan in a five to four decision. In its analysis, the Court defined the standard applied in this case: A state needs to show an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for classifying individuals on the basis of gender. That burden can be met only by showing that the classification serves “important governmental objectives” and that the discriminatory means employed are “substantially related” to achieving those objectives. Under Hogan, this test must be applied free of fixed notions about roles and abilities of males and females. In applying this standard to the facts, the Court found the state’s argument that its single-sex admissions policy compensates for discrimination against women to be unpersuasive. Mississippi had not shown that women lacked opportunities to obtain nursing training when the school opened its doors or that women were deprived of such opportunities when Hogan sought admission. The Court found that Mississippi’s policy of excluding males from admission, rather than compensate for discriminatory barriers faced by women, tended to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively women’s profession. The policy also failed because the state did not show that the gender-based classification was substantially and directly related to its proposed compensatory objective. The issue of single-gender public high schools came up in the Vorchheimer case in 1976, which was decided before Hogan and therefore did not use the same analytical framework as Hogan. A female high school student was denied admission to an all-male academic high school in Philadelphia solely because of her sex. The Philadelphia School District at that time operated two single-gender academic high schools, Central High School and Philadelphia High School for Girls. The court found both schools to have excellent reputations for academic excellence. Enrollment in either school was voluntary. The district also provided “comprehensive” coed high schools that included courses required for college admission and advanced placement courses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that Girls and Central were academically and functionally equivalent and, consequently, the admission requirements based on gender classification did not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that gender should not be treated the same as race under the equal protection clause because, although no fundamental difference exists between races, differences between boys and girls do exist that may, in limited circumstances, justify disparity in law. It also noted that the primary aim of any school system must be to furnish an education of as high a quality as feasible. “Thus, given the objective of a quality education and a controverted, but respected theory that adolescents may study more effectively in single-sex schools, the policy of the school board here does bear a substantial relationship” to providing high-quality education. Vorchheimer was decided in 1976 and predates the Supreme Court’s decision in Hogan discussed above. In Hogan, the Supreme Court referred to the Vorchheimer case to show how the issue it was deciding differed from that in Vorchheimer. The Supreme Court stated, “We are not faced with the question of whether States can provide ‘separate but equal’ undergraduate institutions for males and females,” as was the case in Vorchheimer. The Supreme Court may answer the “separate but equal” question for colleges in a pending case, United States v. Virginia. Virginia was found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to be violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution in operating Virginia Military Institute (VMI) as a male-only military college and not providing a similar single-gender educational environment for women. The court of appeals gave Virginia the option of admitting women to VMI, discontinuing its support of VMI, or establishing a parallel program for women. Virginia established a parallel program—the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership at Mary Baldwin. In reviewing this remedy, the court of appeals found that the distinctions in the VMI program and the Mary Baldwin program are justifiable because of gender differences but that the programs were otherwise comparable in substance. The following issues are on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court: (1) whether a state that provides a rigorous military-style public education program for men can remedy the unconstitutional denial of the same opportunity to women by offering them a different type of single-gender educational program and (2) whether coeducation is the required remedy in this case. Finally, a district court decision may also help guide school districts. In Garrett, the Detroit School District sought to establish three male academies in 1991 to serve approximately 250 boys from preschool through fifth grade, with grades six to eight phased in over the next few years. The academies were to offer special programs, including an Afrocentric curriculum, mentors, Saturday classes, individualized counseling, and uniforms. The plaintiffs contended that these special programs did not require a uniquely male atmosphere to succeed and that they addressed issues females face, too. Moreover, the academies did not target only at-risk boys but boys from all achievement levels. The case came to the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction. In such cases, the courts do not render a final decision, but they will grant an injunction forbidding a party from engaging in certain activity if they find, among other things, that it is likely that plaintiffs would succeed at trial and would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The court applied the standard used in Hogan; it found that both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution prohibit the exclusion of an individual from a publicly funded school because of his or her gender unless the school district can show that gender-based classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to achieving those objectives. The court noted that no evidence existed that the education system was failing urban males because of females attending schools with males. The preliminary injunction was granted, and the case never came to trial. The parties agreed to expand the academies to include girls and to have comparable male-focused and female-focused classes and activities. In addition to the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, some state constitutions have similar equal protection provisions or equal rights amendments that have been interpreted by their courts as more rigorous or restrictive than the federal equal protection clause. Thus, even if a particular example of a single-gender education program is acceptable under federal law, it may still be challenged under state laws. Most single-gender education programs we identified were classroom rather than schoolwide programs. Several of the programs we examined, including those described below, have not been reviewed by OCR, and these programs may not be in compliance with Title IX. The five single-gender programs discussed in this section were operating at the time of our study. Following are descriptions of such programs based primarily on information we obtained from interviews conducted with program officials. In September 1995, a large urban middle school (grades seven and eight) in a northeastern city established an all-boy academy within the school. The academy is one of three magnet programs at the school. The school’s enrollment is about 1,000 students, of whom about 99 percent are minority. The academy program, a 2-year program for seventh and eighth graders, is voluntary with an enrollment of 57 seventh graders. The school plans to recruit a new class of seventh graders to begin in September 1996. The academy has four teachers, and the boys travel among these teachers’ classrooms. The objective of the program is to help the boys become responsible, successful people and to build self-esteem through academic success. The standard middle school curriculum is taught with an emphasis on individual growth, academic success, social responsibility, and good citizenship. Special curriculum components include a mentoring program in which boys are counseled on subjects such as careers, gangs, family issues, and academics. In addition, the curriculum emphasizes culture, history, society, and technology. The school is planning to initiate an all-girl program in September 1996 or 1997. In autumn 1995, a teacher in a suburban elementary school established an after-school math and science program for fifth and sixth grade girls. The program is intended to encourage girls to study these subjects and to build self-confidence in their abilities. It is one of several after-school programs offered by the school, although the others—such as basketball, chess, and computers—are for both boys and girls. The girls meet every Thursday afternoon for an hour to learn about science-related matters, such as optical illusions and the metric system, and to participate in activities to enhance their enjoyment of math and science such as building tetrahedrons and playing math strategy games. The program founder told us the program has been filled to capacity, and she plans to continue it next year if the school district funds the late-running school bus that allows the children to attend an after-school program. In 1989, the principal of an urban coeducational elementary school decided to try single-gender classes in grades one and three. She subsequently expanded the program to include grades one through five. The program goal is to improve academic achievement for all the children and to identify best practices to encourage the boys to find alternatives to violence and to be supportive of each other. All students study the standard curriculum and this year have received special instruction in character issues such as honesty, trust, and conflict resolution. After-school activities include mentoring by high school and college students as well as local business and professional people. In addition, representatives from the U.S. Armed Forces visit the school weekly to tutor and discuss careers. The school operates year-round and offers summer courses aimed at building self-esteem and promoting career awareness in such areas as hotel management, nursing, and real estate. The principal in an urban middle school launched a single-gender program 3 years ago to address both academic and social issues relative to her students—especially African American boys with serious learning problems. In each of the three grades (six through eight), the school has all-girl classes, all-boy classes, and coed classes. Parents may choose whichever setting they prefer. About 650 students attend the school, and about 99 percent receive free or reduced-price lunch. All students in the school study an Afrocentric curriculum that was in place before the single-gender classes. The school has extracurricular mentoring programs for boys and girls and about 30 other after-school activities, including Karate, chess, and tutoring. The boys in the school serve as mentors for the second grade boys at a nearby elementary school. The single-gender program will be discontinued after this school year to comply with the state administrative code. In 1992, the principal in this urban junior high inaugurated single-gender homerooms for some students to provide a place where they could talk more openly about issues important to them and where teachers could provide crisis intervention when necessary. She believed it worked so well that the next year she made all classes in the school (grades seven through nine) single gender. Her primary goal was to promote the students’ academic success and to also minimize the distractions of rowdiness or inappropriate behavior among the students. She believes that because the students face danger in their inner city neighborhood, the school must be a safe haven and likes to consider it a second family for the children. All students are taught the standard junior high curriculum, and social skills and responsibility are emphasized. The school has a Saturday program in which students from a nearby college tutor both boys and girls. Officials we talked to in schools that have experimented recently with single-gender education said that such programs have resulted in observable qualitative differences in the behavior of children in single-gender environments; conclusive quantitative research, however, on the effectiveness of such public school programs is not available. Opponents maintain that targeted problems can be effectively addressed in coeducational settings without subjecting students to discrimination on the basis of gender and that the effectiveness of single-gender programs is questionable. Proponents believe, nevertheless, that single-gender programs ought to be available as tools for improving the academic and social performance of school children. Some single-gender programs, however, are subject to legal impediments. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education made several suggestions on the report’s purpose, research on single-gender education, and issues involving legal standards. As the Assistant Secretary correctly observed, our study was not intended to be an exhaustive research effort but was intended to identify the major issues in single-gender education and cite some examples. We did, however, add some additional references that may be useful to researchers. Regarding legal standards, the Assistant Secretary asked that we further clarify and explain the applicable legal principles. We have done so in the final report. The Assistant Secretary also provided technical comments on specific statements and facts included in our draft report, and, where appropriate, we used the information to clarify our report. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7209. This report was prepared by Susan Lawless, Evaluator-in-Charge, and Susan Poling, Assistant General Counsel. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 generally states that no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (20 U.S.C. 1681 (1990)). The implementing regulation is found in part 106 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulation. The Title IX regulation permits nonvocational, single-gender elementary and secondary schools, as long as comparable facilities, courses, and services are made available to students of both genders (34 C.F.R. 106.35(b)). The Title IX regulation generally prohibits single-sex classrooms in coeducational schools. It states that a “recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex....” (34 C.F.R. 106.34). Following are some exceptions to this regulation: contact sports offered in physical education classes (34 C.F.R. 106.34(c)); chorus, when based on vocal requirements or quality (34 C.F.R. 106.34(f)); portions of classes dealing with human sexuality (34 C.F.R. 106.34(e)). Separate classes may also be provided for pregnant students, but must be voluntary (34 C.F.R. 106.40(b)(3)). If the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights finds discrimination on the basis of sex, a recipient may be required by the Assistant Secretary to take remedial action necessary to overcome the effects of the discrimination (34 C.F.R. 106.3(a)). In the absence of a finding of discrimination by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions that have limited participation by gender (34 C.F.R. 106.3(b)). Regarding affirmative action, in particular, the classifications that result in single-gender classes must be directly related to the reasons for the institution of the single-gender classes. This means that the (1) beneficiaries of the single-gender classes or programs must have had limited opportunities to participate in a school’s programs or activities due to their sex, (2) less restrictive or segregative alternatives that may have accomplished the goals of the single-gender classes or programs must have been considered and rejected, and (3) there must be evidence that comparable sex-neutral means could not be reasonably expected to produce the results sought through the single-gender classrooms or programs. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the major educational and legal issues involved with public single-gender education. GAO found that: (1) single-gender educational programs are thought to reduce dropout rates and improve overall academic performance among urban males and academic achievement in mathematics and science among females; (2) single-gender settings are believed to reduce the distraction boys and girls create for each other, particularly during the middle school years; (3) some studies of minority students in private single-gender schools have suggested that both boys and girls improve academically in such settings; (4) the effectiveness of single-gender programs may be due more to students' and parents' motivation and commitment and small student populations; (5) some experts fear that single-gender educational programs will lead to unequal resource allocations and reinforcement of stereotypes; (6) some believe that training teachers in diversity and equity, creating smaller classes, and providing more individual attention would be just as effective in coeducational settings; (7) some public schools have terminated or modified their single-gender programs because of federal and state limitations on single-gender educational programs; and (8) the Department of Education has received numerous complaints regarding single-gender educational settings. |
In federal fiscal year 1992, three of the nation’s largest means-tested programs—Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamps, and Medicaid—provided almost $161 billion in cash, food coupons, and medical benefits, respectively, to millions of our nation’s low-income people. These people included families with children who are deprived of support; households that need help buying food basics; and the low-income aged, blind, or disabled. That same year, however, people or households who were ineligible for these benefits, or who were not entitled to the level of benefits provided, received nearly $4.7 billion in AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid benefit overpayments or about 4 percent of the total benefits paid in the three programs. Program administrators try to prevent overpayments by carefully determining an applicant’s initial eligibility. However, when errors are made, recovering overpayments is often very time consuming and difficult. Nationwide success in recovering these overpayments varies considerably among the three programs. While states recovered about $215.6 million of nearly $1.2 billion of AFDC overpayments, or about 18.7 percent, in fiscal year 1992, the recovery rate was appreciably lower for the other two programs. In this same year, almost $104.3 million of about $1.6 billion of Food Stamp overpayments, or about 6.5 percent, was recovered; while about $13.2 million, or nearly 2 percent, of an estimated $670.6 million of overpayments was recovered in the Medicaid program. When states do not promptly and efficiently identify and collect overpayments, governments lose the immediate use of these funds and incur additional expenses to recover them. Without a vigorous recovery effort, current and potential recipients may infer that the government considers the unrecovered funds dispensable. Under the legislative welfare reform proposals that the Congress is considering, resources available to help low-income Americans may become increasingly limited. Therefore, ensuring that the funds appropriated for these programs reach only those entitled to them is crucial. The Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, asked us to determine (1) what states are doing to collect benefit overpayments in the AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs; the more effective practices that they are using; and what, if anything, they could do better; and (2) what the federal government could do to help states collect more overpayments. Each year, the AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs provide cash and other assistance to millions of economically disadvantaged persons. In 1992, the AFDC program, authorized by title IV-A of the Social Security Act, provided about $22 billion in cash assistance to more than 13.6 million recipients—members of low-income families with children who were deprived of support due to the absence, death, disability, or unemployment of at least one parent. The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the 1964 Food Stamp Act, provided about $21 billion in food coupons to more than 25.4 million recipients to help them buy food to meet their nutritional needs. And the Medicaid program, authorized by title XIX of the Social Security Act, paid about $118 billion in 1992 for medical services for more than 30 million low-income persons who are aged, blind, or disabled; AFDC recipients; and other low-income persons. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is responsible for the AFDC Program; HHS’ Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) oversees administration of the Medicaid Program; and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Consumer Service (FCS) oversees the Food Stamp Program. ACF’s, FCS’, and HCFA’s oversight responsibility supports program operation at the state level. These agencies develop and issue regulations on general eligibility and benefit criteria, provide technical assistance and guidance to the states, and help monitor state performance through quality control systems. Under these systems, states must review a sample of their cases each month to assess the accuracy of their staffs’ eligibility and benefit determination decisions. In turn, federal quality control reviewers from ACF, FCS, and HCFA assess the correctness of state findings by evaluating a subsample of the state samples. Differences between the state and federal findings are reconciled to calculate an official state error rate. If the error rate is greater than a program’s targeted error rate—for example, 3 percent in the case of Medicaid—then federal payments may be reduced by an amount calculated on the basis of the percentage point difference between the actual and target error rate. The error rate is also used to estimate the total dollar value of estimated overpayments for the state. The federal government and states both provide funding for AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. The federal government pays from 50 to about 80 percent of benefit costs for AFDC and Medicaid and 50 percent of most administrative costs of those programs. The federal government pays 100 percent of benefit costs for Food Stamps and 50 percent of state administrative costs. The states manage the day-to-day functioning of AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid through local offices—either district, county, or city. As part of the daily administration, eligibility staff evaluate applications to determine a household’s or an individual’s eligibility and to ensure that the correct level of benefits is authorized. Depending upon the state, these staff may be determining eligibility and benefit levels for one or all three programs. The three programs’ eligibility rules and income tests are complex and differ from one another; so, although all three programs take into account assets, household income, and size, the extent to which they do so varies. For example, in determining an applicant’s eligibility under AFDC in fiscal year 1995, staff generally exclude the first $1,500 in equity value of an applicant’s automobile and count the remainder in determining available financial resources; under Medicaid, depending upon the type of applicant, staff exclude the first $1,500 in equity value or $4,500 in fair market value and, in certain cases, may exclude all of the value; and, under Food Stamps, staff exclude the first $4,550 in fair market value and, in some cases, may exclude all of the fair market value. A requirement that clients notify the staff when their income changes further complicates eligibility determinations. Staff must then use three sets of eligibility criteria to recalculate benefit levels. Given the complexity and diversity of eligibility rules among the three welfare programs, ineligible clients sometimes receive benefits or medical services or eligible clients sometimes receive more benefits than they are entitled to. Overpayments generally result when (1) a participating household or individual intentionally provides incorrect or insufficient information on which eligibility and benefit determinations are based (fraud), (2) a participating household or individual unintentionally provides incorrect or insufficient information (client error), or (3) the administering state agency miscalculates eligibility or benefits or does not correctly act on client-reported information (agency error). Regardless of the cause of overpayments, state AFDC and Food Stamp offices are responsible for (1) preventing and identifying overpayments, (2) verifying potential overpayments and establishing claims for them, and (3) collecting overpayments. While no federal goals exist for states to recover a minimum percentage of their overpayments, federal legislation generally requires states to try to recover them in these two programs. Although state Medicaid offices’ overpayment responsibilities are similar to those for the other two programs, under Medicaid law, the focus is on recovering overpayments to providers of medical services rather than the recipients of services. States may, but are not required to, recover funds from ineligible Medicaid clients when overpayments to providers are made in their behalf. In 1992, as a result of state law or policy, most states attempted to recover overpayments due to errors from Medicaid clients, including long-term care clients who received nursing home services to which they were not entitled. States use a variety of methods, including computer matching and quality control reviews, to help prevent overpayments and to identify overpayments. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 requires states to routinely compare data supplied by applicants and clients of AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid with other data sources in search of discrepancies. These other data sources include (1) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data on interest, dividends, and other types of unearned income; (2) Social Security Administration data on benefits and earnings; and (3) state reports on quarterly wages and unemployment insurance benefits. States may also identify overpayments when they conduct their monthly quality control reviews of individual cases or verify an individual’s alien status. After identifying a possible overpayment, the next step is to verify the overpayment. Because one key factor in determining eligibility and benefit levels is a household’s or an individual’s financial information, this may involve contacting the client—or his or her employer—to obtain wage statements to compare with the information originally provided by the client. Once the overpayment is verified, states establish a claim for it by entering a record in the state client billing and tracking system. By regulation, however, states are not required to pursue every overpayment. For example, both the AFDC and Food Stamp programs give states the option of not pursuing a nonfraudulent overpayment of less than $35 if it cannot be collected by reducing the individual’s or household’s benefit. Under existing waiver authority, FCS has increased the less than $35 threshold to less than $100 for some states. After establishing a claim for collection, states then send a written notice to the current or former client who received the overpayment advising him or her of the amount owed, explaining how the overpayment occurred, and requesting repayment. Federal law and regulations allow states to collect AFDC overpayments by offsetting a portion of current clients’ benefits (recoupment) without their consent and do not distinguish between the types of overpayment (agency or client error). However, the Food Stamp Program can recoup for agency errors only if the client voluntarily agrees to such recoupment. In addition, states must first allow clients with client error overpayments to repay them by lump sum or installment payments. States can use recoupment if the client chooses recoupment to repay a client error claim or if the client fails to pay the claim using the method chosen. If the state determines that collection action through any of these payment methods would cause undue hardship for the client, collections can be suspended or repayment amounts reduced. States have several other alternatives available to collect overpayments. Depending upon the program, they may garnish wages or intercept federal or state income tax refunds or state lottery winnings. States may also refer cases to collection agencies, report client debt to credit bureaus, use a small claims court, or place liens against a client’s property to collect the outstanding debt. All three programs allow states to retain a portion of the overpayments they recover. For AFDC and Medicaid, states keep an amount equal to the proportion of the benefits they originally provided in matching funds—from about 20 to 50 percent—regardless of the type of overpayment error. Although Food Stamp benefits are paid entirely by the federal government, states get to keep a portion of the overpayments that they recover. Currently, state agencies retain 25 percent of recovered Food Stamp overpayments due to client fraud, 10 percent for those due to client error, and nothing for those due to agency error. As the Congress discusses various approaches to serving AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid clients, some members are proposing restructuring these programs to give states more flexibility in administering them. While federal agencies currently oversee various aspects of these programs, states may find, under reform, that they must assume more—or even all—administrative and oversight responsibility. AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid are entitlement programs: no limit exists on the amount of federal funding a state can receive since every person who is determined to be eligible must receive benefits. Under a block grant approach, however, states would receive a capped, defined amount of money. In this instance, they likely would also have increased financial interest in ensuring that funds are spent only on those who are eligible. To accomplish our objectives, we mailed a separate questionnaire for each of the three welfare programs to welfare officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These questionnaires gathered information on (1) the methods states use to identify and collect overpayments, (2) how recovery efforts are coordinated among the three programs, (3) the level of overpayments established and collected in fiscal year 1992, and (4) what factors hinder or help states’ abilities to recover overpayments. We also interviewed officials at ACF, FCS, HCFA, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Management Service, and IRS and welfare officials in seven states. Appendix I more completely describes our scope and methodology. We conducted our work between April 1993 and March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For each of the three programs we reviewed, about a third of the states—high-performing states—had recovered a substantially greater portion of their estimated overpayments than the lower one-third of the states. One key reason for the high-performing states’ success is that they established more claims for their overpayments than low-performing states. In addition, they used a broader array of tools and practices to both establish and collect overpayments than the low-performing states. We estimated that, if all states had achieved recovery rates equal to those of the high-performing states, an additional $262 million potentially could have been recovered in fiscal year 1992. States’ awareness and understanding of successful recovery techniques can help enhance their collection efforts. At the time of our review, the Food and Consumer Service (FCS) was sharing best Food Stamp recovery practices and overpayment collection data among the states, and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) was planning to provide similar assistance for AFDC in 1996. However, HCFA was not providing, nor is it planning to provide, such assistance to the states for recovering Medicaid overpayments from clients. The median recovery rate for high-performing states was at least twice that of the low-performing states for each program. For example, as illustrated in figure 2.1, the high-performing states’ median recovery rate in the AFDC program was about 28 percent of estimated overpayments, compared with 6 percent for the low-performing states. Although high-performing states were not always the same in each program, the following states were consistently among the high-performing states in fiscal year 1992 for at least two of the three programs: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Appendixes II through IV show individual state recovery rates for each program. One main reason that high-performing states’ recovery rates were greater than low-performing states’ is that they established claims for a significantly greater portion of their overpayments. For states to collect any overpayment, they must first establish claims for them. As illustrated in figure 2.2, the high-performing states’ median rate for establishing claims in the AFDC program, for example, was about 54 percent of estimated overpayments, compared with 14 percent for the low-performing states. The median recovery rate of high-performing states in the AFDC program was substantially higher than that for low-performing states, as shown in figure 2.1. States that had the most success in establishing claims and recovering overpayments used a much higher number of certain recovery practices and tools than other states. States can use many different practices or tools, under current law, to help recover overpayments. Following are the practices and tools for establishing claims and recovering overpayments that were used more by high-performing states than by low-performing states. The practices and tools used for establishing claims were use of self-initiated computer matches to identify potential overpayments, use of multiple approaches to identify potential overpayments, timely verification of overpayments, timely establishment of claims, and establishment of claims for more difficult collection cases. The practices and tools used for recovering overpayments were lower average caseloads for eligibility staff, greater portion of a state’s total staff working to recover overpayments, use of state income tax refund intercept, use of multiple approaches to collect overpayments, automated tracking and billing system with a full range of functions, and more of a state’s overpayment records in automated tracking and billing system. In studying the high-performing states, we found that they used a broad array of these practices, focusing on two aspects of the recovery process—establishing the claim and collecting the overpayment. Although not all of the high-performing states used every practice listed, we found that, overall, a greater proportion used at least five of these practices than did the low-performing states. Many states indicated in our survey that limited staff may have prevented them from doing more to recover overpayments. We found that high-performing states were more timely in verifying potential overpayments and establishing claims than were low-performing states. As illustrated in figure 2.3, high-performing states for the AFDC program, for example, established overpayment claims for current clients on average in about 3 months—half the average time it took for the lower one-third of the states, which was about 6 months. In addition, one of our prior studies showed that successful recovery of overpayments is directly related to the time it takes to establish an overpayment claim once it is identified. The timely establishment of overpayment claims for collection is important because, once clients discontinue receiving program benefits and overpayments can no longer be recouped, collection can be more difficult. Another practice used by high-performing states was to establish claims for the more difficult collection cases, such as former clients who have moved out of state, provided no forwarding addresses, declared bankruptcy, or died. Although establishing claims in these cases is time consuming, states that did this increased their collection potential. In addition to the specific practices associated with establishing claims, high-performing states also used several practices for collecting overpayments from former or current clients. For example, we found that these states had lower average caseloads per eligibility staff, which allowed their staff an opportunity to spend more time with each collection case. Further, these states dedicated a greater portion of their total staff to recovering overpayments, including using recovery specialists and fraud investigators where appropriate. For example, in the Food Stamp Program, an average of 8 percent of high-performing states’ total staff were fraud investigators compared with 3 percent of low-performing states’. While having more resources helped them to collect overpayments, high-performing states also used other practices not as common among the low-performing states. These included state tax refund intercepts, multiple collection methods, and automated systems with a full range of client billing and tracking functions. About 12 of the 15 high-performing states for the Food Stamp Program, for example, reported that they had a full range of automated functions, whereas 9 of the 20 low-performing states had this capacity. Appendix V has additional information related to state collection practices. If all states had performed as high-performing states did in recovering AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid overpayments in 1992, we estimate that an additional $262 million could have potentially been recovered. Our estimate is based on each state agency performing at the median recovery rate of the top one-third performing states for each of the programs in 1992. This estimate is broken down among the three programs as follows: $132 million in AFDC recoveries (61-percent increase over current recoveries), $100 million in Food Stamp recoveries (96-percent increase), and $30 million in Medicaid recoveries (230-percent increase). Our estimate of $262 million in potential additional recoveries assumes that lower performing states would use more of the recovery practices of the high-performing states. To do so, states would have to identify these practices and evaluate the cost benefit of using them. We found that FCS has helped states identify other states’ “best practices” for recovering Food Stamp overpayments. ACF and HCFA, on the other hand, are not helping states learn about best recovery practices for AFDC or Medicaid overpayments, respectively. However, ACF has plans to begin offering such help in 1996; HCFA has no similar plans. FCS communicates Food Stamp overpayment collection data and best recovery practices to states in a variety of ways. It annually collects recovery data—such as dollar amounts recouped—from the states and disseminates this information, which helps states compare their performance and establish recovery goals of their own. FCS also collects information on successful recovery practices from the states, periodically publishes this information, and disseminates it nationwide. In addition, FCS established a State Exchange Program that subsidizes state officials’ travel to other states to learn about effective recovery practices, as well as methods to prevent overpayments. Finally, FCS provides training to states on the use of federal income tax refund intercepts. FCS officials told us that they believe their sharing of best practice and recovery information has helped states improve their overpayment recovery efforts. In contrast, the AFDC and Medicaid programs provide little guidance on best recovery practices to the states. ACF had collected overpayment information until September 1988 when the Office of Management and Budget’s approval of its reporting form expired. ACF did not renew the form. Subsequently, in November 1992, HHS’ Office of the Inspector General reported that ACF did not have a reporting mechanism to collect information needed to assess the effectiveness of state agency compliance with program requirements for identifying and recovering AFDC overpayments. ACF officials told us that, as a result of that report, they have redesigned the form and are planning to begin collecting financial recovery data from states in fiscal year 1996. In addition, the officials said that they are working on a guidance document for states that would include best recovery practices. During our review, Medicaid officials were not aware that several states were recovering overpayments from clients and, thus, were not collecting recovery data or sharing best practice information. Medicaid officials said that they had no plans to collect or disseminate best practice information because states are not required to collect overpayments from clients. Looking at the programs from the federal perspective, we found that federal laws and regulations that facilitate recovery in one welfare program are not in place in all three. If legislative changes were made to extend recovery practices used in one program to the others, we estimate that states could potentially recover millions more in welfare overpayments annually. A large part of the potential additional collections we estimate involves the Food Stamp Program, in which a rule limiting recovery of overpayments resulting from agency error has cost the program about $33 million a year in potential collections. Currently, unless the client consents, states may not recover an overpayment by reducing the client’s monthly benefits if the overpayment results from agency error. We also estimated that about $24 million could potentially be collected annually by extending the use of federal income tax refund intercept to the AFDC and Medicaid programs. Currently, only the Food Stamp Program allows states to intercept a federal income tax refund to recover overpayments from a former program client who is delinquent in repayment. Recovering overpayments due to agency error through recoupment—or temporarily reducing benefits, without client consent—is an accepted collection method in AFDC but not allowed for Food Stamp overpayments. Food Stamp legislation precludes states from using recoupment, unless the client consents, to recover overpayments resulting from agency error. Eliminating the requirement for client consent could potentially yield additional collections estimated at about $33 million annually. For agency error overpayments, the Food Stamp restriction on using recoupment without client consent could negatively affect states’ recovery efforts. As shown in table 3.1, although about 40 percent of the estimated overpayments in 1992 involved agency errors, less than 19 percent of the states’ established claims and less than 16 percent of total collections involve agency error overpayments. One reason for these rates may be that, unlike for fraud or inadvertent client error, states cannot keep any collections of overpayments resulting from agency errors. Six states responding to our questionnaire commented on a need for financial incentives for states to collect agency error overpayments. Thirty-seven states reported that a federal requirement to recover agency error overpayments, such as using recoupment without client consent, would help them collect overpayments. Only 11 states reported that they opposed such a requirement. One reason for their response, provided by several states, may be that states do not keep any part of the amount collected when the overpayment results from agency error. Allowing recoupment without client consent to collect overpayments resulting from agency error could enable states to potentially collect an estimated $33 million in additional Food Stamp overpayments annually. Our estimate is based on an assumption that states would establish claims for agency error overpayments at the same rate that they did for client error overpayments in 1992 and collect overpayments at least at the same rate that agency error claims were collected in that year (see app. VI, table VI.1). USDA supports using recoupment of Food Stamp benefits without client consent to recover agency error overpayments. In 1985, a legislative proposal to require recoupment without client consent for agency error overpayments was introduced but not enacted. Subsequently, we recommended in 1986 that the Congress amend the Food Stamp Act to authorize states to pursue recoupment of agency error overpayments without client consent. At that time, USDA supported using such recoupment for agency error claims. Subsequently, in 1993, USDA proposed legislation that recommended recoupment of agency error claims, but the Congress did not act on the recommendation. USDA is again evaluating efforts needed, such as the use of recoupment of agency error claims without client consent, to ensure that agency error claims are treated the same as client error claims. Although intercepting federal income tax refunds has proven effective in collecting Food Stamp overpayments, its use is not authorized for the AFDC and Medicaid programs. The Food Stamp Program currently intercepts tax refunds under demonstration project authority with participation by about two-fifths of the states. Twenty-one states intercepted federal income tax refunds to collect over $30 million in Food Stamp benefit overpayments in 1994. Legislation would be needed to authorize AFDC’s and Medicaid’s use of federal income tax refund intercept. We estimate that such legislation could potentially result in overpayment collections increasing by $23.6 million annually. States that use federal income tax refund intercepts in the Food Stamp Program do so as a last resort. First, only claims resulting from client error are referred for federal income tax refund intercept. Also, states may only refer claims for intercept if the client is no longer a Food Stamp beneficiary and the claim becomes delinquent after a state agency has tried several times to collect it. Intercepting federal income tax refunds to collect delinquent claims from former Food Stamp clients involves a joint effort by the Food and Consumer Service (FCS), IRS, and the states. State agencies submit claims to FCS and notify the former beneficiaries. FCS consolidates individual state submissions, refers them to IRS for processing, and then transfers the amounts intercepted, including any earned income tax credit in the refund, to the states. States paid half of the $8.28 IRS processing fee for each intercept in 1993; FCS paid the other half. While no cost benefit study of the Food Stamp federal tax intercept program has been made, it appears effective in recovering substantial overpayments at a limited cost. Since FCS’ 1992 pilot of the demonstration project in two states, collections from intercepts plus voluntary payments made in place of offset have represented at least 23 percent of total collections in the participating states. Each year since 1992, FCS has added states to the program. As shown in table 3.2, intercept-related collections represented about 33 percent of total overpayments recovered in 21 participating states in fiscal year 1994. The federal share (not less than 75 percent) of the $30.6 million intercepted in that year was at least 23 times greater than the $983,000 that FCS estimated it spent in administrative costs in 1994. These costs included salary and contractor costs, training costs, and FCS’ share of the IRS processing fee. While FCS does not determine state administrative costs spent for tax intercept, FCS officials stated that they believed the states’ retention share exceeded their administrative costs. Current law does not authorize using federal income tax refund intercept in the AFDC and Medicaid programs. Broad support exists, however, to extend such authority to the two programs. Over the years, GAO, HHS, Treasury’s Financial Management Service, state agencies, and the United Council on Welfare Fraud, Inc.—a program integrity advocacy group—have called for extending the federal income tax intercept, primarily to the AFDC program. Sixteen states responding to our AFDC survey and 10 states responding to our Medicaid survey cited a need for extending federal income tax intercept to collecting outstanding AFDC and Medicaid overpayments. Legislation to extend federal income tax refund intercept to the AFDC program was introduced in 1994 but did not pass. The legislation, part of a welfare reform proposal introduced in the 103rd Congress, would have authorized an intercept program for AFDC overpayments. Commenting on this proposal, officials from the Treasury’s Financial Management Service cited the need to revise the proposal’s language so that HHS’ ACF would be the focal point for working with IRS. This would lessen the administrative burden on IRS because it could deal with one entity rather than 50 states and the District of Columbia. This approach would more closely resemble the Food Stamp intercept program, which uses FCS as its focal point. In addition to new legislation for AFDC and Medicaid, legislative and regulatory change would be needed to achieve the full potential of the Food Stamp federal income tax intercept program. FCS officials told us that since they piloted the demonstration project, they have recruited additional states each year on the basis of the states’ willingness to devote the staff and computer resources to implement the program. In its 1995 package of legislative recommendations to update Food Stamp legislation, USDA recommended a legislative change that would require all states to use the federal income tax refund intercept. Such a provision is contained in the recently passed House of Representatives’ welfare reform bill, H.R. 4. According to FCS officials, USDA also has drafted a regulatory change that would remove the program from its demonstration project status and fully authorize federal income tax refund intercept to collect client error overpayments. FCS officials told us that the decision to limit the federal income tax refund intercept to only overpayments caused by client error was a reaction to the failure of a 1994 legislative proposal to extend tax intercept to agency error overpayments. In commenting on a draft of this report, however, USDA stated that, as part of its evaluation of efforts needed to ensure that agency error claims are treated the same as client error claims, it is again considering the referral of agency error claims for federal tax intercept. If the federal income tax refund intercept program were extended to the AFDC and Medicaid programs, we estimate that overpayment collections could potentially be increased $23.6 million annually. The AFDC portion of our estimate—$22.3 million—is based on an analysis of 24 states that reported using state income tax refund intercept in 1992. (See app. VI, table VI.2.) We also estimated that 11 states that used state tax intercept might collect about $1.3 million through extending the federal tax refund intercept to the Medicaid program (see app. VI, table VI.3). One ACF official we interviewed suggested that the possibility of intercepting AFDC overpayments might not be as great as in the Food Stamp Program because AFDC clients are less likely than Food Stamp clients to be getting a federal income tax refund. Further, all of the ACF officials we interviewed believed that states may have to “wait in line” behind other programs already using federal income tax refund intercepts to collect from the same clients. Other than federal tax liability and past due child support owed AFDC clients, which receive first priority, the law does not prioritize agencies. Federal and state efforts to recover AFDC, Food Stamp, and Medicaid benefit overpayments have fallen short of their potential. While not all such overpayments are collectable, recovery of overpayments could substantially increase if lower performing states improved their recovery practices, particularly in establishing claims for overpayments. Although our estimates of the additional collections account for a small proportion of the total estimated overpayments in 1992, they represent a substantial increase in the amount that states collected in each program in that year. With the Food and Consumer Service’s (FCS) continued sharing of state recovery information and best recovery practices and the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) plans to do so soon, states have an opportunity to improve their recovery efforts in the AFDC and Food Stamp programs. Moreover, states could improve their ability to recover more overpayments if the Congress would remove certain federal legislative barriers to collection and recovery techniques. Specifically, states could run more fiscally sound welfare programs if (1) limits on offsetting Food Stamp benefits to recover Food Stamp overpayments arising from agency error were removed and (2) authority to use federal income tax refund intercepts was extended to AFDC and Medicaid overpayments. While providing states these additional tools will not end overpayments in these welfare programs, it would provide states additional opportunities to recover overpayments. Managing the three welfare programs’ funds—including identifying, establishing, and collecting overpayments—is critical to the programs’ integrity, regardless of how they may be structured or administered after the welfare reform debate. Preventing overpayments is clearly one way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used for unwarranted benefits, but overpayments will inevitably occur. Finding methods to better identify and recover overpayments, and obtaining additional collection tools, should continue to be a central concern of program administrators. The Congress may want to consider legislative amendments to remove barriers to states’ collecting additional overpayments. Specifically, it may want to consider amending the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to authorize states to offset current recipients’ benefits, without their consent, to recover overpayments caused by agency errors and extending the authority for states to intercept federal income tax refunds to include the recovery of AFDC and Medicaid overpayments. We requested written comments on a draft of this report from USDA, HHS, and IRS. IRS did not provide comments. USDA and HHS comments and our evaluation of them are summarized below. USDA’s and HHS’ written comments appear in full in appendixes VII and VIII, respectively. USDA concurred with our conclusion that more can be done to recover overpayments from current and former welfare clients. It agreed that, because some states establish claims for a greater percentage of their overpayments than others, they recover more overpayments. USDA also identified recent actions it is taking to reduce errors that lead to overpayments, including the creation of a core FCS team to work solely on developing and coordinating payment accuracy issues and identifying methods and incentives to encourage states to devote the necessary resources to identifying and establishing more overpayment claims. We believe these are positive steps toward reducing overpayments and improving collections and encourage USDA to continue such efforts. USDA also commented on a few specific observations in our report. Its detailed comments and our evaluation of them follow. USDA noted that, while the nationwide recovery rate of Food Stamp overpayments was 7 percent, state agencies have been increasing the amount of overpayments collected in recent years. It stated that this increase is due in part to the use of the Federal Tax Refund Offset Program. USDA also commented that state agencies are collecting nearly 50 percent of the overpayments they establish as claims. While we agree that states have increased their collection of overpayments each year, they have not increased collections relative to the growing amount of their estimated overpayments. For example, in fiscal year 1988, states collected about 8.6 percent (about $71 million) of their estimated overpayments but collected less than 6.4 percent (about $117 million) of estimated overpayments in fiscal year 1993. Regarding USDA’s comment that states are collecting almost 50 percent of the overpayment claims they establish, USDA did not consider that most states are establishing claims for a small percentage of their estimated overpayments. For example, in 1992, 31 states had established claims for less than 20 percent of their total estimated Food Stamp overpayments. Regarding our comments about the implications of welfare reform on recovering overpayments, USDA believes it is our opinion and not fact that states would have an increased financial interest in ensuring that block grant funds are spent only on those who are eligible. In addition, USDA commented that a capped level of funding under block grants does not presume that overpayment errors will be fewer or that more staff will be available to collect overpayments. It also noted that, under block grants, the accuracy in determining benefit levels would largely depend on the state eligibility standards that would replace current federal standards. It is our opinion that states would have an increased interest in ensuring payment accuracy under block grants. However, we did not state, nor do we presume, that with block grants fewer overpayment errors would occur or more staff would be available to collect overpayments. We agree with USDA that the accuracy of determining benefit levels depends on the eligibility standards. Eligibility standards, however, are not the only variable that affects the accuracy of benefit determinations. The accuracy of benefit determinations is also affected, for example, if the client intentionally or unintentionally withholds necessary eligibility information, such as earnings or assets. USDA points out that we did not accurately report its position on involuntary recoupment of agency error overpayments. It previously supported and continues to support the position that states should be able to use involuntary recoupment to collect agency error overpayments. We revised the report to reflect USDA’s position. USDA believes that our estimate of additional agency error collections if states were allowed to use involuntary recoupment of benefits is optimistic. It questioned an assumption we used in calculating our estimate—that states would establish agency error claims at the same rate as client errors. USDA contends that states may not devote the same amount of resources to establish and collect agency error claims as they do to determine client errors because states do not keep a portion of agency error collections as they do for client error collections. While some states may aggressively pursue agency error claims, USDA does not believe that involuntary recoupment alone would generate the added incentive to achieve the additional agency error collections we estimated. We do not believe our estimate of additional agency error collections is overly optimistic. While we agree that states have a clear incentive to devote their limited resources to collecting client error overpayments, we also believe that states would have a continued interest to recover overpayments caused by agency errors. First, by law, states are required to establish claims for, and attempt to collect, all types of overpayments. Collecting all types of overpayments helps maintain program integrity. Second, as noted in the report, our survey results suggest that most states would favor a federal requirement to recover agency error overpayments, such as involuntary recoupment, because it would increase their ability to collect such overpayments. We believe that involuntary recoupment would make it easier for states to collect agency error overpayments and, thus, states would be more likely to establish claims for agency error overpayments as they do for client error overpayments. USDA also provided technical comments on our draft report. We made changes where appropriate in the final report. In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS agreed that federal and state efforts to recover overpayments fall short of their potential. In particular, it said that a substantial potential for increase in AFDC recoveries exists if lower performing states improved to the level of the high-performing ones. The Department also believes that federal agencies and states must emphasize the need to maintain payment accuracy as well as find methods to better identify and recover overpayments. HHS also provided other comments that raised questions about our analyses and scope of review. These and other comments and our evaluation of them follow. HHS raised questions about the quality of our analysis and stated that we were somewhat selective in citing findings that may exaggerate differences in the characteristics of high- and low-performing states. Specifically, it questioned how we (1) defined high- and low-performing states and specific overpayment terms used throughout the report, (2) identified most promising practices, and (3) measured collection rates. We disagree with HHS’ assertions about the quality of our analysis and presentation of findings. As we explained in appendix I, for each program, our definition of state performance is based upon a ranking of the states according to the percentage of estimated overpayments they collected and a subsequent division of the state rankings into approximate thirds—high-, middle-, and low-performing states. The practices that we referred to as most promising in the draft of this report are those that tended to be more commonly used by high-performing states than by low-performing states. Thus, because we did not study the effectiveness of individual practices, we deleted our reference to the practices as most promising. The overpayment terms we use throughout the report and our methodology for calculating collection rates were also explained in appendix I. While we agree with HHS about the difficulties associated with calculating state collection rates, in the absence of better data, we established the proxy measure defined in the report. HHS also stated that it hoped the report would elaborate more on the cost-effectiveness of various practices, causes for differences among states’ performance, and differences in state administrative costs. These issues were beyond this report’s scope and objectives. Our review focused more broadly on the recovery of welfare overpayments and not on any individual state’s performance. HHS believes that the report needs to acknowledge that the programs discussed in this report have multiple goals that often require tradeoffs. It commented that state eligibility workers who spend their time recovering overpayments have to divert their efforts from helping the client population attain self-sufficiency. Clearly, between these two program goals are tradeoffs that states would have to make in allocating their resources. We are not suggesting that significant state resources be diverted from casework. Rather, we are suggesting that, by adopting some of the practices discussed in the report, states could improve their performance in recovering overpayments. Most states already have recovery specialists devoted to recovering overpayments. By providing effective recovery techniques to these specialists, states may not have to divert scarce resources from self-sufficiency efforts to recover overpayments. In considering other HHS comments, we clarified our discussion of program administration, rules, and procedures. In addition, HHS offered technical comments on the report draft. We considered these comments for the final report and made changes where appropriate. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed states' efforts to recover benefit overpayments in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs, focusing on: (1) overpayments collected from current and former welfare clients in 1992; (2) factors that help or hinder effective state recovery practices; and (3) how the federal government can help states recover more overpayments. GAO found that: (1) the states with the highest recovery rates in fiscal year 1992 established claims for a greater portion of their overpayments; (2) successful practices to establish overpayments included using computer matching to identify potential overpayments, more timely efforts to verify overpayments and establish claims, and establishing overpayment claims on the more difficult collection cases; (3) states that used a broader array of recovery tools had greater collection rates than other states; (4) successful practices to recover overpayments included using lower average caseloads for eligibility staff, detailing more staff to recovery efforts, intercepting state income tax refunds, and using automated tracking and billing systems to recover overpayments; and (5) an additional $262 million could have been recovered in 1992 if all states had been as successful as the top performing states. GAO also found that: (1) two of the three federal agencies responsible for overseeing the programs do not help states identify the best recovery practices; and (2) eliminating client consent for temporary reductions in benefits due to administrative errors in the Food Stamp Program and intercepting federal income tax refunds to recover AFDC and Medicaid overpayments could increase overpayment recoveries by millions of dollars annually. |
ATHENS/BRUSSELS Prospects for a deal on a second international bailout for Greece brightened on Wednesday when euro zone finance ministers were summoned to talks in Brussels while Greek political leaders met to approve a tough new reform and austerity program.
Eurogroup chairman Jean-Claude Juncker invited ministers from the 17-nation single currency area to meet on Thursday evening and the International Monetary Fund said managing director Christine Lagarde would also attend.
They are expected to examine a complex package involving a 130 billion euro EU/IMF rescue and a bond swap with private creditors, which hinges on Athens accepting conditions that require big cuts in many Greeks' living standards.
Greeks face a dreadful year of recession, a government source said. Athens now forecast the economy will shrink between four and five percent in 2012, the source said, adding to a relentless dive in economic output for the last four years which has sent unemployment soaring.
The figure, contained in a draft letter to Lagarde, is far worse than the 2.8 percent fall in gross domestic product forecast when the 2012 budget went to parliament in November, highlighting the conundrum that more austerity will damage the economy further and drive Greece's massive debts yet higher.
Juncker called the Eurogroup meeting even though leaders of the three Greek coalition parties were still discussing with Prime Minister Lucas Papademos the terms of a rescue package to avoid a chaotic default in March that would send tremors around the euro zone and possibly further afield.
Two sources close to the Athens talks said the government would promise spending cuts and tax rises totaling 13 billion euros from 2012 to 2015, almost double the seven billion it originally pledged.
The bailout package also pledges a 22 percent cut to the minimum wage level, a party official said.
RELUCTANT LEADERS
International lenders are demanding that the leaders of the conservative New Democracy party, PASOK socialists and far-right LAOS commit themselves in writing to implement the program of pay and pension cuts, structural and administrative reforms.
Euro zone officials say the full package must be agreed with Greece and approved by the euro zone, European Central Bank and IMF before February 15 so that complex legal paperwork can be completed in time for a bond redemption deadline on March 20.
However, the leaders have been loath to accept the lenders' tough conditions, which are certain to be unpopular with voters,
as they face parliamentary elections possibly as early as April.
After a series of delays, the leaders finally received a 15-page document on Wednesday morning laying out the principles of the bailout and its conditions, a party official told Reuters. Attached were a further 30 or so pages laying out how the program will be implemented.
The leaders will have to decide whether to push through a 15 percent cut to supplementary pensions or a combination of cuts in main and supplementary pensions, the official said.
Other elements of the deal have been gradually slotting into place, including a bond swap with private creditors to ease Greece's debt burden by reducing the value of government bonds held by banks and insurers.
The new bonds would have an average interest rate of around 3.5 percent, said state NET TV, with creditors having to swallow a 70 percent cut in the value of their debt holdings.
Private holders of Greek debt will discuss the debt swap plan aimed at slashing the country's debt pile in Paris on Thursday, a banking official told Reuters.
German Deputy Finance Minister Thomas Steffen said in Berlin the bond swap offer to private creditors could be made as early as next week.
He voiced exasperation at Greece's failure to implement economic and fiscal reforms since the debt crisis erupted two years ago, saying governance remained below European standards.
"I believe we can say today that we have made little progress on Greece since 2010, worryingly little progress," Steffen said.
ECB NEEDED
Ratings agency Standard & Poor's said Greece would likely fail to achieve sustainable debt levels if it relied on a 70 percent reduction in the value of bonds held by private creditors, putting the onus on the ECB to also take losses.
"The reduction ... is probably not sufficient to make the debt sustainable, given the outlook for GDP itself," S&P; analyst Frank Gill said.
With banks and insurers having mostly agreed to take a hefty writedown, Athens and the commercial banks are urging the ECB to forego profits on its Greek bond holdings to help cut the debt to a sustainable level. That could raise 12 billion euros or more.
But ECB policymakers are still divided on what contribution the bank could make to a restructuring of Greek debt, two euro zone monetary policy sources said.
While the ECB has ruled out joining private creditors in voluntarily accepting losses on its Greek bonds, it could provide indirect relief by renouncing profits from bonds it bought at below face value.
The ECB's 23-member Governing Council, which holds a regular monthly meeting on Thursday, has yet to agree a position. Some policymakers are reluctant to share the burden for fear of easing pressure on Athens to agree spending cuts. There are also concerns about setting a precedent for other countries.
"There is no agreement yet. Some people on the Council still oppose this," said one monetary policy source, adding that ECB President Mario Draghi had not yet revealed his position.
An opinion poll on Wednesday showed that PASOK, which ruled Greece until Papandreou's government collapsed last November, has most to fear from elections. The monthly survey by Public Issue for Kathimerini newspaper showed support for PASOK had collapsed to eight percent from the nearly 44 percent it commanded when it returned to power in 2009.
(Additional reporting by Ingrid Melander, George Georgiopoulos and Harry Papachristou in Athens and Paul Carrel in Frankfurt; Writing by David Stamp and Deepa Babington,; editing by Mike Peacock) ||||| Talking of deadlock, there's not much sign of that white smoke so it could be time to wrap up the blog.
Here's a quick round-up of today's main developments:
• The final (we hope) debt talks have finally started in Athens between the party leaders
• A meeting of eurozone finance ministers has been called for tomorrow at 5pm GMT in Brussels to discuss Greece
• The US is at risk of another downgrade, S&P says
• European stock markets (and the Dow so far) were broadly down ahead of details of the Greece deal
Political deadlock was S&P's main concern back in August when it removed the US's AAA rating, and those fears haven't gone away. If anything a solution to America's enormous debt issue has become even more out of reach with nothing likely to be done until after the November elections. As John Chambers points out in the Bloomberg report:
Political brinkmanship hasn't gone away. That simply doesn't happen in other AAA economies.
They're certainly having a busy afternoon at S&P. Not content with hurling a spanner in the works of the already Gordianesque Greek debt talks, they're now saying the US is at risk of another downgrade unless it gets its fiscal ducks in a row.
According to Bloomberg, John Chambers, S&P's managing director of sovereign ratings, told a webcast for clients this afternoon that it needed a "credible" fiscal plan. Bloomberg reports:
The U.S., lacking a plan to contain $1 trillion deficits, faces the prospect of another rating cut in six to 24 months depending on the outcome of November elections, according to John Chambers of Standard & Poor's.
America has had an AA+ rating with a negative outlook since August 5 when S&P stripped the nation of its AAA ranking for the first time, citing the government's failure to agree on a path to reduce deficits. The U.S. has a one-in-three chance of another downgrade, Chambers said.
"What the U.S. needs is not so much a short-term fiscal tightening, but it has to have a credible medium-term fiscal plan," said Chambers. "That is going to have to say something about entitlements, and that is probably going to have to say something about revenues."
Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers, has called a meeting for tomorrow at 6pm in Brussels to discuss the Greece deal, assuming there is one to talk about.
With the sense of timing that we have come to know and love during this crisis (remember this classic from last year), S&P have opined that even with a 70% haircut, Greece's debts are not sustainable unless the ECB also takes a hit.
This si likely to go down like a sick sandwich in Athens, Brussels and quite a few other places in between, coming as it does at the point where we might actually be getting close to a deal on Greek debt.
S&P analyst Frank Gill told clients in a webcast that
In our original estimate, which was made two years ago, at that time debt-to-GDP would have been restored to a far more sustainable level. But because only a small subcomponent of investors are actually taking the haircut and the official sector is not, or only partially, then the reduction... is probably not sufficient debt relief to make debt sustainable given the outlook for GDP itself.
The equity markets have turned a touch sour this afternoon retreating from six month highs as the Greek talks became ever more delayed.
The FTSE closed 0.24% down at 5875.93, losing 14.33 points, while Germany's DAX lost 0.15% to close 10 points down at 6744.19. They were following the Dow Jones which spent the morning in negative territory, down 0.38% at 12829. France's CAC bucked the trend, recording a small rise to close 0.07% up at 3413.77.
Helena Smith, our woman in Athens, is following the tortuous developments in Hellas and offers some insight into what we can expect tonight.
So the talks have finally begun, but the big question is will they ever end? The Greek prime minister Lucas Papademos would like this final meeting to be over in not more than three hours. That way he can convene a meeting of his cabinet later tonight with the express purpose of having the deal endorsed.
The former vice president of the ECB is reputedly very unhappy with the way Greece's political leaders have comported themselves in recent days - fearing that in addition to putting the entire loan agreement at risk of being scrapped, they have after three days of delay also turned the country into a laughing stock in Europe. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert made clear today patience in Europe is running out: "It is important that the negotiations now come to an end," said Steffen Seibert. But as exhausive as the negotiations have already been, the leaders do not seem willng to sign off on the cost cutting reforms without a fight - prompting one official to say:"I fear it is going to be another long night." Tellingly Georgios Karatzaferis, who leads the small populist Laos party in the ruling coaliton, felt fit to tell state-run TV that "austerity measures are like shoes that are too tight. Sooner or later, you want to kick them off."
Helena also reports that there is more fighting talk from Greece's powerful communist party, which calls for Greece to leave the EU and default. Reacting to the new loan agreement this afternoon it said:
The working class and low income must now, with one voice and one fist, shake Greece. The loan agreement must not be voted. People should react through rebellion, organisation, popular alliance and rallying around the KKE (Greek communist party).[Greece] should detach itself from the EU through the power of the people … and by permanently writing-off [its] debt.
Afternoon. While we're waiting for the proverbial puff of white smoke to come out of the Greek government offices in Athens, an amusing tweet from Shaun Richards, the independent economist:
#Greece's one-year govt bond yield has dipped to a mere 497%! Make of that what you will as its lower but can 497% be good? #gfc2 #euro
Remarkable news from Greece -- the meeting between the Greek prime minister and the leaders of the country's three biggest parties is about to begin.
George Papandreou, Antonis Samaras and George Karatzaferis have just arrived at Lucas Papademos's office.
Just 53 hours later than Monday's deadline to give the EU an answer, but who's counting, eh?
Now the waiting begins – will the quartet swiftly endorse the draft agreement for the €130bn bailout, or is there more drama ahead?
Either way....I'm handing this blog over to my colleague Martin Farrer. Thanks for your time and comments, and apologies for the technical problems above the line (I don't think they're my fault, but you never know. GW)
There's a sense of torpor in the financial markets now, as investors wait for some action in Athens.
It's such a change from last autumn, when the latest developments in the euro crisis would send stocks racing up, or down. Right now, the FTSE 100 is up 1 measly point, while the Dow Jones has opened 9 points higher.
The euro remains solidly higher today at $1.326, but David Song of DailyFX warns that the single currency is vulnerable:
German lawmakers are to vote next week on the proposed bailout package, and if the vote fails, the European Central Bank would be blocked from exchanging its holdings of Greek debt for European Financial Stability Facility bonds. In the event of such an occurrence, we would expect significant downside pressure on the Euro, as it would all but guarantee a disorderly Greek default.
Meanwhile, the spoof Angela Merkel twitter account continues to be a source of strength, with a helpful translation for Georgios Karatzaferis (who has asked for the draft agreement in Greek, not English)
Translation for Mr Karatzaferis: "SIGN HERE". — Angela Merkel (@Angela_D_Merkel) February 8, 2012
TF Market Advisors have written a good piece on European Central Bank's plans to make a contribution to Greece's bailout by not "taking profits" on its Greek loans (as blogged at 8.33am)
We mentioned earlier that the ECB bought its Greek debt at a discount, but TF explains that the ECB is almost certainly still sitting on a paper loss:
They have "profits" because they live in an accrual accounting world. They buy bonds, don't mark them, and accrue the interest. The accrued interest counts as "profit". That is the carry trade.... The problem with accrual accounting is when a sale is forced. Whatever the reason for the sale (in this case, a restructuring/default by Greece), the accrual accounting game is over and you have real profit or loss. The "profit" is the total proceeds received for the sale, versus total purchase price, plus any coupon payments received, minus costs of carrying the position.
We don't know the details of the ECB's holding of Greece debt (because they won't make it public), but this Bloomberg graph shows how the value of Greek bonds has declined since the start of 2010. There is probably also some interest waiting to be paid, which could be lost under the ECB's plan.
The confusion in Greece deepens – Georgios Karatzaferis, leader of Laos, is now threatening not to go to today's meeting at all.
Skai News reports that the nationalist leader wants "cast iron" guarantees from financial institutions such as the Greek Central Bank that this time the biting measures "will work."
Remarkable stuff, which Helena Smith reckons is mainly for the cameras. She comments:
Political posturing from a man who has seen his party's popularity ratings plummet since he joined Papademos' national unity government.
(more technical gremlins at this end, alas, so if this blog expires, you'll know why...)
The slow, grinding 'progress' in Greece has given financial commentators plenty to chew on. Here's a round-up of some of the best pieces I've read online today:
In the Wall Street Journal, Alen Mattich argues that Greece will be in a strong position to default on its loans if it can get its hands on the €130bn bailout.
Mattich writes that Greece could achieve a primary budget deficit (ie, a surplus if you ignore debt payments) later this year:
Were Greece to default and withdraw from the euro once it gets the latest chunk of euro-zone cash, it could renege on its external debts, public and private, lifting an enormous burden off its people's shoulders. It wouldn't need access to international markets once it didn't have to worry about debt. A devaluation of the new drachma would make the economy instantly competitive, allowing it to eliminate its current account deficit.
That, he writes, would create a lot of irate Germans - as well as other creditors.
The collapse of the Austrian bank Credit-Anstalt in 1931 proved that creditors can suffer deeply when a debter reneges on their obligations. France was the biggest creditor to Credit-Anstalt, and historians point out that it endured a particularly painful Depression in the years that followed.
On Marketwatch, Matthew Lynn warns that the French presidential election could spark the next stage of the euro crisis. He writes that Socialist candidate Francois Hollande, the front-runner, would be a disaster for Europe:
As president, he will be a catastrophe for the European economy. He has no experience of running anything, he is pushing an old-fashioned borrow-and-spend policy, he will have a poisonous relationship with Germany's Angela Merkel, and he has shown no sign of understanding the scale of structural change France needs.
Hollande has pledged to clamp down on banks and the wealthy if he replaces Sarkozy in the Élysée Palace – one reason he's so popular.
And from last night, Catherine Bosley of Reuters writes that the likely next head of the Swiss National Bank, Thomas Jordan, could be a "euro crisis Nostradamus":
Nearly two decades ago, the man now likely to become the head of Switzerland's central bank foresaw the neighboring euro zone's troubles in a doctoral thesis, saying the likes of Ireland, Italy and Greece would not be able to control their debt.
While Greek leaders continue to plough through the details of the draft bailout agreement ready for this afternoon's meeting, European stock markets have hit a new six-month high.
Although the FTSE 100 is flat, the German DAX is up 42 points to 6796 and the Italian FTSE MIB has jumped by 248 points to 16,740.
Yusuf Heusen, sales trader at IG Index, said shares would be even higher, but for the news that German exports dropped in December 2011:
Weaker German data...helped to hold markets back, as the data suggests that the eurozone's powerhouse economy may not be able to avoid a new recession.
Looking back at the Greek polling data we mentioned at 8.22am, extremists are gaining ground as uncertainty grips.
Helena Smith explains:
A Public Issue poll released late Tuesday showed the extreme right gaining ground, with the fascist Chrysi Avgi party picking up 3% of the vote - enough to win parliamentary representation. By contrast, Pasok, the centre-left party which navigated Greece through the country until former prime minister George Papandreou stepped down in November, saw its popularity ratings drop to an unprecedented 8%.
You might be interested in some highlights from a debate last night, called "What hope for the economy? Capitalism in crisis".
The event, organised by Intelligence Squared, included a section on the eurozone crisis.
Stephen King, group chief economist at HSBC, claimed Germany suffered from "a degree of economic illiteracy" for believing that the world would be better if everyone copied their economy.
King said that Germans typically attribute their strength to "hard work, low inflation, and running a trade surplus", adding.
If you ask them if other people should emulate them, they say yes. Unless you run a trade surplus with Jupiter or Mars, it's hard to make the sums add up
Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times was more conciliatory towards Berlin, following the criticism over its plan to install a commissioner in Athens to monitor the Greek government.
"They were in effect called Nazis for just proposing a perfectly sensible suggestion," Rachman said. He added that German officials are very worried about the situation in the eurozone:
One official told me 'we have created a machine from hell that we cannot turn off'
Anatole Kaletsky of The Times reckoned that a United States of Europe could soon be created, declaring:
There is a fair chance that Europe could turn into a a single state in the next five years....there is not a great tradition of national sovereignty in Southern Europe.
Perhaps not, but I personally would argue that the populations of Spain, Greece and Italy are still attached to the idea.
Economist John Kay dismissed the notion that closer fiscal union would solve the crisis.
Suppose Angela Merkel was chancellor of Europe, not just Germany. What could she do to stop people rioting in Athens?
You can hear audio from the event here, and there should be video from the event on the IQ² website in the future.
We now know why today's crucial meeting has been delayed (as reported at 10.42am).
The reason, it appears, is that Georgios Karatzaferis, who heads the populist Laos party in the ruling coalition, has still not received a translation of the draft agreement in Greek.
As we reported yesterday, Karatzaferis's command of English doesn't match George Papandreou, the socialist party leader and Antonis Samaras of New Democracy. Unlike that pair, the former boxer-turned-politician was not schooled in an Ivy league college in the US.
A senior government source told Helena Smith in Athens:
They say the transalation won't be ready until 2 PM (12 GMT). The earliest the meeting could take place is around 4:30 PM and I say that hopefuly. Papademos is hoping it will last two or three hours but it's a heavier package than the leaders expected. I don't think they are intellectually and psychologically prepared for what they have to accept even if, on the other hand, they don't have any other option but to accept it. They continue to think there are easy fixes. They're only now coming to terms with how bad the figures are.
In another development, the troika has demanded that it holds talks with each leader separately aftere the meeting.
As a result, the cabinet meeting that was due to take place today (to endorse the conditions attached to the €130bn euro rescue package) is likely to be moved back to much later tonight or tomorrow.....
More Greek drama -- New Democracy officials are now denying that a "fixed time" has been set for today's much-awaited meeting between prime minister Lucas Papademos and the three party leaders backing his coalition, says Helena Smith in Athens.
Apparently the draft text of the agreement is not 16 pages (as reported by the Greek media) but 50 pages. "We have no received no deadline from the prime minister's office," said one official at the centre-right party.
Antonis Samaras, New Democracy's leader, is in his office with aides right now. The ND official said they are:
reading the text line by line ... we are talking about 50 pages of [austerity] measures. Every line has to be studied carefully because behind it, who knows, there might be another hidden measure..... The text was meant to arrive at 8am but wasn't in our hands until 9:30am.
A delay? In Greece? Who'd have imagined it.
Helena continues:
Readers will recall that New Democracy has been virulently opposed to the fiscal remedies the troika has meted out to Greece arguing that they have lead to an economic death spiral for the debt-stricken country.
If you missed this last night
– Angela Merkel insisted that Britain must remain a full member of the EU.
During a Q&A covered by my colleague in Berlin, Helen Pidd, the chancellor said:
We want to have Great Britain in the European Union. We need Britain, by the way.
However, Merkel was less equivical on the Grexit issue. Asked whether it would be "a catastrophe" of Greece left the eurozone, she replied:
As far as I know, Greece has not decided to leave the eurozone. I don't want Greece to leave the eurozone and therefore this question is not relevant. There is no political answer to this question because it's not what is currently occupying us...I am not going to take part in anything which would result in Greece leaving the euro. That scenario would have unpredictable consequences.
The eurozone crisis is hitting the travel industry. Thomas Cook said this morning that the "uncertain economic environment across Europe" has hit bookings. Sales in France are down 28%, for example.
In Germany, though, bookings are up by 20%.
Yesterday, rival airline TUI Travel reported a 27% drop in flights to Greece from Germany, due to "a change in consumer sentiment towards the region". The Sun gave the news its traditional treatment:
German holidaymakers may be alarmed by pictures of their flag being burned outside the Athens parliament....
Today's German trade data painted a mixed picture of the state of Europe's biggest economy
German exports piled through the €1 trillion mark for the first time ever in 2011, giving it a trade surplus of €155bn. While exports jumped by over 11% during the year, imports rose even more – by 13.2% – suggesting that German consumer spending is helping other economies.
However, there was a definite slowdown in December - when exports dropped by 4.3% on a seasonally-adjusted basis – the fastest rate since January 2009.
That follows yesterday's surprisingly steep decline in German industrial output. Put together, analysts say, this is a clear sign that the German economy shrank in Q4 2011, and might still be shrinking.
Christian Schulz of Berenberg Bank told Reuters:
Together with falling industry orders and weak production, it shows that the German economy contracted in the fourthe quarter and could be facing a recession.
The latest economic news from Paris was clearer to read -- The Bank of France admitted this morning that the French economy is likely to stagnate in the first three months of 2012.
Latest word from Athens is that the talks will begin at 3pm local time, or 1pm GMT.
(sorry for the radio silence just then - technical issues, now fixed by our crack developers).
We're hearing that the three Greek political leaders received their draft agreements – all 16-pages worth – at 9.30am local time.
As Helena Smith, our correspondent in Athens, reports, this was just a few hours after Lucas Papademos completed another night with the country's troika of foreign lenders (talks ended at 4 AM)
Helena writes:
The end result? Not the best for Greeks, the local media is reporting this morning. After days of seeing deadlines pushed back and missed, officials from the EU, ECB and IMF were not in the best moods. "All of the 'red lines' that we were told would never be crossed have been crossed," an economics reporter told Flash News. "We have just received the text of the agreement and there are cuts all round."
The latest word is that today's meeting to seek consensus on the cost-cutting plans will begin "around lunch-time."
Helena continues:
Wage and pension cuts in the private sector appear to be at the heart of ongoing wranging - even at this 11th (some might says 12th) hour. "One of the scenarios that apparently will have to be approved by party heads is a reduction of the minimum wage by 22% and a simultaneous 15% cut in supplementary pensions," the well-informed Ta Nea newspaper said. The backlash from trade unions and employers groups is likely to be swift and sharp. Pame, the communist-backed labour force, hit back saying it was preparing to step up "our battle."
"In every factory, business and sector workers must reject measures that cut wages, day pay and pensions," it said.
Pame also called on Greeks to join a mass protest rally on Thurday.
Gary Jenkins of Swordfish Research points out that we are "finally entering the endgame"* of the Greek talks. The ECB's agreement to cut a deal on its Greek bonds (see 8.33am) means "all the elements are in place" for a deal.
Jenkins writes:
With an election around the corner and protests against the severity and breadth of the cuts required the politicians want to show the electorate their mettle by pushing the deal to the wire, but ultimately it is difficult to see how they can do anything other than agree a deal. After all, the alternative is a disorderly default which could lead to a much deeper economic depression and potential civil unrest.
* - a chess reference. Would that make Merkel and Sarkozy the queen and king (her the most powerful piece on the board, him trying to avoid being checkmated in the presidential election)? Not sure who the other pieces would be (clearly Fred Goodwin couldn't be a knight!)
An interesting development overnight - the European Central Bank has agreed to take part in the Greek debt restructuring.
Up to a point, anyway. The ECB is still refusing to join private creditors in a 70% haircut on the estimated €40bn of Greek debt on its books. However, it will exchange the Greek government bonds it purchased in the secondary market last year at a price below their face value (details here on the WSJ).
That will reduce Greece's total liabilites. It also seems only fair, as the ECB would have acquired these bonds for something less than their full face value (as nervous creditors ditched their holdings). Analysts reckon the ECB probably got a 25% discount.
Elisabeth Afseth of Investic pointed out that the ECB will still not take an actual loss:
It seems the exchange would involve the ECB getting EFSF bonds (with a lower face value) in return for its Greek bonds with the EFSF selling the bonds back to Greece at the price it paid the ECB for them.
This could free up around €10bn -- valuable, as there are fears that Greece's second bailout is around €15bn too small, and should be increased to €145bn.
New polling data released this morning shows that the Greek people are losing faith in the political leaders.
A survey by Kathimerini/Skai found that 91% of people believe the country is 'following the wrong track', with 13% believing that Greece is no longer a functioning democracy [having seen a former European Central Bank vice president installed as their prime minister).
However, 70% of those polled believe it would be a mistake to return to the drachma, suggesting that they still support membership of the eurozone.
The poll also found that Lucas Papademos's approval rating has dropped to 46%, from 55% last November.
Seperate polling from Greece has shown that New Democracy would win the most votes in an election, but probably not enough for an outright majority. Support for Pasok – which was in power until last November – has plummeted.
The postponement of last night's talks is being blamed on a problem with delayed paperwork, which didn't give the three coalition leaders enough time to prepare for last night's crunch meeting.
As we blogged yesterday, the draft agreement was due to be translated into Greek -- to allow George Karatzaferis of the Laos party to read it.
A reminder: Antonis Samaras of New Democracy, George Papademos of Pasok and Karatzaferis represent the three major Greek political parties, who form the coalition government run by technocratic PM Lucas Papademos since last November.
They are being asked to sign up to new austerity measures in return for a second Greek bailout, worth €130bn [which was agreed in principle back in October]. Those measures include billions of euros in government spending reductions, and cuts to pensions and wages.
Those measures are deeply unpopular in Greece - as demonstrated by yesterday's general strike and marches in Athens.
Greek newspaper Ekathimerini is reporting that Papandreou refuses to accept cuts to the basic pension, while New Democracy would not allow the minumum wage to be cut for existing workers (rather than new hires). With elections looking, all sides are focused on political considerations.
http://ekathimerini.com
Here's today's agenda:
•The Greek bailout talks -- they are due to start at 10am 11am GMT / noon 1pm local time (but could slip....)
• Greek cabinet meets tonight to approve the draft agreement (assuming the three party leaders agree).
• French budget balance - 7.45am GMT
• Spanish industrial output - 8am GMT
• Bank of England begins two-day monetary policy committee meeting
In the bond markets, Germany is aiming to sell €4bn of five-year bobls, and the US is also auctioning 10-year Treasuries tonight.
Good morning all, and welcome to another day of rolling coverage of the eurozone crisis.
Later today, Greek PM Lucas Papademos will hold talks with the leaders of Greece's three political parties over the country's second bailout. That sounds terribly familiar, doesn't it? These are the talks that were scheduled to take place last night – but were once again postponed until today.
Deja vu? Deja EU, more like.
On the economic front, we have trade data from Germany to digest, along with France's latest budget balance and industrial output from Spain. | The leaders of the three parties comprising Greece's coalition government finally met today to decide whether to make deeper austerity cuts in exchange for a $170 billion bailout from Europe, after three days of delays, the AP reports. The new austerity measures would be in addition to the 15,000 public workers Greece has agreed to dispense with. Other aspects of the deal are in place as well, Reuters reports, including a bond swap deal that wouldn't lower the value of those bonds. The meetings were briefly delayed yet again today when George Kratzaferis, head of the populist Laos party, complained that the draft agreement was in English, the language it had been negotiated in, instead of Greek. He briefly threatened to skip the meeting entirely, but was talked out of it, according to the Guardian's liveblog, which also spotted this amusing tweet from a spoof Angela Merkel account: "Translation for Mr. Karatzaferis: 'SIGN HERE.'" |
An NHS doctor from east London who was previously accused of kidnapping Western journalists in Syria may hold the key to identifying the jihadi who beheaded James Foley, intelligence sources have disclosed.
The jihadist militant group said the killing was revenge for US air strikes against its fighters in Iraq (Universal News And Sport)
Shajul Islam was arrested and charged with kidnapping a British journalist, John Cantlie, in 2012 but was released after his trial collapsed when Mr Cantlie was unable to give evidence.
He had always protested his innocence, saying he went to Syria to use his medical skills to treat victims of the civil war.
His brother Razul, 21, also travelled to Syria and is believed to be fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil), the terrorist group that murdered Mr Foley.
Razul Islam is understood to be on a list of suspected British Jihadists whom the security services are comparing with the footage of Mr Foley’s killer, a British man known as “John” described as the leader of a British cell of jihadists known as “The Beatles”.
A former MI6 chief said the “long arm of justice” was closing in on “John” as the SAS was put on standby to capture him.
Shajul Islam, 28, and a second man, Jubayer Chowdhury, 24, who was also charged and cleared of kidnapping, are the only British jihadists charged with kidnapping Westerners in Syria.
Investigators are now trying to establish whether the two men from Stratford, east London, may have information about the identity of Mr Foley’s killer. Shajul Islam, who worked as a doctor at St Bart’s hospital, is currently suspended from practising medicine.
Dr Shajul Islam (R) leaving Belmarsh High Security Prison after the trial in 2013 (Heathcliff O'Malley)
US intelligence sources said they were keen to establish whether Mr Islam had encountered Mr Foley’s killer during his time in Syria.
A smartly-dressed man who arrived at Mr Islam's family home on Thursday night told a reporter it was a “sensitive time” and declined to comment on the brothers’ role in the investigation.
When asked the whereabouts of the brothers, a woman who answered the door at the house said: “We don’t know where they are. We don’t want to talk to you.”
Investigators will also be keen to rule out Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 23, a former rapper from Maida Vale, west London, who went to Syria last year and later tweeted a picture of himself holding up a severed head. He has a similar accent to the man who killed Mr Foley, and has a similar build and skin tone.
Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary
A third suspect is Aine Davis, 30, from Hammersmith, west London, a former drug dealer and gang member who converted to Islam and flew to Syria to wage jihad. His family refused to comment.
Richard Barratt, a former director of counter-terrorism at the Secret Intelligence Service, said he was confident the hooded killer would be identified.
He said: “I think the community will be able to recognise this person and I am sure many in the community will be keen to do so, the intelligence community certainly but also the community from which this man comes.
“It is not just a matter of going along and arresting him and bringing him to trial, but there is a course of action that can be taken and once he has been identified that becomes a bit easier and clearer.
“I don’t think anyone is prepared to forget this sort of crime and therefore the long arm of justice will eventually catch him.”
Aine Davis (Enterprise News and Pictures)
Barack Obama: US will do what it must against 'cancer' of IS ||||| Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 24, was known as L Jinny or Lyricist Jinn at home in London, where his rising music career saw him appear in videos and have his singles played on BBC Radio in 2012.
He came to national attention earlier this year, when he posted a picture of himself holding a severed head on Twitter after resurfacing in Syria.
The gruesome picture, believed to have been taken in the Isis stronghold of Raqqa, was captioned: “Chillin’ with my homie or what’s left of him.”
Bary reportedly travelled to the country last year from Maida Vale, west London, where he lived with his mother and five siblings.
His father Adel Abdul Bary, an Egyptian refugee thought to be one of Osama Bin Laden’s closest lieutenants, was extradited from Britain to the United States on charges of terrorism in 2012 for his alleged roles in the bombings of two US embassies in east Africa in 1998.
His family is frequently mentioned in rap songs that can still be listened to online, with many people, unaware of L Jinny’s macabre transformation, praising his lyrics.
In early songs put online in 2012, Bary makes apparent reference to drug use, violence and life on a council estate and talks about the threat of his family being deported to Egypt.
“It’s hard to progress in the future with a damaged past but still I try to count my blessings and I thank Allah,” he rapped in 2012.
“I’m trying to change my ways but there’s blood on my hands and I can’t change my ways until there's funds in the bank.
“I can’t differentiate the angels from the demons, my heart’s disintegrating. I ain't got normal feelings.
“Even my life’s blessed, still I will not find rest.”
In later songs, apparent references to cannabis (“roll up and watch the leaves ignite”) stop and are replaced with tirades against people who choose to spend their money clubbing, drinking and on drugs rather than feeding their families.
Many British jihadists are known to be in Syria, including these men featuring in an Isis video to urge Islamists in the West to join them The most recent video, which was posted on YouTube in March this year, is called “The Beginning”.
“Give me the pride and the honour like my father, I swear the day they came and took my dad, I could have killed a cop or two,” Bary raps.
“Imagine then I was only six, picture what I’d do now with a loaded stick. Like boom bang fine, I’m wishing you were dead, violate my brothers and I’m filling you with lead.”
Bary’s current whereabouts in Syria is not known and his Twitter account under the name “Terrorist” @ItsLJinny has been deactivated.
Previous posts mentioned Abu Hussein al Britani, a fellow Isis militant who has uploaded pictures of himself on Twitter with guns in Syria.
He and associate Abu Abdullah al-Britani were seen offering travel advice to would-be jihadists online earlier this year.
The Sun newspaper has linked the trio to a group of British jihadists known as “The Beatles”, including the man known as “John” who beheaded American journalist Mr Foley.
A sound expert who compared the footage of the brutal killing with Bary’s rap songs told the paper there was a “big likeness” between the voices.
Mr Foley’s murderer has not been identified by authorities but the Foreign Secretary said he sounded British and experts were urgently trying to trace him.
Police are believed to be preparing for raids on several homes across Britain in efforts to trace “jihadi John” but a spokesperson for the Counter Terrorism Unit at Scotland Yard would not confirm the identities of any suspects. ||||| Beheader Jihadi John identified
Hammond warns of strikes on UK A still from the Isis video showing a jihadist about to murder James Foley. Photograph: REUTERS TV
MI5 and MI6 have identified the British fighter suspected of murdering the American journalist James Foley, senior government sources confirmed last night.
The masked man with a London accent, who is said to be known to fellow fighters as “Jihadi John”, was seen in the shocking video of Foley’s death released by the Isis extremist army last week.
While sources gave no details of the man they have identified, a key suspect is Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 23, who left his family’s £1m home in Maida Vale, west London, last year. He recently tweeted a picture of himself holding up a severed head.
Writing in The Sunday Times today Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, says Isis is “turning a swathe of Iraq and Syria into a terrorist state as a base for launching attacks on the West”. Unless the terrorists are stopped, he warns that “sooner or later they will seek ||||| London (CNN) -- As UK investigators work to identify the Islamist militant who beheaded American journalist James Foley, the tiniest details in the videotape of the killing could provide the key clue.
Although the killer is swathed head to toe in black, with only his eyes visible through a narrow strip, some distinguishing features can be picked out.
His skin tone can be discerned from his hands, which are not covered, and he appears to be left-handed. The man's height and build can also be established from the footage, as well as the kind of movements he makes.
But the biggest clue may lie in his voice, which experts say has a distinctly English accent.
Linguists said that based on his voice, the man appears to be young, most likely under 30. He also appears to have been educated in England from a young age and to be from southern England or London.
British police and intelligence services have been tight-lipped about any progress in identifying the man.
As they seek to trace him, they will doubtless be looking at those with known connections to jihadist movements or who have been to Syria to fight.
However, they will also probably be seeking to match his voice with recordings they hold in an audio bank, said Elizabeth McClelland, a forensic voice and speech analyst who also acts as an expert witness in British courts.
Britain and most other countries hold such recordings, some made covertly, of people they suspect of involvement in terrorist activity, she said.
"It's likely that they will screen the voices, the voice data bank that they have, possibly using automatic speaker recognition software, and try to find the closest match to the voice in the video," she said.
No unique 'voice print'
That would probably narrow the possible matches to perhaps 200 or 300, depending on the sort of data bank the intelligence services have, McClelland said.
But, she cautioned, despite what is sometimes seen in TV detective shows, the audio should not be seen as some kind of magic bullet.
"There's no such thing as a 'voice print' that's going to have a unique reference to one individual, and therefore they can match it," she said. "Speech is a kind of behavior; it's not a digital printout."
The next step will be for an expert phonetician and linguist to carry out a mixture of phonetic and acoustic analysis, she said.
Any conclusions would be based on the expert's knowledge and experience, supported by acoustic measurements. They would focus on elements including pitch, intonation, intensity and patterns in the bands of acoustic energy, known as formants, measured using special software.
McClelland added, "from the voice in the video, there's not a lot you can do until you have something to compare it to, and that's in the hands of the intelligence services."
They might be working across international borders with intelligence agencies in Europe and the United States to do so, she said.
Accent 'not purely British'
Although the experts who spoke to CNN agree that the man is most likely from southern England or London, they differ on some points, indicating the difficulty of the task faced by intelligence services.
John Olsson, a voice recognition expert, said he believed the voice was of someone who had spent most, if not all, of his life in Britain. "However, there are other elements in the accent which are not purely British."
Something in the intonation and pronunciation, Olsson said, suggests that the man may have some African origin or perhaps second-generation African parentage.
"Alternatively, it's possible he's picked up these influences from people around him, people he's mixed with," he said.
There's no sign, however, of any influence on his language from the Indian subcontinent, for example the Muslim communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, he said.
McClelland tentatively suggested the accent may belong to someone who also speaks Farsi or Dari, used in Iran and Afghanistan.
'Multicultural London English'
Another expert, Paul Kerswill, a linguistics expert at the University of York, said the accent sounded English but was one that could be described as "multicultural London English."
He's probably, although not definitely, a Londoner, he said, and "he's grown up in a multicultural, multilingual neighborhood with lots of different languages around, and this kind of environment leads to some kind of change in the way English is pronounced."
It's very hard to tell exactly what part of London he might be from, he said, because this kind of English emerges wherever in London you get a high concentration of people speaking different languages, reflecting the various immigrant groups that have come into the country since World War II.
Kerswill said it was difficult to tell the ethnicity of a young person who has grown up learning English from other people who learned it as a second language or whose parents are second-language speakers, because in this melting pot everyone starts to sound quite similar, even those whose parents are native speakers.
"It's quite hard to tell the ethnicity of this person from his voice alone," he said. "He's probably not British white. He could be of Pakistani origin; he could be of Somali origin; he could be South American origin or something. It's very, very hard to pinpoint," he said.
"Some commentators may say it's not a British English accent. Well, it is a British English accent; it's one that's grown up in this multilingual environment."
Kerswill thinks the man may have arrived in Britain as a child and begun to acquire the language then. However, he doesn't exclude that he may be British-born.
Words, phrasing give clues
Besides the militant's voice, other pointers lie in the language used in the message.
Olsson points out that the audio sample is small, making it hard to draw definite conclusions from it.
Nonetheless, he believes that while the militant is a native British speaker, parts of the text he reads out in the video were written by someone who -- while very proficient in English -- was not.
"Some of the phrasing is not pure native speaker, so he's been assisted with this text. It's not entirely him," he said, pointing to examples of non-idiomatic expressions and overly stilted, formal English.
He also believes that the fighter is educated to at least high school graduation, if not university, level and probably comes from a professional, middle-class background.
McClelland too believes that the voice belongs to an educated speaker.
Kerswill, however, suggests that the man's accent points to him man coming from an inner city demographic, where the socioeconomic class and education level are often lower.
The text appears to be written in standard English, he said, so there are no clues to be found in the slang a young man might otherwise have used.
Intriguingly, Olsson speculates that the way the militant refers to "the Muslims" in the video may suggest he could be a convert to Islam.
"I don't think there's a strong Muslim background there, necessarily," he said.
"He does talk about 'us' at one point, but he also talks about 'the Muslims,' and so there's a little bit of distance there between him and that group, and I'm thinking that that may well be due to his adoption of the religion, so I'm thinking it's possible he is not originally from a Muslim family."
READ: Hunt is on for suspected British jihadi in James Foley execution video
READ: Should we call ISIS 'evil'?
READ: Opinion: Why James Foley's murder was a message to Britain
CNN's Atika Shubert and Hazel Pfeiffer contributed to this report. ||||| ROCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — James Foley, the U.S. journalist slain by Islamic State militants after being held in captivity for nearly two years, will be remembered Sunday at a Mass of Remembrance in his hometown.
Irene Harvey reaches over Barbara Bush to light her candle during a candlelight vigil for James Foley in his hometown of Rochester, N.H., Saturday, Aug. 23, 2014. Foley, a freelance journalist, was killed... (Associated Press)
A woman holds a candle during a vigil for James Foley in his hometown of Rochester, N.H., Saturday, Aug. 23, 2014. Several hundred people attended and paid tribute to the freelance American journalist... (Associated Press)
Foley was kidnapped on Thanksgiving Day 2012 while covering the Syrian uprising. The Islamic State posted a Web video Tuesday showing his murder and said it was in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq.
President Barack Obama has called Foley a hero for telling the stories of oppressed people in war-torn regions like Syria and Libya. The U.S. launched a raid this summer to rescue Foley and other hostages, but special forces were unable to locate the captives.
The Mass at 2 p.m. Sunday is in Foley's hometown church, Our Lady of the Holy Rosary in Rochester.
At a vigil Saturday night in Rochester, about 200 people gathered to show support for the Foley family. Foley's parents, John and Diane Foley, attended, Foster's Daily Democrat reported.
"We are honored that you care and love Jim. We are honored that you recognized the sacrifices he made," John Foley said. "He loved the Syrian people. He was devoted to telling their story and doing whatever he could to help their fight."
Speakers praised Foley's determination to report on the Syrian people uprooted by conflict.
"Tonight we want to honor freedom and love: the freedom that James so vehemently believed that all people deserved," said Nadia Alawa, founder of NuDay Syria, a Massachusetts-based organization working to ease the pain and loss in Syria. "To James Foley, denying others freedom and a basic voice of feelings and free space was not OK."
She also condemned the campaign of terror and violence carried out by the Islamic State.
"(ISIS) thrives on using the name of Islam to justify their vengeful acts that targets innocent non-Muslims as well as Muslims for no apparent, rational reasons," Alawa said. "As a Muslim, I refuse to let terrorists take my religion as hostage."
The world's largest bloc of Islamic nations also denounced Foley's "heinous" killing and reiterated its support for international efforts to confront the Islamic State.
Iyad Madani, chief of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said in a statement Saturday that the actions of the Islamic State have nothing to do with the values of Islam or his organization's founding principles of tolerance and co-existence. | British officials say they've identified the ex-pat who beheaded James Foley but won't yet release his name, the Sunday Times reports. Investigators narrowed the case down to four suspects—including a British doctor's brother and an ex-gang member who went to Syria—but UK rapper Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary has topped the list, the New York Post reports (the Independent and Telegraph also say he's under investigation). Bary, 24, is the son of a militant from Egypt who's now facing charges in New York City for allegedly bombing US embassies abroad 16 years ago. More on Bary: Former hostages have identified him as one of the British captors dubbed "the Beatles" (Bary is suspected of being "John," while the other two are known as "George" and "Ringo"). Really a budding rapper, Bary released a few videos and left his London family for Syria after studying with radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary. (See one of Bary's music videos here.) He recently posted a photo of himself on Twitter wearing a black balaclava and holding a severed head (the Post ran the pic, partly blurred out). How are intelligence officials trying to find their man? Apparently by matching skin tone, height, and voice tone—although experts tell CNN that matching voices is no easy task. Meanwhile, a mass will be held for Foley today in his hometown of Rochester, NH, the AP reports. (Another US journalist was freed after being kidnapped in Turkey.) |
Internal divisions in the Conservative Party have exploded into a bitter public row over Boris Johnson‘s “disgusting” criticism of Theresa May.
Some senior Tories furiously denounced the former foreign secretary after he accused the prime minister of having ”wrapped a suicide vest” around Britain.
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, rebuked his former cabinet colleague and said: “I think there are much better ways to articulate your differences.”
He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that the public wanted politicians to use “measured language”.
But other MPs leapt to Mr Johnson’s defence, as dividing lines ahead of a possible leadership contest begin to take shape.
The Uxbridge MP has repeatedly criticised Ms May’s Chequers plan and used a newspaper article on Sunday to suggest it amounted to “wrapping a suicide vest around the British constitution”.
His latest salvo at the prime minister prompted immediate condemnation, with one minister publicly vowing to end Mr Johnson’s career over the matter.
Shape Created with Sketch. Boris Johnson's resignation letter Show all 2 left Created with Sketch. right Created with Sketch. Shape Created with Sketch. Boris Johnson's resignation letter 1/2 2/2 1/2 2/2
Alan Duncan, a foreign minister who worked in Mr Johnson’s team for two years, wrote on Twitter: “For Boris to say the PM’s view is like that of a suicide bomber is too much. This marks one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics.
“I’m sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn’t now, I will make sure it is later.”
Housing secretary James Brokenshire added his voice to the criticism, calling Mr Johnson’s comments ”wrong”.
He said: “I think he is wrong on this...I think the tone that he has used isn’t right and I think that we just need to be very focused on actually moving forward with the Chequers plan.”
But as Tory hostilities spilled over into open public warfare, Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith, an ally of Mr Johnson, hit back at Mr Duncan.
He wrote: “There are a number of possible motives behind this tweet, but given its author, we can be certain ‘principles’ aren’t one of them.”
Senior Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg told The Independent he thought Mr Johnson’s “suicide belt” accusation was little more than “a characteristically colourful catchphrase”.
He added: “I agree with the sentiment. The criticism of Boris’s wording merely serves to highlight his point. It means more people hear of Boris’s criticism of Chequers and many will agree with him.”
Nadine Dorries, another Brexit supporter, said Mr Johnson’s opponents were “terrified of his popular appeal”, adding: “Don’t underestimate the vitriol that’ll be directed towards Boris today. He delivered the Leave vote, Remainers and wannabe future PMs hate him.”
If Mr Johnson became leader and prime minister he would deliver a “clean and prosperous” Brexit, she said.
Shape Created with Sketch. Tories at war: Boris Johnson 'suicide vest' Brexit jibe causes divide Show all 14 left Created with Sketch. right Created with Sketch. Shape Created with Sketch. Tories at war: Boris Johnson 'suicide vest' Brexit jibe causes divide 1/14 Internal divisions in the Conservative Party have exploded into a bitter public row over Boris Johnson‘s “disgusting” criticism of Theresa May. Some senior Tories furiously denounced the former foreign secretary after he accused the prime minister of having ”wrapped a suicide vest” around Britain Reuters 2/14 Sajid Javid, Home secretary Sajid Javid, the home secretary, rebuked his former cabinet colleague and said: “I think there are much better ways to articulate your differences.” He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that the public wanted politicians to use “measured language” BBC/PA 3/14 But other MPs leapt to Mr Johnson’s defence, as dividing lines ahead of a possible leadership contest begin to take shape. The Uxbridge MP has repeatedly criticised Ms May’s Chequers plan and used a newspaper article on Sunday to suggest it amounted to “wrapping a suicide vest around the British constitution”. His latest salvo at the prime minister prompted immediate condemnation, with one minister publicly vowing to end Mr Johnson’s career over the matter PA 4/14 Alan Duncan, Foreign minister Alan Duncan, a foreign minister who worked in Mr Johnson’s team for two years, wrote on Twitter: “For Boris to say the PM’s view is like that of a suicide bomber is too much. This marks one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics. “I’m sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn’t now, I will make sure it is later.” Getty 5/14 James Brokenshire, Housing secretary Housing secretary James Brokenshire added his voice to the criticism, calling Mr Johnson’s comments ”wrong” He said: “I think he is wrong on this...I think the tone that he has used isn’t right and I think that we just need to be very focused on actually moving forward with the Chequers plan.” AFP/Getty 6/14 Zac Goldsmith But as Tory hostilities spilled over into open public warfare, Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith, an ally of Mr Johnson, hit back at Mr Duncan. He wrote: “There are a number of possible motives behind this tweet, but given its author, we can be certain ‘principles’ aren’t one of them.” Getty 7/14 Jacob Rees-Mogg Senior Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg told The Independent he thought Mr Johnson’s “suicide belt” accusation was little more than “a characteristically colourful catchphrase”. He added: “I agree with the sentiment. The criticism of Boris’s wording merely serves to highlight his point. It means more people hear of Boris’s criticism of Chequers and many will agree with him.” Reuters 8/14 Nadine Dorries Nadine Dorries, another Brexit supporter, said Mr Johnson’s opponents were “terrified of his popular appeal”, adding: “Don’t underestimate the vitriol that’ll be directed towards Boris today. He delivered the Leave vote, Remainers and wannabe future PMs hate him.” If Mr Johnson became leader and prime minister he would deliver a “clean and prosperous” Brexit, she said Rex 9/14 Andrew Bridgen Andrew Bridgen said Ms May was to blame for her leadership problems. Asked if Mr Johnson had put a bomb under her leadership, Mr Bridgen said: “I think that Theresa May did that herself when she put forward the Chequers proposals without consulting widely prior to that.” 10/14 Steve Baker, former Brexit minister Steve Baker, the former Brexit minister, warned Ms May the Conservatives faced a "catastrophic split" if she did not jettison her Chequers plan. Mr Baker, who quit the government in July over the scheme, said: “When negotiating, the prime minister needs to demonstrate her intent and also her power to deliver. "If we come out of conference with her hoping to get Chequers through on the back of Labour votes, I think the EU negotiators would probably understand that if that were done, the Tory party would suffer the catastrophic split which thus far we have managed to avoid.” But he insisted he did not want a change in the Conservative leadership, saying Brexiteers did “not want to be in a position of conflict with our own prime minister” Reuters 11/14 Tom Tugendhat The deep divisions on the Tory benches were laid bare as Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee and is a possible leadership rival to Mr Johnson, also hit out at the former foreign secretary. Recalling how he encountered a suicide bomber in Afghanistan during his time in the army, Mr Tugendhat told Mr Johnson to “grow up”. He said: “A suicide bomber murdered many in the courtyard of my office in Helmand. The carnage was disgusting, limbs and flesh hanging from trees and bushes. Brave men who stopped him killing me and others died in horrific pain. “Some need to grow up. Comparing the PM to that isn’t happy.” PA 12/14 Alistair Burt Alistair Burt, another Foreign Office minister who worked in Mr Johnson’s team, said: “I’m stunned at the nature of this attack. There is no justification for such an outrageous, inappropriate and hurtful analogy. “If we don’t stop his extraordinary use of language over Brexit, our country might never heal. Again, I say, enough.” AFP/Getty 13/14 It comes amid that Ms May’s former aides drew up a dossier on Mr Johnson’s sexual encounters with the aim of undermining his leadership prospects. The document was compiled in 2016, when the Uxbridge and South Ruislip MP was seen as the main rival to Ms May in her bid to enter No 10. Downing Street and Conservative Campaign Headquaters (CCHQ) both denied having leaked the 4,000 word memo after it was circulated around Westminster AFP/Getty 14/14 Mr Johnson confirmed that his 25-year marriage to wife Marina had ended AP 1/14 Internal divisions in the Conservative Party have exploded into a bitter public row over Boris Johnson‘s “disgusting” criticism of Theresa May. Some senior Tories furiously denounced the former foreign secretary after he accused the prime minister of having ”wrapped a suicide vest” around Britain Reuters 2/14 Sajid Javid, Home secretary Sajid Javid, the home secretary, rebuked his former cabinet colleague and said: “I think there are much better ways to articulate your differences.” He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that the public wanted politicians to use “measured language” BBC/PA 3/14 But other MPs leapt to Mr Johnson’s defence, as dividing lines ahead of a possible leadership contest begin to take shape. The Uxbridge MP has repeatedly criticised Ms May’s Chequers plan and used a newspaper article on Sunday to suggest it amounted to “wrapping a suicide vest around the British constitution”. His latest salvo at the prime minister prompted immediate condemnation, with one minister publicly vowing to end Mr Johnson’s career over the matter PA 4/14 Alan Duncan, Foreign minister Alan Duncan, a foreign minister who worked in Mr Johnson’s team for two years, wrote on Twitter: “For Boris to say the PM’s view is like that of a suicide bomber is too much. This marks one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics. “I’m sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn’t now, I will make sure it is later.” Getty 5/14 James Brokenshire, Housing secretary Housing secretary James Brokenshire added his voice to the criticism, calling Mr Johnson’s comments ”wrong” He said: “I think he is wrong on this...I think the tone that he has used isn’t right and I think that we just need to be very focused on actually moving forward with the Chequers plan.” AFP/Getty 6/14 Zac Goldsmith But as Tory hostilities spilled over into open public warfare, Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith, an ally of Mr Johnson, hit back at Mr Duncan. He wrote: “There are a number of possible motives behind this tweet, but given its author, we can be certain ‘principles’ aren’t one of them.” Getty 7/14 Jacob Rees-Mogg Senior Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg told The Independent he thought Mr Johnson’s “suicide belt” accusation was little more than “a characteristically colourful catchphrase”. He added: “I agree with the sentiment. The criticism of Boris’s wording merely serves to highlight his point. It means more people hear of Boris’s criticism of Chequers and many will agree with him.” Reuters 8/14 Nadine Dorries Nadine Dorries, another Brexit supporter, said Mr Johnson’s opponents were “terrified of his popular appeal”, adding: “Don’t underestimate the vitriol that’ll be directed towards Boris today. He delivered the Leave vote, Remainers and wannabe future PMs hate him.” If Mr Johnson became leader and prime minister he would deliver a “clean and prosperous” Brexit, she said Rex 9/14 Andrew Bridgen Andrew Bridgen said Ms May was to blame for her leadership problems. Asked if Mr Johnson had put a bomb under her leadership, Mr Bridgen said: “I think that Theresa May did that herself when she put forward the Chequers proposals without consulting widely prior to that.” 10/14 Steve Baker, former Brexit minister Steve Baker, the former Brexit minister, warned Ms May the Conservatives faced a "catastrophic split" if she did not jettison her Chequers plan. Mr Baker, who quit the government in July over the scheme, said: “When negotiating, the prime minister needs to demonstrate her intent and also her power to deliver. "If we come out of conference with her hoping to get Chequers through on the back of Labour votes, I think the EU negotiators would probably understand that if that were done, the Tory party would suffer the catastrophic split which thus far we have managed to avoid.” But he insisted he did not want a change in the Conservative leadership, saying Brexiteers did “not want to be in a position of conflict with our own prime minister” Reuters 11/14 Tom Tugendhat The deep divisions on the Tory benches were laid bare as Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee and is a possible leadership rival to Mr Johnson, also hit out at the former foreign secretary. Recalling how he encountered a suicide bomber in Afghanistan during his time in the army, Mr Tugendhat told Mr Johnson to “grow up”. He said: “A suicide bomber murdered many in the courtyard of my office in Helmand. The carnage was disgusting, limbs and flesh hanging from trees and bushes. Brave men who stopped him killing me and others died in horrific pain. “Some need to grow up. Comparing the PM to that isn’t happy.” PA 12/14 Alistair Burt Alistair Burt, another Foreign Office minister who worked in Mr Johnson’s team, said: “I’m stunned at the nature of this attack. There is no justification for such an outrageous, inappropriate and hurtful analogy. “If we don’t stop his extraordinary use of language over Brexit, our country might never heal. Again, I say, enough.” AFP/Getty 13/14 It comes amid that Ms May’s former aides drew up a dossier on Mr Johnson’s sexual encounters with the aim of undermining his leadership prospects. The document was compiled in 2016, when the Uxbridge and South Ruislip MP was seen as the main rival to Ms May in her bid to enter No 10. Downing Street and Conservative Campaign Headquaters (CCHQ) both denied having leaked the 4,000 word memo after it was circulated around Westminster AFP/Getty 14/14 Mr Johnson confirmed that his 25-year marriage to wife Marina had ended AP
And Andrew Bridgen said Ms May was to blame for her leadership problems.
Asked if Mr Johnson had put a bomb under her leadership, Mr Bridgen said: “I think that Theresa May did that herself when she put forward the Chequers proposals without consulting widely prior to that.”
On Sunday night the battle lines were drawn over the UK's exit from the EU as Steve Baker, the former Brexit minister, warned Ms May the Conservatives faced a "catastrophic split" if she did not jettison her Chequers plan.
Mr Baker, who quit the government in July over the scheme, said: “When negotiating, the prime minister needs to demonstrate her intent and also her power to deliver.
"If we come out of conference with her hoping to get Chequers through on the back of Labour votes, I think the EU negotiators would probably understand that if that were done, the Tory party would suffer the catastrophic split which thus far we have managed to avoid.”
But he insisted he did not want a change in the Conservative leadership, saying Brexiteers did “not want to be in a position of conflict with our own prime minister”.
Mr Johnson has been accused of plotting a leadership coup.
The deep divisions on the Tory benches were laid bare as Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee and is a possible leadership rival to Mr Johnson, also hit out at the former foreign secretary.
Recalling how he encountered a suicide bomber in Afghanistan during his time in the army, Mr Tugendhat told Mr Johnson to “grow up”.
He said: “A suicide bomber murdered many in the courtyard of my office in Helmand. The carnage was disgusting, limbs and flesh hanging from trees and bushes. Brave men who stopped him killing me and others died in horrific pain.
“Some need to grow up. Comparing the PM to that isn’t happy.”
And Alistair Burt, another Foreign Office minister who worked in Mr Johnson’s team, said: “I’m stunned at the nature of this attack. There is no justification for such an outrageous, inappropriate and hurtful analogy.
“If we don’t stop his extraordinary use of language over Brexit, our country might never heal. Again, I say, enough.”
It comes amid that Ms May’s former aides drew up a dossier on Mr Johnson’s sexual encounters with the aim of undermining his leadership prospects.
The document was compiled in 2016, when the Uxbridge and South Ruislip MP was seen as the main rival to Ms May in her bid to enter No 10.
Downing Street and Conservative Campaign Headquaters (CCHQ) both denied having leaked the 4,000 word memo after it was circulated around Westminster.
Mr Johnson confirmed this week that his 25-year marriage to wife Marina had ended. ||||| LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal wraps “a suicide vest around the British constitution” and hands the detonator to the European Union, former foreign secretary Boris Johnson said in comments that drew strong criticism.
Britain's former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson watches the England cricket team play India at The Oval cricket ground in London, Britain, September 8, 2018. REUTERS/Paul Childs
In an article in the Mail on Sunday newspaper, Johnson pressed his attack on May’s so-called Chequers plan to leave the EU, calling it “a humiliation” that opens “ourselves to perpetual political blackmail”.
May is under fire from all sides of the divisive Brexit debate, with Johnson, favourite to succeed her, leading a push by eurosceptic MPs for the government to “chuck Chequers” and pursue a clean break with the bloc.
But so far, May has signalled she will not drop her blueprint for Britain’s future ties with the bloc after Brexit - the biggest shift in the country’s foreign and trade policy for almost half a century.
“We have wrapped a suicide vest around the British constitution – and handed the detonator to (EU chief negotiator) Michel Barnier,” Johnson wrote.
His words - particularly the reference to a suicide vest - drew condemnation from fellow members of the governing Conservative Party.
Alan Duncan, a minister at the Foreign Office, said Johnson’s comments marked “one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics”.
“For Boris to say that the PM’s view is like that of a suicide bomber is too much,” he said on Twitter. “I’m sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn’t now, I will make sure it is later.”
“NOT NEWS”
Johnson resigned as foreign secretary over the Chequers plan, named after May’s country residence where the government agreed proposals to maintain close trade ties with the EU in July, and has attacked it as making Britain “a vassal state”.
The prime minister’s plans have also been criticised by EU supporters for offering the “worst of all worlds”.
Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said her organisation would back a second vote on Brexit if May failed to win a deal that supported workers.
But two ministers batted away Johnson’s appeal for Britain to drop Chequers and negotiate a Canada-style trade deal instead, saying such an agreement would not solve the problem of a new border between Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland.
“It is not news that he has a difference of opinion with the prime minister and that’s why he left government,” Home Secretary Sajid Javid told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show. “I think there are much better ways to articulate your differences.”
Slideshow (3 Images)
Housing minister James Brokenshire urged Conservatives to move forward with the Chequers plan, which May has failed so far to win backing from her party, Britain’s parliament and also EU negotiators.
Many of Johnson’s supporters hope his increasingly vocal criticism of May signals that he will launch a leadership bid while other Conservatives suggest his Mail article was solely to distract attention away from his marital difficulties.
On Friday, Johnson said he had separated from his wife Marina Wheeler and that the couple would divorce. | No stranger to over-the-top rhetoric, Boris Johnson appears to have outdone himself in his latest attack on British Prime Minister Theresa May, saying that her Chequers deal with the European Union wraps "a suicide vest around the British constitution," and is "a humiliation" that leaves the UK open "to perpetual political blackmail." Johnson, a favorite to succeed May, favors a clean break with the EU, reports Reuters, though he may have damaged his cause with his latest remarks. The "suicide vest" comment set off what the Independent calls "open warfare" between senior members of Johnson's Tory party, with many openly and quickly denouncing Johnson as lines are drawn in a potential battle for the prime minister's job. Potential Johnson rival Tom Tugendhat recalled his own experience with an actual suicide bomber while in the army in Afghanistan, tweeting that "Some need to grow up. Comparing the PM to that isn't happy." Former foreign minister Alan Duncan, meanwhile, called it "one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics. I'm sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn't now, I will make sure it is later." One person who's definitely had it with Johnson: His wife of 25 years, Marina Wheeler. The couple announced Friday they would divorce amid reports of Johnson's infidelity, notes the Independent. |
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
A former top aide to Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey revealed Monday that she would not hand over documents in response to a subpoena from a legislative panel investigating the controversial closing of lanes at the George Washington Bridge last fall, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The former aide, Bridget Anne Kelly, informed the panel, through a letter from her lawyer, Michael Critchley, that in addition to the Fifth, she was also invoking the Fourth Amendment in defense of her privacy. The letter said that the panel’s request “directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation.” It also contended that giving the committee “unfettered access” to her diaries, calendars and electronic devices could “potentially reveal highly personal confidential communications” unrelated to the bridge scandal.
The decision by Ms. Kelly, who had been a deputy chief of staff and a key cog in Mr. Christie’s political operation, was reported online Monday evening by The Record of northern New Jersey. And it unfolded as Mr. Christie was fielding questions during his regular radio program, “Ask the Governor,” on New Jersey 101.5 FM.
Photo
Asked about Ms. Kelly’s decision on the air, Mr. Christie said that “it doesn’t tell me anything” and that he respected her constitutional rights.
Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski and State Senator Loretta Weinberg, the Democratic leaders of the panel, issued a statement saying that they had received the letter and that they “are reviewing it and considering our legal options with respect to enforcing the subpoena.”
Ms. Kelly looms as a pivotal figure in the scandal. She is the official who wrote an email in August saying, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” to another Christie ally, David Wildstein at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Mr. Wildstein responded, “Got it,” and together, they were intimately involved in the lane closings, which occurred over four days in September.
Mr. Christie — who repeated on Monday night his insistence that he did not know about the scheme beforehand — later fired Ms. Kelly, and also cut ties with her boss, Bill Stepien, who had been Mr. Christie’s campaign manager in 2009 and 2013.
Still, both Mr. Stepien and Ms. Kelly have now invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, as Mr. Wildstein did during a legislative hearing. With some 18 other subpoenas issued by the State Legislature — which is controlled by Democrats — also outstanding, it is possible that others may also follow suit.
Separately, federal prosecutors are also looking into the bridge scandal, as well as allegations of undue influence in a Hoboken development proposal. Mr. Christie said Monday on the radio program that his office would cooperate with a subpoena issued by the United States attorney’s office in Newark — the office he headed before becoming governor in 2010 — “on a rolling basis.”
“That’s fine,” Mr. Christie said, about the federal subpoena.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Ms. Kelly’s announcement came several days after one of her subordinates, Christina Genovese Renna, the director of the state’s Intergovernmental Affairs, submitted her resignation. Ms. Renna, 32, resigned on Friday, the same day Mr. Wildstein’s lawyer said in a letter that “evidence exists” contradicting the governor’s account about when he learned of the lane closings.
In response to questions about the timing of her departure, Ms. Renna said in a statement released on Sunday that she had been considering leaving since shortly after the election. Her lawyer, Henry E. Klingeman, suggested in an email on Monday that as the investigation by the committee, and a preliminary inquiry by federal prosecutors, moves forward, a decision by his client to leave would be more fraught.
Ms. Renna received a subpoena because on Sept. 12, the fourth and last day of the lane closings, she sent an email from her personal account to Ms. Kelly’s. Ms. Renna wrote that Evan Ridley, a staff member in Intergovernmental Affairs, which was responsible for maintaining a relationship with Fort Lee officials, had received a call from that borough’s mayor, Mark Sokolich. Mr. Sokolich, the email said, was “extremely upset” about the closings, which were causing such severe backup in Fort Lee that “first responders are having a terrible time maneuvering the traffic.”
“Evan told the fine mayor he was unaware that the toll lanes were closed, but he would see what he could find out,” Ms. Renna wrote. Ms. Kelly forwarded Ms. Renna’s email to Mr. Wildstein, who asked Ms. Kelly to call him.
Before joining the Christie administration, Ms. Renna worked as a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce, Southern New Jersey, where Debra P. DiLorenzo, the president and chief executive, called her “an exemplary member of our staff.”
Ms. Renna declined to be interviewed for this article, but something about her political outlook might be gleaned from a letter an idealistic-sounding young Christina Genovese wrote to a local newspaper a decade ago.
In it, she complained that few of her “peers have opinions — or even care — about politics” and that “even fewer are registered to vote” as the presidential election approached.
“Our country has given us the opportunity to have a voice in our future,” she wrote, ending her letter with the question, “Why not take it?” ||||| Gov. Chris Christie, addressing the Bridgegate scandal in a live radio interview Monday night, said he wants the people of New Jersey to know, “I had nothing to do with this” and “I’m going to fix it.” He also took a swipe at critics he said were engaging in “a game of gotcha.”
Governor Christie in studio for Ask the Governor on February 3 (Mel Evans, Pool/Associated Press)
Christie also disclosed that his office has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the case and is cooperating fully.
[SEE FULL BRIDGEGATE COVERAGE]
In his first appearance on the Townsquare Network’s Ask the Governor program since Dec. 23, Christie was asked by host Eric Scott about the series of explosive developments that have followed, including revelations of emails showing his deputy chief of staff involved in the disruptive closing of approach lanes to the George Washington Bridge last September as apparent political retribution and his own decision to fire her “because she lied” about the matter.
“I had nothing to do with this,” Christie said, repeating earlier assertions about the lane closings several times Monday night. “No knowledge, no authority, no planning– nothing to do with this before this decision was made to close these lanes by the Port Authority.”
He added, “While I’m disappointed in what happened here, I’m going to fix it.” He said his office has begun providing documents subpoenaed by the joint state legislative committee investigating the scandal and will do the same in compliance with the subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney. He also referred to the independent law firm he has brought in to conduct an internal investigation, saying: “I can’t wait for them to be finished so I can get the full story here.”
Asked to be specific about when he first became aware of the lane closings and the massive traffic disruptions they caused in the Fort Lee area last September, Christie referred to reports in the Wall Street Journal about the surprise and outrage expressed by Patrick Foye, the New York-appointed executive director of the Port Authority.
Foye, after an angry exchange of emails with his New Jersey counterpart, Bill Baroni, then the PA’s deputy director, ordered the Fort Lee approach lanes reopened and vowed “to get to the bottom” of the closings.
Christie said the stories about Foye’s complaints prompted him to ask his staff to look into the dispute and produced the explanation that the lane closings were part of a traffic study, an explanation rejected by Foye at the time and since undermined by the release of other documents.
Most damaging among those documents was an email exchange last Aug. 13, in which Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, wrote David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” and Wildstein repllied, “Got it.” Other emails between the two suggested the lane closings were an act of political retribution against Ford Lee’s mayor for failing to join other Democratic mayors in endorsing Republican Christie for re-election as governor.
Those emails became public earlier this month, forcing a dramatic two-hour press conference Jan. 8, in which Christie announced he had just fired Kelly “because she lied” about having no knowledge of the lane closing plan.
Christie insisted Monday night he still did not know whether “political shenanigans” had inspired a traffic study or whether an actual traffic study became an opportunity for such “shenanigans.”
Wildstein, who resigned his Port Authority post in December, create a new ripple of trouble for the governor last Friday. A letter from his attorney, Alan L. Zegas’ letter to the Port Authority, was published online by The New York Times and quickly picked up by other media. In it, Zegas referred to “evidence” he said would contradict Christie’s claims that he had no knowledge of the lane closings until after they occurred.
Christie Monday night avoided any direct reference to Wildstein. His office had initially responded Friday by saying the letter did not contradict his assertion that he had no advance involvement or knowledge of the lane closings. A second response, emailed to Politico on Saturday, attacked Wildstein directly, saying: “Bottom line – David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein.” The email also took aim at “David Wildstein’s past,” including newspaper accounts describing the governor’s former high school classmate and Port Authority appointee as “tumultuous” and even referring to an incident in which Wildstein “was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior.”
But the governor did aim an aside at mounting media coverage and political attacks accompanying the ongoing Bridgegate investigations, saying that while he was cooperating fully with the probes, he refused to let Bridgegate “dominate” his attention.
“I can’t afford to allow this to dominate my time the way it dominates the time of some folks in the media and some partisans,” Christie said. He said he was limiting his own focus on Bridgegate to determining what needed to be corrected, adding, “All this other stuff is just a game of gotcha — when did I first learn about this or that.”
Of Kelly, who is reportedly resisting subpoenas from the joint legislative committee, citing her constitutional rights against self-incrimination, Christie Monday said, “I know everything I needed to know from an employment standpoint from Bridget Kelly when she didn’t tell me the truth and I fired her.”
Wildstein appeared before the State Assembly Transportation Committee initially investigating Bridgegate on Jan. 8 but declined to give testimony, citing his constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Zegas, who represented him at the hearing, has repeatedly said his client would only discuss the lane closing plan if given immunity from prosecution.
Also last Friday, another key Bridgegate figure, speaking through his attorney, said he would not comply with a legislative subpoena. Kevin Marino, the attorney for former Christie campaign manager Bill Stepien sent the joint state Senate and Assembly Bridgegate committee a letter citing Stepien’s constitutional protections against self-incrimination and illegal search and seizure.
The committee co-chairs, State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck) and Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Sayreville), later released a statement saying, “We just received Mr. Marino’s letter this afternoon. We are reviewing it and considering our legal options with respect to enforcing the subpoena.”
Wisniewski and Weinberg said they had also received a copy of the Wildstein letter from Zegas and were reviewing that as well.
Monday was the deadline for subpoenaed documents to be delivered to the joint legislative committee. Twenty subpoenas were issued by the panel, but several recipients asked for extensions and an undisclosed number of those requests have been granted, the co-chairs said. None of the documents received were made public Monday.
“The committee has begun receiving material responsive to its subpoenas, with more responses expected in the near future in a cooperative effort with subpoena recipients,” wrote Weinberg and Wisniewski. “Numerous extensions have been granted to subpoena recipients, as is typical in such situations. . . “No documents will be released today. The committee will announce its next step as soon as that course is decided.”
Christie said Monday night that his office had not requested an extension and has begun providing documents to the committee.”
Kevin McArdle also contributed to this report.
Monday, February 3, 2014 – Ask The Governor Audio (click the arrow to listen)
Segment 1
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Segment 2
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Segment 3
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Segment 4
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Segment 5
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. ||||| Feds seek files from Christie's office; ex-aide Kelly won't turn over documents in response to subpoena
STAFF WRITERS
The Record
RECORD FILE PHOTO Former Christie deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly.
Federal prosecutors investigating the George Washington Bridge lane closures have demanded documents from Governor Christie’s office, he said Monday, a development that puts him at the opposite end from the kind of probe he once led as the state’s hard-charging U.S. attorney.
See Kelly's response to the subpoena
Christie acknowledged the subpoenas during a radio interview Monday evening, as news broke that his former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, would not turn over documents in response to a subpoena issued by state lawmakers in a parallel investigation. An attorney for Kelly — who wrote the message “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” — cited Kelly’s constitutional protection against self-incrimination. She joins Christie’s campaign manager as the second person to put up a roadblock to an ongoing legislative probe.
Full coverage: Chris Christie and the GWB lane closure controversy
But the fact that federal prosecutors sent a subpoena to Christie’s office signaled that the more high-stakes federal investigation had taken a serious turn for the governor, who was considered a presidential contender only a few weeks ago.
Christie emphatically told listeners of his monthly radio show that he didn’t know about the lane closures beforehand and pledged to get to the bottom of them as he cooperates with subpoenas from both the legislative panel and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
“Before these lanes were closed, I knew nothing about it,” he said on “Ask the Governor” on NJ 101.5 FM on Monday night. “I didn’t plan it. I didn’t authorize it. I didn’t approve it. I knew nothing about it.”
Christie spoke just two hours after the deadline for 18 individuals, his campaign and his office to respond to legislative subpoenas seeking emails, text messages and other documents related to the lane closures, which many Democrats believe were retribution against the Fort Lee mayor for not endorsing the Republican governor, who won reelection in a landslide last year.
Several individuals asked for extensions. But Michael Critchley Sr., an attorney for Kelly, notified the legislative panel Monday evening that she would not turn over documents. Kelly joins Christie’s former campaign manager, Bill Stepien, in invoking her constitutional right against self-incrimination. Stepien’s attorney said Friday that he would not turn over documents.
The information requested by the legislative panel, Critchley wrote Monday, “directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation.” The letter also cites her right to privacy. In a brief phone interview, Critchley said his client had not received a subpoena from federal prosecutors.
Providing the committee with “unfettered access to, among other things, Ms. Kelly’s personal diaries, calendars and all of her electronic devices amounts to an inappropriate and unlimited invasion of Ms. Kelly’s personal privacy and would also potentially reveal highly personal confidential communications completely unrelated to the reassignment of access lanes to the George Washington Bridge,” Critchley wrote.
“I would hope they would share any information they have that would let me get to the bottom of it, but on the other hand, they have constitutional rights like everybody else and have the right to exercise them. There’s nothing I can do about that,” Christie said when asked on the radio program about her refusal to comply with the subpoena.
Christie, who said he fired Kelly because she lied to him, has also said he did not ask her why she apparently ordered the lanes closed.
The governor said he is cooperating with subpoenas from both the legislative panel and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. On the radio show, he said his office began turning over documents to the Joint Legislative Select Committee on Investigations on Monday and will do so on a rolling basis as they are located.
An attorney for his campaign said earlier in the day that it had received an extension while it seeks approval from the state Election Law Enforcement Commission to use campaign funds to pay for legal bills and to hire a document retention firm. The legislative panel also granted an extension to Christina Genovese Renna, who served as director of intergovernmental affairs under Kelly until she resigned Friday.
Christie also used the radio show to dispute a former political appointee’s assertion that he knew about the closures when they were happening, and he said he hired a high-powered law firm to carry out a swift investigation so he can get answers.
“I can’t wait for them to be finished so I can get the full story here,” he said.
Christie didn’t rule out that he might have heard about traffic but said he didn’t know there was a problem until Patrick Foye, executive director of the Port Authority, sent an internal email, which was leaked to the press, questioning the closures.
Though the governor spoke at length about the September traffic jam, most callers to the show were seeking information on other issues, and Christie worked to put the incident behind him, saying he met with Democratic Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto for an hour and a half Monday to talk about their agenda for the year.
“They and I understand that our job is to run the state of New Jersey,” he said.
There was no mention on the show of criticism from Environment New Jersey that Christie’s administration pushed for a natural gas pipeline through the Pine¬lands, a protected area, because Genovese Renna’s husband works for the company. A spokes¬man for the governor called the idea “ludicrous,” and a company spokesman said Renna, president of South Jersey Industries, had nothing to do with the utility subsidiary responsible for the project.
In a joint statement Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, and Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, who lead the legislative committee, said Monday that “numerous extensions have been granted to subpoena recipients.” Weinberg said she did not know who was given extensions, and a spokesman for Wisniewski declined to provide additional information.
“No documents will be released today,” the statement said. “The committee will announce its next step as soon as that course is decided.”
In an interview, Weinberg said the committee was discussing the decisions by Kelly and Stepien to invoke the Fifth.
“It’s frustrating when we’re trying to find the truth of the situation that started with the governor saying he was going to cooperate and urge others to do the same,” Weinberg said. “Obviously, we’ll have to keep plugging away.”
Four Republican committee members — Assemblywomen Holly Schepisi of River Vale and Amy Handlin of Monmouth County, Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll of Morris County and Sen. Kevin O’Toole of Cedar Grove — sent a letter to the committee leaders Monday seeking equal access to documents and information.
Schepisi said Monday that she learned that the committee’s special counsel, Reid Schar, had met with the U.S. Attorney’s Office after reading about the meeting in The Record over the weekend. Wisniewski and Weinberg released a statement from Schar about the Friday meeting to the media on Saturday.
Schepisi said all of the members of the committee — and not just the leaders — should be receiving regular updates for the sake of “transparency, openness, fairness and ensuring that our committee is not abusing power as it’s investigating abuse of power.”
Weinberg said she thought Schar’s statement went to all members of the committee and that the Republicans would get equal access to the documents once they come in.
The lane closures have shaken up governor’s inner circle. Christie fired Kelly and cut ties with Stepien after he called the Fort Lee mayor an “idiot” in an email. Wildstein and Bill Baroni, who Christie named deputy executive director of the Port Authority, have both resigned. Wildstein and Baroni were also subpoenaed.
In a letter Friday, Wildstein’s attorney said “evidence exists” that Christie knew about the closures when they happened. Christie denied the allegation Monday after his staff sent an email attacking Wildstein’s credibility Saturday.
The committee is also seeking documents from Port Authority Chairman David Samson and Christie’s incoming chief of staff, Regina Egea, who oversaw independent agencies including the Port Authority.
When asked if Samson sought an extension, a spokeswoman for his attorneys referred questions to the legislative committee. Genovese Renna’s attorney, Henry Klingeman said she was granted an extension and plans to comply with the subpoenas.
Email: [email protected] or [email protected] ||||| Story highlights Fort Lee mayor: "I take it him at his word but it would appear ... a lot of folks don't"
Christie sticks to story that he first heard about lane closures from media reports
Governor again says he was told initially the traffic mess was part of a traffic study
CNN poll shows Christie support in potential presidential race slides
Embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie forcefully stood by his account that he only found out about notorious traffic lane closures at the George Washington Bridge last year after they appeared in the media and that he knew absolutely nothing about a suggested political motive behind them.
"The answer is still the same," Christie said in a radio interview on Monday night, adding later that he can't wait to get the "full story" behind the scandal that has rocked his administration and, for now, has clouded any potential presidential run in 2016.
"The fact of the matter is I've been very clear about this. Before these lanes were closed, I knew nothing about them. I didn't plan it. I didn't authorize it. I didn't approve it. I knew nothing about it," he said in a studio appearance for a live call-in show hosted by New Jersey 101.5.
The fresh response came amid a new allegation from a former top adviser caught up in the scandal, David Wildstein, that "evidence exists" that Christie knew about the closures and resulting traffic gridlock over five days in Fort Lee in real time, which would, if true, contradict his account of events.
On CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich said he believed Christie but thought the governor should sign a sworn statement backing up his claims.
"I take it him at his word but it would appear from the polls that a lot of folks don't," Sokolich said.
Why is this important?
JUST WATCHED What did Christie really know? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What did Christie really know? 08:00
JUST WATCHED Christie fires back against allegations Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Christie fires back against allegations 01:32
JUST WATCHED Bridge over troubled waters for Christie Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Bridge over troubled waters for Christie 05:10
JUST WATCHED Will alleged evidence sink Christie? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Will alleged evidence sink Christie? 01:38
Christie's recollection ultimately may be critical in answering why the bridge lanes overseen by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey were closed in the first place and who authorized it for sure -- and whether any laws were broken.
E-mails and political figures in New Jersey have suggested the gridlock was a bit of orchestrated political payback for the Fort Lee mayor, who did not endorse Christie for re-election last November.
A state legislative committee is investigating as is the Justice Department, which would be interested if there was any abuse of power. Both have subpoenaed Christie's office for documents, and he said his office is complying. Christie's office also has hired a private law firm to investigate.
And why is Wildstein important?
It has been suggested in the e-mails released by state legislative investigators in New Jersey that Wildstein, a top Christie appointee at the Port Authority, carried out the closures. He also has been subpoenaed, refused to answer questions from legislative investigators, and he's got a lawyer.
For his part, Christie has fired a top aide linked to what has metastasized into a political scandal coming on the heels of a successful re-election and prior to a possible White House bid. Others have left their jobs as the scandal unfolded, including Wildstein.
Former deputy chief of staff Bridget Ann Kelly, whose e-mail to Wildstein -- "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" -- weeks before the gridlock occurred led to her firing by Christie in January, refused on Monday on constitutional grounds to comply with a state legislative subpoena to turn over documents, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN's Chris Frates.
State lawmakers leading that investigation said they are reviewing the matter and "considering our legal options with respect to enforcing the subpoena."
Christie, in the radio interview, repeated what he said at a January news conference -- challenged by Wildstein in a letter written by his lawyer to the Port Authority on Friday -- about the timeline around when he became aware of the traffic mess. He also denied having any knowledge of a suggested political motive.
Who's who in the bridge scandal
Christie blasts Wildstein
JUST WATCHED Christie booed at Super Bowl event Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Christie booed at Super Bowl event 02:25
JUST WATCHED Jindal: Christie should stay RGA chair Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Jindal: Christie should stay RGA chair 01:14
JUST WATCHED Gov. Christie faces new allegations Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Gov. Christie faces new allegations 03:50
"The first time that this really came into my consciousness, as an issue" was when an e-mail from Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye "was leaked to the media and reported on."
Foye was the person, according to e-mails, who started asking questions about the lane closures and ordered them reopened.
That's when Christie said he asked his chief of staff and his chief counsel to "look into this and see what's going on here."
He said any reference to the bridge situation prior to this wouldn't have meant anything to him because he wasn't clued into the fact that there was a problem.
Afterward, Christie said again that he was told the "Port Authority was engaged in a traffic study," which has now been called into serious question.
He also stressed that "nobody has said I knew anything about this before it happened, and I think that's the most important question."
A question of evidence
Christie's appearance follows steps by his office over the weekend to strike in an unusually personal way against Wildstein, a one-time high school classmate of the governor in Livingston, N.J.
"Bottom line - David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein," a letter released by the governor's office said in a statement.
On Monday, Christie's office also planned to send to friends and allies a list of tweets and stories aiming to put the focus on The New York Times' handling of the disclosure by Wildstein, according to CNN's Jake Tapper.
The Times broke the story, saying Wildstein "had the evidence to prove" Christie knew about the lane closures. The newspaper quickly revised its lead to simply reflect what the letter written by Wildstein's attorney actually said: that "evidence exists," not that Wildstein was in possession of it.
The letter never disclosed the evidence.
Chris Christie scandal: A primer
First on CNN: Mayor behind Christie allegations full of contradictions
The letter also didn't suggest that Christie had knowledge of what his people might have been up to -- political or otherwise.
Read Wildstein's letter
The scandal and another allegation of strong-arm political tactics by Christie administration officials over Superstorm Sandy aid have generated a wave of negative political fallout for a governor overwhelmingly re-elected in November and considered a top-tier Republican presidential hopeful in 2016.
Christie's swagger and straight-shooting style had him riding high in the polls as late as December.
He topped other potential GOP 2016 White House hopefuls in various surveys. But those numbers have faded as the scandal has intensified, according to a new CNN/ORC International survey.
Christie trails Hillary Clinton by 16 percentage points in a hypothetical presidential match-up, a turnaround from December when he was up by 2 points.
Opinion: Are clouds gathering for Christie?
Christie to appear at CPAC | A former Chris Christie aide at the center of the Fort Lee traffic scandal has refused to surrender subpoenaed documents; Bridget Anne Kelly is invoking the Fifth Amendment, protecting her from self-incrimination. Kelly, who penned the infamous email calling for "traffic problems in Fort Lee," is also pointing to the Fourth Amendment's privacy protections. Allowing an investigative panel to view her private documents could "potentially reveal highly personal confidential communications" not connected to the scandal, says a letter from her lawyer. The letter also notes that the subpoena "directly overlaps with a parallel federal grand jury investigation," the New York Times reports. The heads of the panel are "considering our legal options with respect to enforcing the subpoena," they say in a statement. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have subpoenaed Chris Christie's own office, the Record reports. In a radio interview last night, Christie discussed the scandal with New Jersey 101.5. "I didn’t plan it. I didn’t authorize it. I didn’t approve it. I knew nothing about it," he said, per the Record. He said his office was providing subpoenaed documents and he was working to "fix" what had gone wrong. "All this other stuff is just a game of gotcha—when did I first learn about this or that," he said. Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, for his part, tells CNN he takes Christie "at his word, but it would appear from the polls that a lot of folks don't." |
In the early 1990s, NASA was planning an infrastructure to support a projected annual budget of more than $20 billion and a civil service workforce of about 25,000 by the turn of the century. However, over the last several years, NASA has been directed by the Administration to reduce its future years’ budget levels. In the fiscal year 1994 budget request, NASA’s total funding for fiscal years 1994 through 2000 was reduced by 18 percent, or $22 billion. In the fiscal year 1995 budget request, total funding was reduced again by almost $13 billion, or an additional 13 percent. To absorb these major reductions, NASA focused on adjusting programs. For example, the Space Station program was restructured and given an annual budget ceiling of $2.1 billion. Similarly, the scope of the Earth Observing System program was reduced, and the program is being restructured once again. Also, funding was terminated for the Space Exploration Initiative, the National Launch System, and the National Aerospace Plane, and the Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby project was canceled. As part of the executive branch’s development of NASA’s $14.2-billion budget request for fiscal year 1996, NASA was directed once again to lower its projected budget through fiscal year 2000, this time by an additional 5 percent, or $4.6 billion. Rather than terminating or delaying core science, aeronautics, or exploration programs, NASA announced it would absorb this funding decrease by reducing infrastructure, including closing and consolidating facilities. NASA also said it would reduce its use of support contractors and decrease the size of its workforce to about 17,500 by the turn of the century—the lowest level since the early 1960s. While NASA’s actual and planned budgets and staffing levels have decreased sharply, the value of its facilities infrastructure has actually increased. From fiscal years 1990 through 1995, the current replacement value of NASA’s facilities increased by about 14 percent, not including inflation. At the end of fiscal year 1995, the agency’s facilities had an estimated current replacement value of $17 billion. The agency owned or leased about 3,000 buildings on nearly 130,000 acres of land at 71 locations. NASA’s facilities range in size from small buildings to large industrial plants. Appendix I provides information about facilities at NASA’s 10 field centers. As part of its infrastructure reduction efforts, NASA is also looking at ways to cut the cost of its field center support activities. Each NASA field center operates a wide range of such activities, with some support-unique missions at particular centers. Common activities include building maintenance, fire protection, security, printing, and medical services. NASA provides these services primarily through a combination of civil service employees, contractor labor, and arrangements with the Department of Defense (DOD) where facilities are collocated. NASA’s current facility closure and consolidation plans will not fully achieve the agency’s goal of decreasing the current replacement value of its facilities by about 25 percent (about $4 billion in 1994 dollars) by the end of fiscal year 2000. More importantly, these plans will not result in substantial cost reductions by that date. By the end of fiscal year 1997, NASA plans to have closed or converted facilities to cost-reimbursable status that have a current replacement value of $1.9 billion. Also, as of March 1996, planned reductions through fiscal year 2000 were $2.8 billion, or about 30 percent below NASA’s goal of reducing the current replacement value of its facilities by about $4 billion in 1994 dollars. Agency officials noted that the $4-billion reduction goal was a “stretch,” or aggressive goal, which they were never certain could be achieved. Additional reductions are unlikely in research and development facilities, but there may be opportunities for further reductions in office space, according to NASA officials. NASA classifies building space based on its primary use, such as office space. NASA was providing general purpose office space for about 53,000 civil service and contractor personnel at the end of fiscal year 1995. Agencywide, the average square feet of office space available per person, including substandard space, exceeded NASA’s standard by nearly 43 percent and the ceiling by over 25 percent. When substandard space is not included, this average exceeded the standard by over 27 percent and the ceiling by 12 percent. Future reductions in the number of on-site contractor personnel and NASA employees (almost 4,000) by fiscal year 2000 will make even more office space available. NASA estimates that the planned $2.8-billion reduction in the current replacement value of facilities will yield only about $250 million in cost reductions through fiscal year 2000. Although some of these cost reductions are from lowering facilities’ operations and maintenance costs, most result from four centers bringing contractor personnel from off-site leased space onto the centers to fill space left vacant because of reductions in NASA personnel and support contractors. Moreover, some cost reductions may be offset by increased costs in future years. For example, according to a NASA official, about three-quarters of NASA facilities are 30 or more years old and keeping these facilities operational may lead to higher operations and modernization costs. NASA has had problems in identifying, assessing, or implementing some cost-reduction opportunities. NASA personnel (1) did not thoroughly evaluate potential larger cost-reduction options, (2) limited the scope of consideration for consolidation, (3) performed questionable initial cost-reduction studies, (4) made inappropriate closure recommendations, and (5) substantially overstated cost-reduction estimates. Some of these problems resulted when NASA acted quickly in an attempt to achieve near-term cost reductions. NASA officials said that some cost-reduction estimates were “interim” estimates because NASA was pressured into prematurely providing what turned out to be imprecise savings estimates to Congress. Also, some NASA staff lacked experience in developing estimates, according to NASA officials. Although there were problems with some evaluations, which are discussed below, others appear to have been done better. For example, the Office of Space Flight reviewed in detail a proposed consolidation of automated data processing functions at a single location before developing a plan that offered several options. Concerns about closing facilities, relocating activities, and consolidating operations have sometimes been exacerbated by perceptions of the lack of fairness and impartiality in the decision-making process. In the past, we have expressed concerns about NASA’s ability to accurately and independently develop cost estimates to support its decisions on new and ongoing programs and projects. Just recently, the NASA Inspector Generaland NASA management have been discussing the structure required to meet NASA’s continuing need for independent, impartial, and technically credible systems analysis and program evaluation. NASA did not thoroughly evaluate potential larger cost-reduction options for consolidating wide area telecommunications networks. NASA has five such networks operating or being developed, and they provide a variety of communications services among headquarters, field centers, major contractors, affiliated academic institutions, and international partners. Due to advances in technology, NASA no longer needs to operate multiple telecommunications networks, and consolidating network operations at a single site offers economies of scale, as well as reduced administrative overhead. Last year, NASA’s Zero Base Review team recommended that the field centers compete to determine which one could consolidate the five wide area networks most cost-effectively. Goddard Space Flight Center, Ames Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center prepared consolidation proposals. NASA’s Office of Space Communications, which oversees the two largest networks, decided against a competition and did not formally consider the proposals offered by Goddard and Ames. Instead, with the objective of obtaining some budget cost reductions in 1997, it endorsed the Marshall proposal without determining which of the three proposals was the most cost-effective. However, Marshall’s proposal did not project cost reductions in the near term as aggressively as the others. For example, Goddard’s proposal estimated potential cost reductions over the next 6 years totaling $94.5 million more than the reductions in the Marshall proposal. Earlier this year, we recommended that NASA conduct an objective review of network consolidation to determine whether its chosen approach should be modified to achieve greater cost reductions. NASA agreed with this recommendation and arranged for an independent group to conduct the review. It indicated the agency’s telecommunications experts were not participating in the review because they would have a “biased” perspective. The independent review is scheduled to be completed this month. NASA’s initial network consolidation efforts were hampered by the lack of clear direction within NASA to include all five wide area networks in the consolidation effort. The Office of Space Communications, which directed the consolidation effort at Marshall, does not have authority over three of the five networks. The agencywide telecommunications network consolidation or streamlining efforts did not have a strong central advocate. NASA’s Chief Information Officer, who would be a logical choice to fill this role, was not directly involved in this effort. NASA initially excluded almost 40 percent of its supercomputer systems, which were used mostly for research and development, from the scope of a supercomputer consolidation study. The agency uses supercomputers to support some space mission operations and a variety of research projects, including developing new supercomputer technologies. In March 1995, NASA began studying ways to cut its supercomputer costs by consolidating their management and operation. However, its initial studies considered only some of the agency’s supercomputers and focused on nonresearch and development supercomputing systems. Although NASA’s consolidation study team had identified 29 supercomputers, NASA management excluded 12 existing machines and some planned for future procurement from consideration because (1) some are being managed under existing contracts that could be affected by a consolidation decision and (2) others were used in research programs primarily to develop new supercomputer technologies. We spoke with NASA program, field center, and supercomputer consolidation study officials about the reasons for, and appropriateness of, limiting the scope of NASA’s consolidation study. During a series of discussions, NASA officials acknowledged our concerns about the study’s limitations and expanded its scope to a phased approach that will eventually consider all of the agency’s supercomputers. In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA said the review will be based on a top-down plan for agencywide management of supercomputing operations and will design an optimal supercomputer architecture as a basis for determining future directions in this area. Questions about initial studies have delayed the decision-making process in NASA’s attempts to consolidate aircraft. Last year, the transfer of research and operational support aircraft from five NASA centers to the Dryden Flight Research Center was proposed. NASA headquarters tasked Dryden, the center that would gain from the consolidation, with planning and performing an aircraft consolidation study. In a recent report, the NASA Inspector General noted the Dryden study had estimated NASA could save $12.6 million annually by consolidating aircraft at Dryden. However, internal and external questions about the scope and quality of this study have slowed the decision-making process. Subsequent reviews of the costs and benefits of aircraft consolidation by both NASA management and the NASA Inspector General staff have resulted in much lower annual savings estimates. In light of the controversy that potentially accompanies any significant decision to consolidate, relocate, or close facilities, NASA would benefit from ensuring an adequate balance of expertise and interests for study teams, developing initial analyses that are objective and well-supported, and fairly and thoroughly considering reasonable alternatives before making decisions. In this way, NASA can develop defensible decisions that will withstand external scrutiny and can be implemented in a timely manner. Plum Brook Station was inappropriately recommended for possible closure twice. In February 1995, the NASA Federal Laboratory Review recommended reviewing the station for possible closure because it was being operated primarily for non-NASA users. At about the same time, NASA’s White Paper, formally titled A Budget Reduction Strategy, suggested that Plum Brook should be closed. NASA officials could not provide the rationale for the proposed action. The Laboratory Review report did acknowledge a problem concerning the existence of an inactive nuclear reactor at the station, and the Zero Base Review subsequently recommended retaining Plum Brook on a fully reimbursable basis because of the reactor. Plum Brook operates on a cost-reimbursable basis, with most of its operating cost covered by revenue from users of four test facilities at the station. Even if all four of the test facilities were closed, the operating cost would still be about $2 million, primarily because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that the reactor be maintained in its current state. The only way to close the location and dispose of the property would be to dismantle the reactor. However, the cost for doing this would be prohibitively expensive—about $100 million in 1997 dollars, according to a 1990 estimate. In addition, there are no disposal sites to accommodate the radioactive waste that would be generated by the dismantling process. In some cases, NASA’s initial estimates of cost reductions were overstated. For example, the Zero Base Review estimated that $500 million or more could be saved through 2000 by commercializing the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System. However, NASA later determined this approach could not be implemented and that none of the projected savings would materialize in the time frame targeted by the Zero Base Review. Also, the Zero Base Review claimed that consolidation of telecommunications networks would save between $350 million and $375 million. Subsequently, NASA officials acknowledged these cost reductions would not only be significantly lower, but the lower savings estimates had already been considered in the preparation of the networks’ future budget estimates. The estimated savings noted above were part of the total savings estimate that provided the basis for NASA’s claim that the fiscal year 1996 out-year budget reductions could be covered by infrastructure decreases. To the extent the estimates were overstated, additional pressure was placed on NASA program and field center officials to find efficiencies to supplant the overstated savings. For example, after NASA determined that commercializing the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System would not reduce costs, it began aggressively negotiating a fixed-price contract for the purchase of three additional satellites needed for the system. However, NASA estimates that the fixed-price contract produced considerably less savings than the commercializing of the system. NASA’s future facility disposition decisions could be affected by environmental cleanup costs. Therefore, information about the extent and type of contamination, the cost of its cleanup, and the party who is financially responsible are relevant to such decisions. However, NASA officials do not yet fully know what the cleanup requirements will be and lack a policy for identifying other responsible parties and sharing cleanup costs. Currently, NASA officials are still working to identify all the challenges they face as a result of environmental contamination. NASA’s 1996 site inventory identified over 900 potentially contaminated sites, about half of which may require cleanup. At this time, according to NASA records, only 72 sites are classified as closed and, of these, only 15 required cleanup. Most sites are still in the early stages of the cleanup process, with almost 400 still being studied to determine the type and extent of contamination. NASA headquarters used selected portions of a DOD model to develop a preliminary cost estimate of $1.5 billion for cleaning up potentially contaminated sites over a 20-year period. Subsequently, NASA’s field centers, in response to our request, developed cost estimates totaling $636 million. This estimate excludes some sites that have not been studied and is a projection of cleanup cost for only the next 8 years or less. Although NASA field centers have not developed cleanup cost estimates for disposing of property in the future, officials at several centers believed the cost could be as much as two to five times higher than if NASA were to retain the property. The higher cost would occur if NASA cleaned up facilities to meet more stringent standards that might be required for disposal. Sharing cleanup costs with others could help NASA reduce its environmental cleanup costs. Environmental law holds owners, operators, and other responsible parties liable for correcting past environmental contamination. However, NASA has no policy on pursuing other responsible parties. It currently pays the cleanup costs for virtually all of its centers and other field locations, regardless of who was responsible for causing or contributing to the contamination. Although NASA has identified other responsible federal agencies, it has not generally tried to identify potentially responsible contractors or previous owners and pursue cost-sharing agreements with them. An ongoing facility reduction effort where cost sharing may be an issue involves land at NASA’s Industrial Plant in Downey, California. The city wants to acquire 166 acres of this property: 68 acres NASA has identified as excess to its needs and 98 acres it has identified as potentially excess. The city plans to use the land for economic development projects. An assessment of environmental contamination determined that 16 of the excess acres were free of contamination. Studies of the remaining excess acreage are underway. The eventual disposition of the remaining 98 acres of NASA-owned land is still unclear, and studies of their contamination status are still in the early stages. Before NASA took over the Downey facility, it was a DOD facility operated by the predecessor organization of the contractor currently operating the facility for NASA. NASA will have to decide which potentially responsible parties it will pursue in supporting any corrective actions that may be needed to meet applicable cleanup standards. However, NASA’s Johnson Space Center, which manages the Downey facility, has not yet begun to deal with the potential cost-sharing issue and, as noted above, there is no NASA-wide policy providing guidance on this issue. In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA stated it intends to complete a policy statement by the end of 1996 to address the issue of potential responsible parties at NASA facilities requiring environmental remediation. Among NASA’s initiatives to reduce its infrastructure are efforts to lower the field centers’ operations support costs. NASA spends over $1 billion annually to support maintenance and operations at field centers. Among the actions NASA is taking to reduce this cost is consolidating its payroll functions at one center to cut payroll-related civil service and contractor staffing by about 50 percent. It is also implementing a variety of initiatives to share resources and standardize processes at its principal aeronautics centers—Ames, Langley, Lewis, and Dryden. NASA estimates that this effort—known as Project Reliance—will reduce agency costs by about $36 million by fiscal year 2000. In June 1995, NASA expanded the scope of its cost-reduction search outside the agency; it teamed with DOD to study how the two agencies could significantly reduce their operations costs and increase mission effectiveness and efficiency through increased cooperation and sharing. Study teams, referred to as integrated product teams, began work in September 1995 in seven areas. We monitored three teams: major facilities, space launch activities, and base/center support and services. The objectives of the major facilities and space launch activities teams included assessing facilities’ utilization and recommending potential consolidations and closures. The major facilities team was responsible for (1) developing recommendations on test and evaluation and research facilities with unnecessary overlap or redundancy and (2) identifying and providing the rationale for consolidations, realignments, and reductions for specific facilities. The space launch activities team focused on increasing cooperation in its area, including range and launch facilities and infrastructure. Neither team recommended specific consolidations or closures or identified cost reductions in their final briefings to the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board. Both teams did, however, identify barriers to increased cooperation and coordination between NASA and DOD, including differences in cost accounting systems, practices, and standards. More importantly, NASA and DOD officials noted a more general limitation: the “old paradigm”—that is, each NASA and DOD program protects its ability to maintain its own technical expertise and competence. The over- capacity situation in large rocket test facilities helps to illustrate this. Several years ago, the National Facilities Study concluded that there was excess large rocket test capacity and some facilities could be closed, but DOD and NASA officials involved in the study said no direction or funding was subsequently made available to pursue this recommendation. More recently, the major facilities team found that NASA and DOD each have excess large rocket test capacity based on both current and projected workloads. However, the team made no recommendation to consolidate facilities because comparable facilities’ cost data was not available. The team did recommend that a facility agreement in the area of rocket propulsion testing be established to identify areas where capability reductions and greater reliance between NASA and DOD would be possible in the future. While the issue of large rocket test capacity remains unresolved, some rocket test facilities are currently undergoing or being considered for modification. A rocket test complex at Edwards Air Force Base is being upgraded by DOD at an estimated cost of $15 million to $17 million. In addition, NASA plans to upgrade one of its rocket engine test facilities at Stennis Space Center for about $45 million. DOD and NASA officials believe that their respective upgrades are cost-effective, although they agreed that the agencies need to improve coordination to prevent further excess capacity. NASA believes that the rocket test facilities at Stennis and Edwards Air Force Base are not comparable. However, the National Facilities Study and the major facilities integrated product team raised the overall excess capacity issue, and it has not yet been resolved. Independent actions by DOD and NASA to upgrade their individual facilities potentially exacerbate the problem of overall excess capacity. NASA and DOD officials acknowledged that recommending sharing and increasing reliance on each other, including consolidating or closing facilities, was difficult. These officials pointed out that, in many cases, such actions are “too politically sensitive” or could result in near-term costs increases, rather than cost reductions. They noted that an external, independent process, similar to the one used by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, may be needed to overcome the sensitivity and cost issues. The base/center support and services team, which was responsible for recommending ways to increase cooperation in base/center support and services, examined existing and potential cooperative arrangements at eight NASA centers and one test facility collocated with or geographically near DOD installations. The team reported finding over 500 existing support arrangements and identified additional cooperative opportunities. The team identified changes to activities at several NASA locations, including having NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center and the Air Force Flight Test Center jointly use space and combine certain operations; constructing one fuel facility for joint use by NASA’s Langley Research Center and Langley Air Force Base; and sharing use of contracts and services. Although the team expects such changes to lower the agencies’ costs by millions of dollars, it cited specific barriers to accomplishing more. For example, different negotiated wage rates for support service contractors could be a barrier, since consolidations would likely require paying the higher rate, thereby substantially or totally offsetting consolidation cost reductions. In other cases, merging certain activities could complicate existing procurements in small and disadvantaged business set-aside programs. However, the team said that many more sharing arrangements are possible and should be included in follow-on studies. In developing the follow-on process, this team recommended and then provided guidance on designating lead offices, establishing and updating metrics and milestones, and sharing information. NASA and DOD officials indicated that the work started by the integrated product teams would continue. A joint DOD-NASA report, which could be released later this month, will recommend that six alliances be established to continue the work initiated by the major facilities team, according to a NASA official. Only two of the alliances have been organized. The official also stated that four panels of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board are to be established to oversee the follow-on activities. However, three of the panels have been delayed due to personnel reorganizations affecting both DOD and NASA, and it is uncertain when they will be initiated, according to the NASA official. The only panel to be established to date is the Aeronautics Panel, which met in July 1996. The details of the follow-on processes for continuing the work of the integrated product teams have not yet been fully developed. One measure of the relevance and success of these processes will be how they handle an issue such as overcapacity in large rocket test facilities. In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA said that the NASA-DOD National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance will strive for joint management of facilities so they can be brought on or offline and investments controlled for maximum benefit. NASA also said this alliance “will examine indepth the current and future projected workloads to achieve proper asset management and utilization of rocket test facilities.” We recently reported that NASA does not yet have fully developed plans to reduce its personnel level by about 4,000 full-time equivalent employees to meet its overall goal of decreasing the size of its workforce to about 17,500 by fiscal year 2000. Also, it may not be able to do so without involuntarily separating employees. NASA projections show that voluntary attrition should meet the downsizing goal through fiscal year 1998, but will not provide sufficient losses by fiscal year 1999. Thus, NASA intends to start planning a reduction-in-force during fiscal year 1998, if enough NASA employees do not retire or resign voluntarily. NASA’s ability to reach its workforce reduction goal by the turn of the century is subject to major uncertainties, including the shifting of program management from headquarters to field centers and the award of a single prime contract for managing the space shuttle at Kennedy Space Center. We proposed that, in view of these uncertainties, Congress may wish to consider requiring NASA to submit a workforce restructuring plan for achieving its fiscal year 2000 personnel reduction goal. NASA estimates that civil service personnel reductions will save about $880 million from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000. NASA faces barriers to accomplishing additional consolidations and closures that it may not be able to overcome on its own. Closing facilities, relocating activities, and consolidating operations in fewer locations with fewer employees is not easy because of concerns about the effects of such actions on missions, personnel, and local communities. NASA and DOD officials have suggested that a process similar to the one used by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission may ultimately be needed to adequately deal with the political sensitivity and cost issues that inevitably accompany consolidation and closure decisions. Given NASA’s limited progress to date, further opportunities to reduce infrastructure, and the agency’s lack of control over some barriers to further reductions, Congress may wish to adopt the idea of having such a process if NASA’s efforts fail to show significant progress in the near future in consolidating and closing facilities. To help determine the need for an independent process to facilitate closures and consolidations of NASA facilities, Congress may wish to consider requiring NASA to submit a plan outlining how it intends to meet its goals for a reduced infrastructure through fiscal year 2000. Such a plan should include estimated cost reductions resulting from specific facility closures and consolidations. In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA stated that it is committed to streamlining its workforce and supporting infrastructure and is continuing to make fundamental changes in the way it operates. NASA specifically noted that it intends to meet its fiscal and programmatic challenges through efficiencies, restructuring, privatization, commercialization, out-sourcing, and performance-based contracting. NASA commented on a number of areas discussed in the report, and it provided us with some additional or updated information and suggested changes to enhance the clarity and technical accuracy of the draft. We have incorporated the agency’s suggested changes in the final report where appropriate. NASA’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix III, along with our final evaluation of them. Our scope and methodology is discussed in appendix IV. Unless you publicly announce this report’s contents, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to other interested congressional committees, the Administrator of NASA, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will also provide copies to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-4841, if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors are listed in appendix V. Net usable square feet (thousands) Dryden Flight Research Center is located on Edwards Air Force Base, California. The study’s purpose was to advise the NASA Administrator on the approaches the agency’s management could use to implement the U.S. space program in the coming decades. Of the 15 recommendations made, 2 related indirectly to facilities infrastructure. The study was completed in December 1990. At the direction of the NASA Administrator, the agency’s Deputy Administrator reviewed NASA’s roles and missions and suggested ways to implement the Augustine Committee’s recommendations. The recommendations focused on NASA field centers’ missions and project management approaches. Of the 33 recommendations, 9 were related indirectly to facilities infrastructure. The study was completed in November 1991. With some modification, the NASA Administrator approved all recommendations from the Roles and Missions Study and called for implementation plans from the center directors and headquarters program offices. The recommendations were approved in December 1991. This federal governmentwide review examined cabinet-level departments and 10 agencies, including NASA. One of the 19 recommendations that focused on NASA was directly related to facilities. The review was completed in September 1993. This document was issued in January 1994 by the Associate Administrator for Space Flight in response to the Administrator’s December 1991 call for implementation plans and the current Administrator’s renewed emphasis on roles and missions. It identified a number of recommendations to implement the roles and missions recommendations and assigned follow-up responsibilities. Of 38 recommendations, 15 related to specific facilities. The study was initiated in 1992 by the NASA Administrator to develop a comprehensive long-range plan to ensure that research, development, and operational facilities were world-class and to avoid duplication of facilities. The study group was composed of representatives from NASA; the Departments of Defense (DOD), Transportation, Energy, and Commerce; and the National Science Foundation. Almost 200 recommendations were made, including 68 specifically related to NASA facilities. The study was completed in April 1994. Contracted by NASA and DOD, the National Research Council reviewed the findings in the National Facilities Study to evaluate the requirements presented in the national facilities plan for space and research and development operations. The Board made 11 recommendations, 4 of which related to facilities in general. None of the recommendations related to specific facilities. The review was completed in 1994. The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board conducted this review at NASA’s request. The study’s purpose was to independently examine projected requirements for, and approaches to, the provision of needed aeronautical ground test facilities. The Board made 13 recommendations; 2 related to specific NASA facilities. The review was completed in 1994. Federal Laboratory Review Conducted under the auspices of the NASA Advisory Council, this study was tasked to evaluate and develop recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal research and development investment in the NASA laboratory system. The review was also to consider possibilities for restructuring, consolidating, closing, or reassigning facilities. The Laboratory Review made 74 recommendations and 3 suggestions related to specific facilities. The review was completed in February 1995. The White Paper, formally titled A Budget Reduction Strategy, was intended as a starting point for discussions on a proposed realignment of center roles and missions and reinvention in a constrained budget environment. The paper made about 40 recommendations total; 15 were related to facilities. The paper was issued February 1995. This review was a NASA-wide effort to allocate reductions in the fiscal year 1996 President’s budget, set center role assignments, provide suitable guidance for the fiscal year 1997 budget, and change the way NASA conducted business. About 50 recommendations were made, of which 2 applied to specific facilities. The review was completed in June 1995. NASA teamed with DOD to study how the two agencies could significantly reduce their investment and operations costs and increase mission effectiveness and efficiency through increased cooperation at all organizational levels. Study teams, referred to as integrated product teams, began work in September 1995 in seven areas. Each team addressed facilities, as appropriate, in its assigned functional area. Teams reported their recommendation to the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board in April 1996. Additional information on this effort is presented in the body of this report. The following are GAO’s comments on NASA’s letter dated September 6, 1996. 1. The language of the report was modified where appropriate. 2. NASA provided information on activities and initiatives that occurred after the issuance of our report on Telecommunications Network: NASA Could Better Manage Its Planned Consolidation (GAO/AIMD-96-33, Apr. 9, 1996). 3. Our description of the current situation at Downey is in the context of a potential, not a known, cost-sharing issue. 4. NASA provided information on two rocket propulsion test facilities and stated that they are not comparable. However, we made no comparison of these facilities. We merely pointed out that, while the issue of potential excess in large rocket engine test capacity remains unresolved, efforts are underway or planned to upgrade such facilities. As noted in the report, such independent actions potentially worsen the problem. The overcapacity issue could benefit from a thorough, governmentwide assessment. 5. The report discusses the possible future need for a process similar to the one used by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Such a process could be applied to individual facilities, groups of facilities, or entire agencies. There is no reason to believe that the process would be appropriate only for DOD or for numerous locations. We reviewed the value of NASA’s facilities and its budgets and staffing; facility reduction plans; real property reports; utilization data and reports; studies, including the National Facilities Study and the NASA Federal Laboratory Review; environmental law, policies, and procedures; and reports by the NASA Inspector General. We interviewed officials at NASA field centers and in the Offices of Management Systems and Facilities, Headquarters Operations, Space Flight, Space Communications, Human Resources and Education, Environmental Management Division, and Inspector General at NASA headquarters. To discuss NASA-DOD coordination efforts, we interviewed NASA and DOD officials. We also spoke with officials from Rockwell International, Space Systems Division, about plans for the NASA Industrial Plant, Downey, California. We obtained information from all NASA field centers, including information on the value and utilization of facilities, plans for closing facilities and estimated savings through fiscal year 2000, facilities project budgets, and cleanup and cost-sharing activities. We also spoke with officials from other federal agencies, including the General Services Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. We obtained electronic versions of NASA’s real property and major facility inventory databases and NASA’s potentially contaminated site inventory database, but did not independently verify the reliability of the data in the databases. Because the National Facilities Study included aircraft in its work, we included them in our review. We conducted our audit work at NASA headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California; Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland; Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas; NASA Industrial Plant, Downey, California; White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico; John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida; Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia; Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio; Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, Ohio; George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama; Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, Louisiana; Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California; John C. Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Phillips Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base, California; and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. We conducted our work from June 1995 through August 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Uldis Adamsons Frank Degnan Raymond H. Denmark, Jr. Sandra D. Gove William E. Petrick, Jr. Jamelyn A. Smith The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) efforts to achieve reductions and efficiencies in key areas of its infrastructure. GAO found that: (1) NASA plans for a $2.8-billion reduction in the current replacement value of its facilities will yield only about $250 million in cost reductions through fiscal year (FY) 2000; (2) NASA has experienced problems in assessing cost-reduction opportunities because it did not thoroughly evaluate cost-reduction options, excluded many systems in its review of ways to cut supercomputer costs, performed questionable initial studies for aircraft consolidation, made inappropriate closure recommendations, and overstated cost-reduction estimates; (3) although environmental cleanup costs could affect facility disposition efforts, NASA lacks a policy for identifying other responsible parties and sharing cleanup costs; (4) a joint effort between NASA and the Department of Defense to study potential operation cost reductions through increased cooperation and sharing yielded no specific recommendations for closures, consolidations, or cost reductions but did identify barriers to sharing and increasing interagency reliance; and (5) NASA ability to reach its workforce reduction goal by 2000 is subject to some major uncertainties, and NASA may need to plan a reduction in force if enough employees do not retire or resign voluntarily. |
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Court Judgment Finding Midtown Office Building Secretly Owned And Controlled By Government Of Iran Subject To Forfeiture For Violations Of The Iranian Transactions Regulations And Money Laundering Offenses
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Seizure and Sale of 650 Fifth Avenue Would Be the Largest-Ever Terrorism-Related Forfeiture
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest has issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the United States’ claims for forfeiture of the 36-story Midtown Manhattan office building located at 650 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York (“the Building”), as the result of violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations promulgated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), and the federal money laundering statutes. The Court found that the partners of the Building’s owner, the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corp., committed the IEEPA violations and money laundering offenses.
Claims against the building in this consolidated action by private parties holding judgments against the Government of Iran remain pending.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “The Judge’s opinion upholds what was the contention of this Office from outset: ‘Assa was (and is) a front for Bank Melli, and thus a front for the Government of Iran.’ The Judge’s ruling that Alavi and Assa committed IEEPA and money laundering violations paves the way for the largest-ever terrorism-related forfeiture, and provides a means of compensating victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism.”
According to the amended civil forfeiture Complaint and the oral and written opinions issued by Judge Forrest in this case:
Overview
The Alavi Foundation has been providing numerous services to the Iranian Government, including managing the Building for the Iranian Government, running a charitable organization for the Iranian Government, and transferring funds from 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Bank Melli Iran (“Bank Melli”), a bank wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Iran. Likewise, Assa Corporation and Assa Company Limited (“Assa Co. Ltd.”) have been providing numerous services to Bank Melli in contravention of IEEPA and the Iranian Transactions Regulations promulgated thereunder, including transferring rental income generated from 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Bank Melli, following Bank Melli’s instructions with regard to Assa Corporation’s affairs, reporting back to Bank Melli on Assa Corporations’s financial situation and business dealings, and managing the affairs of Assa Corporation for the benefit of Bank Melli.
IEEPA confers upon the President the authority to take certain actions, defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1702, in response to declared national emergencies. The President has declared national emergencies with respect to the actions and policies of the Government of Iran: Executive Orders 12957, 12959, and 13059, and with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”), Executive Orders 12938 and 13382. The Treasury Department’s Iranian Transactions Regulations (“ITR”), 31 C.F.R. Part 560, and Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 544, implement these Executive Orders.
The Building was constructed in the 1970s by the Pahlavi Foundation, a non-profit organization operated by the Shah of Iran to pursue Iran’s charitable interests in the United States. The Building’s construction was financed by a substantial loan from Bank Melli.
Following the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran established the Bonyad Mostazafan, also known as the Bonyad Mostazafan va Janbazan (“Bonyad Mostazafan”), to centralize, take possession of, and manage property expropriated by the revolutionary government. The Bonyad Mostazafan was created in March 1979 by order of the Ayatollah Khomeini and approved by the Revolutionary Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is controlled by the Government of Iran. The Bonyad Mostazafan sought to take control of the Shah’s property, including the assets of the Pahlavi Foundation. The Bonyad Mostazafan reports directly to the Ayatollah.
Between approximately October 1978 and approximately October 1979, all five previous directors of the Pahlavi Foundation resigned, and four new directors took their places. On February 25, 1980, an amended Certificate of Incorporation for the Pahlavi Foundation was filed renaming the Foundation “The Mostazafan Foundation of New York.” The Mostazafan Foundation of New York later renamed itself the Alavi Foundation.
The Government of Iran’s Involvement in the Management of the Building
In 1989, the Alavi Foundation and Bank Melli formed a partnership, 650 Fifth Avenue Company, in order to avoid paying federal taxes on rental income from the Building. Bank Melli’s ownership interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company, however, was disguised through the creation of two shell companies. The Alavi Foundation transferred 35 percent of 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Assa Corporation, an entity wholly owned by Assa Co. Ltd. Assa Co. Ltd. is a Jersey, Channel Islands, United Kingdom, entity owned by Iranian citizens who represent the interests of Bank Melli. In conjunction with the transfer of the 35 percent interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Assa Corp., Bank Melli cancelled its loan on the Building. Today, the Alavi Foundation owns 60 percent of 650 Fifth Avenue Company, and Bank Melli owns 40 percent of 650 Fifth Avenue Company, through Assa Corp. and Assa Co. Ltd.
The decision to convert Bank Melli’s mortgage on the Building into a partnership interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company was discussed and approved by high-level Iranian Government officials. Among others, the head of the Bonyad Mostazafan (also the Deputy Prime Minister of Iran), the Office of the Prime Minister of Iran, the director of the Central Bank of Iran, and the general director of Bank Melli, as well as other Bonyad Mostazafan and Bank Melli officials, discussed and approved the partnership between the Alavi Foundation and Bank Melli. After the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corporation entered into the 650 Fifth Avenue Company partnership agreement, a Bonyad Mostazafan official forwarded the agreement to a Bank Melli official, noting that “the partnership is based on prior agreements between the Ministry of Finance, Bank Melli, and the Bonyad Mostazafan, with the only change being the building will be valued at two million dollars less than as previously agreed . . . .”
The Iranian Government’s control of the Alavi Foundation has continued. In 1989, Kamal Kharrazi was named as the new Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations. As a result of tension between the new Ambassador and the Alavi Foundation president, the Ambassador eventually demanded the president’s resignation. According to the minutes of a May 16, 1991, board meeting held in Zurich, Switzerland, the head of the Bonyad Mostazafan explained that, as directed by the Supreme Leader, several board members were to resign. In a letter, the Alavi Foundation’s president described how, a few days later, the Ambassador called the president and another board member to his office. The Ambassador said that “the Foundation from here on out is under the oversight of Haj Agha, not Mr. Rafighdoost [then the head of the Bonyad Mostazafan]. . . . [F]rom now on, the role of the Managing Director and the role of the Board of Directors will be just a formality and he [the Ambassador] will be conducting all of its [the Foundation’s] affairs.” The president of the Alavi Foundation then wrote a letter to the Ayatollah cautioning that although the Ambassador’s “appointment to a position of responsibility connected to the Foundation’s affairs presents enormous political, security, and economic dangers, we feel assured that the Supreme Leader has made this decision with discernment, unique insight, and a thorough knowledge of all pertaining aspects.” In July 1991, the president resigned his position and he was replaced that August by an individual who served as president until the summer of 2007.
In 1992, the Alavi Foundation’s new president met in New York and in Tehran with Bank Melli officials concerning $1.7 million in real estate taxes owed by 650 Fifth Avenue Company and $2.2 million in unpaid distributions owed by the partnership to Assa Corp. The Tehran meeting was attended by a Bank Melli board member, the head of Bank Melli’s Overseas Network Supervisory Department, the head of Bank Melli’s New York branch, and the head of Bank Melli’s Foreign Affairs. The head of the board of directors and managing director of Bank Melli forwarded the minutes of the Tehran meeting to the head of the Bonyad Mostazafan along with a cover letter stating, among other things, that “It is hoped that your firm instructions and the extra attention of the brothers from that esteemed Foundation, who are responsible for the Alavi Foundation of New York, will resolve the partnership’s mutual problems quickly . . . .”
Iranian Ambassadors to the U.N. continued to direct the affairs of the Alavi Foundation and to attend meetings of the Alavi Foundation board. In the late 1990s, two Bank Melli employees sought Ambassador Kharrazi’s permission for Assa Corp. to sell its interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company. The Ambassador informed Bank Melli that the Building would be sold when the real estate market improved. Ambassador Seyed Mohammad Hadi Nejad Hosseinian, Kharrazi’s successor, originated the Alavi Foundation’s project funding formula. In 2004, Hosseinian’s successor told the Alavi Foundation to settle a lawsuit with a company controlled by a former Alavi Foundation president for $4 million.
In October 2007, Alavi Foundation board members met with the Ambassador and another former Iranian Government official to address issues relating to the Building’s management and Alavi’s charitable services. According to notes taken by a board member, the Ambassador stated, among other things, that it was necessary to increase the profit from the Building; the Ambassador was worried about Assa Corporation’s 40 percent share; the Foundation should only allocate to Shiites; and that the Ambassador would determine the composition of the board. The Ambassador ordered a study about the possibility of increasing the Foundation’s revenue and profit, stating that a business plan and comparative analysis had to be done. The Ambassador instructed: “I have to definitely see the proposed allocations before a final decision is reached. I have to be kept informed and I have to be able to state my opinion in order for you to make a decision.” The Ambassador told the board members that “[i]f there is an issue that needs to be conveyed to Tehran, let me know, I will convey it.”
The Original Complaint
On December 17, 2008, this Office filed a civil Complaint seeking forfeiture of the 40 percent interest held by Assa Corporation in 650 Fifth Avenue Company. In the Amended Complaint, the United States seeks to forfeit all right, title and interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Company, including the Alavi Foundation’s 60 percent interest in the company. The United States also seeks to forfeit the contents of bank accounts held by 650 Fifth Avenue Company, the Alavi Foundation, and Assa Corporation, as well as other real properties owned by the Alavi Foundation.
The Obstruction of Justice Allegations Against the Former President of the Alavi Foundation
On December 19, 2008, Farshid Jahedi, who at the time was the president of the Alavi Foundation, was arrested for obstruction of justice for allegedly destroying documents required to be produced under a grand jury subpoena concerning the Alavi Foundation’s relationship with Bank Melli and the ownership of the Building. Jahedi pled guilty in December 2009. On April 30, 2010, he was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin to three months in prison and ordered to pay a $3,000 fine.
* * *
Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Police Department of the City of New York. He also thanked the Counterterrorism Section of the Department of Justice National Security Division and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for their initiation and assistance in this case.
Assistant United States Attorneys Sharon Cohen Levin, Michael D. Lockard, Martin S. Bell, Carolina A. Fornos, and Special Assistant United States Attorney Anand Sithian are in charge of the civil forfeiture action.
13-297
In re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties - Opinion and Order
Return to Top ||||| By Ben Fox Rubin
A U.S. district judge found that the U.S. government can seize a 36-story midtown Manhattan office building that it says is secretly owned and controlled by the government of Iran.
The judgment paves the way for the "largest-ever terrorism-related forfeiture" and sale and would provide a means for compensating victims of Iranian-backed terrorism, the U.S. Justice Department said.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. government's claims for the forfeiture of 650 Fifth Ave. The building, in a prime commercial section of midtown Manhattan just north of Rockefeller Center, was built in the late 1970s by a foundation set up by the former Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran. The building has been long known as the Piaget building.
The court found the current partners of the building's owner, the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corp., committed violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and money laundering offenses. "The judge's opinion upholds what was the contention of this office from outset: 'Assa was (and is) a front for Bank Melli and thus a front for the Government of Iran,' " Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said.
A representative for the Alavi Foundation said the group plans to appeal the court's decision once final judgment is entered. "We are obviously disappointed with the district court's decision granting partial summary judgment against the Alavi Foundation," the representative said. "We have reviewed the decision and disagree with the court's analysis of the facts and the law. The foundation was ready for trial and is disappointed that it did not have the opportunity to rebut the government evidence before a jury."
A summary judgment disposes of a case without trial. It is used when there is no dispute on the material facts of a case and a party is entitled to judgment.
The U.S. government filed paperwork to try to seize the skyscraper around 2008, alleging it is owned by a front for the Iranian government.
The Alavi Foundation owns 60% of 650 Fifth Avenue Co., with Iranian state-owned Bank Melli owning 40% via Assa Corp. and Assa Co. Ltd., the Justice Department said. The bank is subject to Treasury Department sanctions for allegedly financing Iran's nuclear proliferation efforts.
According to court documents, the Alavi Foundation has been providing numerous services to the Iranian government, including managing the building for the Iranian government, running a charitable organization for the Iranian government, and transferring funds from 650 Fifth Avenue Co. to Bank Melli. Likewise, Assa Corp. and Assa Company Ltd. have been providing numerous services to Bank Melli.
Write to Ben Fox Rubin at [email protected]
By Ben Fox Rubin
A U.S. district judge found that the U.S. government can seize a 36-story midtown Manhattan office building that it says is secretly owned and controlled by the government of Iran.
The judgment paves the way for the "largest-ever terrorism-related forfeiture" and sale and would provide a means for compensating victims of Iranian-backed terrorism, the U.S. Justice Department said.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. government's claims for the forfeiture of 650 Fifth Ave. The building, in a prime commercial section of midtown Manhattan just north of Rockefeller Center, was built in the late 1970s by a foundation set up by the former Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran. The building has been long known as the Piaget building.
The court found the current partners of the building's owner, the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corp., committed violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and money laundering offenses. "The judge's opinion upholds what was the contention of this office from outset: 'Assa was (and is) a front for Bank Melli and thus a front for the Government of Iran,' " Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said.
A representative for the Alavi Foundation said the group plans to appeal the court's decision once final judgment is entered. "We are obviously disappointed with the district court's decision granting partial summary judgment against the Alavi Foundation," the representative said. "We have reviewed the decision and disagree with the court's analysis of the facts and the law. The foundation was ready for trial and is disappointed that it did not have the opportunity to rebut the government evidence before a jury."
A summary judgment disposes of a case without trial. It is used when there is no dispute on the material facts of a case and a party is entitled to judgment.
The U.S. government filed paperwork to try to seize the skyscraper around 2008, alleging it is owned by a front for the Iranian government.
The Alavi Foundation owns 60% of 650 Fifth Avenue Co., with Iranian state-owned Bank Melli owning 40% via Assa Corp. and Assa Co. Ltd., the Justice Department said. The bank is subject to Treasury Department sanctions for allegedly financing Iran's nuclear proliferation efforts.
According to court documents, the Alavi Foundation has been providing numerous services to the Iranian government, including managing the building for the Iranian government, running a charitable organization for the Iranian government, and transferring funds from 650 Fifth Avenue Co. to Bank Melli. Likewise, Assa Corp. and Assa Company Ltd. have been providing numerous services to Bank Melli.
Write to Ben Fox Rubin at [email protected] | The Justice Department may have just scored a huge payday from Iran in unusual fashion: A federal judge has ruled that the feds can seize a 36-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan because its owners were illegally sending rent revenue to Iran, reports the Wall Street Journal. The Daily News pegs the value of the tower at 650 Fifth Ave. between $500 million and $700 million, explaining why the Justice Department is boasting that this is the "largest-ever terrorism-related forfeiture." It's not a done deal just yet, however. The Alavi Foundation, which owns 60% of the building, plans to appeal. US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest agreed with federal prosecutors that the building's ownership is essentially a front for the government of Iran and is funneling money to the state-owned Bank Melli. That would violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, among other offenses. The US Attorney in Manhattan says the money would go to victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism. |
We already told you about Herman Cain’s total lack of a campaign in South Carolina, according to plugged-in Republican operatives there.
With each passing day, more stories are published proving that South Carolina is not an outlier in the Cain campaign operation. Try as they might, reporters just can’t seem to find any kind of legitimate Cain campaign operation anywhere.
A quick roundup of the latest updates:
• Slate’s John Dickerson was the latest to go to Iowa and find no real sign of a Cain campaign: “If Cain does well in Iowa, it could upend the entire premise of the caucus process: In order to win in Iowa, candidates must spend time in the state wooing the famously coddled voters with personal appearances and vast organizations.”
• In Florida, it’s the same story. The Miami Herald: “Look no further than Florida, where die-hard Cain fans can’t find campaign staffers to contact, where prominent Republicans can’t get calls to the campaign returned and where some people describe themselves as the campaign’s Florida leaders while others say the same people are well-meaning but overzealous volunteers.”
• No candidate other than Mitt Romney — who’s spent 6 years trying to win it — is expected to do very well in New Hampshire. But Time found Cain’s a popular ghost there, too: “‘There is no sense of a tangible organization that you can point to,’ says Rich Killion, an uncommitted GOP strategist in New Hampshire, who’s unsure of the location of Cain’s Granite State base of operations, or even if there is one. ‘If you said, ‘Rich, tell me who is running the effort here?’ I could not even give you that person.’”
Even the new guy Cain hired to run Iowa, which is probably a must-win for him, is telling reporters there’s a long way to go before Cain’s got a ground operation in the complicated caucus state.
From Politico over the weekend:
“This is the most grass-roots presidential campaign I’ve ever been involved with. The work gets done more by volunteers than paid staff, and that’s impressive,” said [new Cain Iowa chair Steve] Grubbs, a veteran of the state’s Bob Dole and Steve Forbes campaigns who signed on Thursday. “Having said that, I think that having my experience will bring some needed organization to the effort. I wouldn’t say that this effort would ever be professionalized.”
For his part, Cain told Politico, “We may not have as big of a campaign as anybody else, but I certainly consider our campaign to be professional because of the quality of the people that I brought in.”
So — what’s this all mean? Cain’s continued lack of a robust campaign operation makes his time at the top of the polls perhaps the most doomed of any of the GOP frontrunners so far: it seems clear from all polling and anecdotal evidence watching Cain’s speeches on the ground that the support for his candidacy is there among the GOP. But if Cain can’t put that rubber on the road via the hard, boring but up-to-now essential work of field campaigning, those poll numbers probably won’t matter very much.
Evan McMorris-Santoro Evan McMorris-Santoro has covered politics for TPM since 2009. Before that, he was a reporter at National Journal’s Hotline covering election 2008. He started his career covering local politics at newspapers in TN and his native NC. ||||| Herman Cain is at the top of national and early state presidential primary polls, and yet it’s hard to find political professionals who see him going the distance.
Why? Look no further than Florida, where die-hard Cain fans can’t find campaign staffers to contact, where prominent Republicans can’t get calls to the campaign returned and where some people describe themselves as the campaign’s Florida leaders while others say the same people are well-meaning but overzealous volunteers.
“I see absolutely nothing from them in Florida,” said Gainesville-based Republican consultant Alex Patton, recounting two prominent Republican activist friends who struggled to get campaign calls returned. “It’s very hard for me to get behind that guy because I don’t take him seriously. I don’t care what the polls show and what the focus groups show. It’s got to translate into fundraising, and it’s got to translate into structure, and I don’t see either.”
Cain allies say some top-tier political professionals are poised to join the skeletal Cain operation in Florida within days. By some accounts that can’t happen soon enough if the former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive is to capitalize on his momentum with only 10 weeks before absentee voting starts in Florida.
“It’s not happening as fast as I’d like to see it but with how quickly this (surge) happened, I think they’re doing the best they can,’’ said state Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, one of a half a dozen state legislators backing Cain. “Given the choice of having a campaign apparatus and a candidate that doesn’t have the support or does not inspire the base, or having a candidate without a campaign apparatus and who has the support and inspires the base, I’ll take the latter.”
Florida Republicans launched Cain, 65, from third-tier contender to leading contender when they overwhelmingly elected him their favored candidate in the Presidency 5 straw poll mock election less than five weeks ago. The upset win vaulted Cain from the single digits to neck and neck with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
The average of national polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.com shows Romney with 25 percent support, Cain with 24 percent, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a distant third at 13 percent. Florida polls tell the same story.
An InsiderAdvantage poll this week found Cain in one month had risen from 6 percent support among Florida Republicans to 30 percent, just behind Romney. An NBC/Marist poll released Wednesday showed Cain with 32 percent support among likely GOP voters in Florida, Romney with 31 percent and everyone else in single digits.
Cain’s personal charm, his successful business career outside of politics and his audacious “9-9-9” plan to overhaul the tax system have fueled his sudden rise in popularity, but personal appeal only goes so far in a presidential campaign. Winning crucial early contests like Iowa and New Hampshire requires strong organization to mobilize voters and, especially in a massive state like Florida, money is critical.
Through September, Cain had $1.3 million on hand, compared to $14.6 million for Romney and $15 million for Perry.
Republican consultant Sarah Rumpf of Orlando, who has been helping Cain in Florida as a volunteer, said Cain is not playing by the traditional campaign model of hiring legions of consultants and hitting every coffee shop in Iowa and New Hampshire. Social networking and his overall outsider appeal helps make up for what Cain lacks in campaign staff.
“People are searching out the information on their own, and there are a lot of volunteers who have self organized,’’ she said, likening Cain’s rise to that of the tea party movement. “I am seeing a lot of the same people and messaging happen organically with Herman Cain.”
Still, Cain has been on the defensive lately — facing questions about his anemic campaign operation and for recently embarking on a book tour in non-early voting states like Tennessee and Texas.
And it’s clear that the campaign was not prepared to handle the surge in interest and enthusiasm in Cain and is now fast trying to catch up.
In Florida, a group of Cain supporters under the banner of Florida4Cain recently sent party leaders and reporters a list of Cain’s top Florida campaign directors, for instance, though other Cain supporters insist the group has no formal leadership role.
“I can’t talk to you,’’ Florida4Cain state director Lou “Typhoon Lou” Marin, said Wednesday before hanging up on a reporter.
Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon, explaining that he can’t keep up with the flood of media calls and e-mails, identified one paid staffer in Florida — Suzanne Moore of Tampa Bay .
“We intend to be in Florida a lot,” said Gordon, referring a reporter to Moore for more information about the Florida effort. She declined to comment.
Adam Smith can be reached at [email protected]. ||||| IOWA CITY, Iowa – Herman Cain, on his first trip to Iowa since he placed fifth in the August Ames straw poll, was thronged by well-wishers Saturday as he waded through crowds here at the University of Iowa’s Kinnick Stadium.
But there was no one in Cain’s small entourage taking names and phone numbers, or even distributing Cain stickers or literature. Nor were there any local reporters to meet the Georgia businessman when he arrived at a mall parking lot and rode the Hawkeye Express train to the sold-out football stadium. When he hobnobbed with the school’s high-dollar boosters in the club level, Cain’s handlers seemed surprised when Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, upstairs in the press box, sent down an invite for him to come for a meeting.
Text Size -
+
reset POLITICO 44
Despite his position atop the national polls and unexpected new millions in the bank, Cain still has a long way to go to turn his campaign into a professional operation capable of translating his surge into votes.
Even his newly-hired Iowa chairman, Steve Grubbs, admits as much.
“This is the most grass-roots presidential campaign I’ve ever been involved with. The work gets done more by volunteers than paid staff, and that’s impressive,” said Grubbs, a veteran of the state’s Bob Dole and Steve Forbes campaigns who signed on Thursday. “Having said that, I think that having my experience will bring some needed organization to the effort. I wouldn’t say that this effort would ever be professionalized.”
At the moment, Cain’s Iowa operation consists of four paid staffers. His Iowa traveling party Saturday consisted of an advance man who joined the campaign two weeks ago, a body man, his press aide J.D. Gordon and a new security detail.
With such a barebones operation, organization details have a habit of falling through the cracks: At the football game, Brian Harrison, a Waterloo truck dealer, approached Cain and told him he’d made offers to the campaign to host a fundraiser, but had received no reply.
Cain, however, doesn’t concede that his campaign is lacking for anything. ||||| William B. Plowman / NBC NewsWire / Getty Images Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain appears on "Meet the Press" Oct. 16, 2011 in Washington.
In early October, as Herman Cain caught fire in national polls and began to climb into the first tier of the Republican presidential race, the ex-CEO turned insurgent candidate puzzled political observers by diverting his campaign to promote a book entitled This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House. Cain’s critics alleged that his publicity tour wasn’t really about selling the idea of a Cain Presidency to voters, but rather peddling motivational pamphlets–“Leadership Requires Leadership” is available for $5 at “The Herminator Experience” website—and inflating the value of his services on the speaking circuit.
A series of interviews with key party figures may lend further credence to this charge. Well-connected GOP operatives in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina say they see little or no evidence of Cain’s campaign in those key early primary states, and some are even unable to name who is leading his localized efforts just a little more than two months before voters are expected to cast the first ballots.
“There is no sense of a tangible organization that you can point to,” says Rich Killion, an uncommitted GOP strategist in New Hampshire, who’s unsure of the location of Cain’s Granite State base of operations, or even if there is one. “If you said, �?Rich, tell me who is running the effort here?’ I could not even give you that person.” Matt Murphy, Cain’s original state director, resigned in June.
“There is good will towards him, but there is almost no organization to speak of,” says Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. “If there is a local group who wanted to invite him to speak, it is unclear whom to call. I gather that they are adding staff and ramping up, but the primary is in two and a half months.”
A prominent Republican operative in Florida says the Cain campaign is similarly invisible in his state. “If somebody called here and asked to volunteer for Cain, I would not know whom to talk to,” he says. Cain won a major Florida straw poll in late September, but he’s been largely absent ever since. “He came and worked the crowd. He got a few state reps. to endorse him” and then he left, the operative says. “It boggles the mind. I don’t know any of the usual suspects who have been called, asked or much less hired. There is no grassroots. The guys in key counties, none of them are getting talked to.”
“We see nothing to resemble a real campaign,” says another GOP operative, who is based in South Carolina and knows of only one Cain staffer there. According to him, both of South Carolina’s U.S. Senators and one member of its House delegation sought assistance with reaching out to Cain, but the strategist said he’s been unable to get the campaign to respond.
None of the GOP strategists interviewed by TIME have endorsed any of Cain’s opponents, but most requested anonymity to avoid conflict with the surging candidate’s campaign.
Cain has established a limited presence in select states. Campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon says Cain has hired more than 40 staffers overall, including former Iowa GOP Chairman Steve Grubbs to spearhead his efforts in the Hawkeye State. In Nevada, one in-the-know Republican says he has seen a vigorous volunteer effort to identify and motivate potential Cain voters all over the state.
Even so, Cain’s campaign appears infinitesimal compared with those of his top rivals. Killion describes a “seismic difference” between Cain’s New Hampshire operation and Mitt Romney’s Manchester outfit, which is staffed with relatively well-known state co-chairs, advisers and directors.
Scott Plakon, one of the Florida state reps. who endorsed Cain just before his straw poll victory, argues that the former CEO shouldn’t be judged on logistics. “Given the choice between an uninspiring candidate with an organized campaign and an inspiring candidate with a less-organized campaign, I’ll take the latter,” he says. Like other Cain supporters, Plakon also predicts that an announcement of a beefier organization in his state is right around the corner.
But time is short. Cain’s place atop the national polls may not translate into votes in parochial early state precincts if he’s unable to establish himself in the next few months. “If you are not going to campaign in the early primary states,” says the South Carolina operative, “where are you going to campaign?” And if nothing changes, he muses, “Is it a campaign or is it a book tour?” ||||| Photograph by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images.
DES MOINES—Herman Cain has captured lightning in a bottle. That's the political cliché for the blast of popularity he's experiencing. But in Iowa, a state that has traditionally rewarded well-organized campaigns, the question is whether Cain is all lightning and no bottle. His supporters and political consultants are trying to get him to spend time and energy in the state, but he has a different plan.
John Dickerson John Dickerson is a Slate political columnist, the moderator of CBS’s Face the Nation, and author of On Her Trail. Read his series on the presidency and on risk.
“He really doesn't have much of an organization,” says Jeffrey Jorgensen, the chairman of the Pottawattamie County Republican Party who supports Cain and calls him the “Anti-Obama.” “Since Ames, he has disappeared and has not been back.” Jorgensen says he’s been having conversations with the campaign "to get Herman back here, but for whatever reason he hasn't been back."
Advertisement
If Cain does well in Iowa, it could upend the entire premise of the caucus process: In order to win in Iowa, candidates must spend time in the state wooing the famously coddled voters with personal appearances and vast organizations.
There is a lot of head-scratching going on among the Republican political class over Cain’s reluctance to come pick up the support that appears to be his for the taking. He is very popular in the state, a finding confirmed by a University of Iowa poll that shows him with 37 percent support, 10 points ahead of Romney. Doing well in Iowa would offer a strong kickoff for his campaign against his better-funded rivals Romney and Rick Perry. The win would bring in money and give him momentum to compete with Romney in New Hampshire and Perry in South Carolina, states where each has advantages.
“He’s on a book tour more than a campaign tour,” says Dale Bjorkman, a retired Gateway computer employee, who attended a Romney event Thursday but said he was still considering Cain and Gingrich. Mac McDonald, the chairman of the Black Hawk County Republican Party, one of the largest counties in the state, says he has scheduled three events for Cain over the last few months. Each one has been canceled. “Something’s always come up,” he says. “We quit advertising that he’s going to be there.” MacDonald says he hasn’t heard from the campaign for two months.
Cain has been to Iowa 33 times, according to his campaign, which has four staffers in a suite of offices in Des Moines. Voters who have seen him gush about it. But Cain doesn’t seem to be planning to pick up the pace now that his moment has arrived. Cain hasn’t been back in the state since the Ames straw poll in August. He visits this weekend to attend the Iowa and Iowa State football games, and he will speak Saturday at a forum held by the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition. But he is leaving the next day. According to his Iowa staff, his next trip to the state is scheduled for mid-November. After that, he has a visit planned for December, and, says Lisa Lockwood, his Iowa communications director, “I would anticipate he might make a showing here on caucus day.”
Advertisement
This is not the way it’s traditionally done. Candidates usually blanket the state. Some boast about visiting all 99 counties. Rick Santorum has been to more than 70 counties so far this year in 60 visits. Iowans assume Cain will follow this model. “He will come back and camp himself out here,” said Steve Armstrong, Chairman of the Linn County Republican Party. The time-consuming work is necessary, the theory goes, because Iowa voters are particularly discerning and because a caucus requires a more concerted effort to mobilize voters. Voters don’t just show up to flip a lever. They listen to hours of speeches from representatives of each candidate before they can record their preference. This requires a higher level of commitment, which campaigns usually stoke with careful cajoling.
“He’s running for president of the United States, not the president of Iowa,” says Lockwood, who is amiable even by Iowa standards. She says the campaign has been organizing in the key Republican areas and spreading the word through social media. The campaign isn’t likely to launch a big wave of commercials. The operation “is very lean. He is a business man. He doesn’t spend what he doesn’t have.”
In the end, says Lockwood, “I would be a little surprised if we don’t bring in a caucus win.” She bases that on the enthusiasm she’s seen from Iowa voters. One person saw her at Wal-Mart shopping in a Cain T-shirt and asked to volunteer. “It’s just a yay-positive spiral upward,” she says, describing the power of Cain’s appeal to the simple. “He has ‘kid logic’ that can’t be argued with. The example I use is my daughter. She was rinsing off her feet in the water in Florida, and I said, ‘You’re getting your pants wet.’ She looked at me and said ‘That’s what water does, Mom.’ That was so Herman Cain-esque.”
Organizations aren’t simply necessary to shuttle voters to the caucuses. They help put out brush fires, too. Cain recently caused himself a problem on the issue of abortion. When asked about his belief that abortion should not be legal even in the case of rape or incest, he said that in the case of rape, ultimately the decision was a personal one. Santorum, who is something of a town crier when it comes to responding first to his opponent’s mistakes said the stance was “the quintessential pro-choice position on abortion.” Cain has since clarified his position, but the Susan B. Anthony list, a group of conservative women who oppose abortion rights, blasted him in an email.
Cain also had to walk back his claim that he would release prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for U.S. hostages. One former staffer says that these examples show that Cain will talk himself out of his positions if you give him enough time. And Cain has also emphasized the details of his 9-9-9 tax plan to respond to criticism: In Detroit Friday highlighting “empowerment zones” where taxes would be lower, he said in certain instances it would be a “9-0-9 plan.” | Herman Cain has got himself a pretty unconventional presidential campaign—in that it doesn’t appear to exist. Talking Points Memo has noticed a steady stream of reports noting Cain’s astonishingly scant ground presence in all the early voting states. “There is no sense of a tangible organization that you can point to,” New Hampshire GOP strategist Rich Killion tells Time. “If you said, ‘Rich, tell me who is running the effort here?’ I could not even give you that person.” Operatives elsewhere sang similar tunes. “Is it a campaign, or is it a book tour?” one South Carolina operative asked. In Florida, the Miami Herald says that even prominent Republicans can’t get Cain’s skeleton staff to return their calls, and aren’t sure who’s in charge. In Iowa, Cain has an office with four staffers, but he's not campaigning hard there, supporters tell John Dickerson of Slate—one county chair complains that Cain has thrice bailed on scheduled appearances. Cain’s newly-hired Iowa chair tells Politico that he’s trying to “bring some much-needed organization" to a very grass-roots operation, but added, “I wouldn’t say that this effort would ever be professionalized.” |
The possibility that a new black independent film movement — or even a genuinely crossover cinema — would emerge in the wake of “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” now seems as remote as it did before this art-house phenomenon made its way, assisted by Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry, from the Sundance Film Festival to the Oscars. But while Ms. Winfrey and Mr. Perry, as executive producers, brought attention to this story of an abused black teenage girl, “Precious” now looks more like a one-off than a harbinger of change, much like another of last year’s nominees, “The Princess and the Frog,” the first Disney movie with a black princess. (The latest Disney princess, Rapunzel in “Tangled,” is as blond as Sleeping Beauty back in 1959.)
What happened? Is 2010 an exception to a general rule of growing diversity? Or has Hollywood, a supposed bastion of liberalism so eager in 2008 to help Mr. Obama make it to the White House, slid back into its old, timid ways? Can it be that the president’s status as the most visible and powerful African-American man in the world has inaugurated a new era of racial confusion — or perhaps a crisis in representation? Mr. Obama’s complex, seemingly contradictory identity as both a man (black, white, mixed) and a politician (right, left, center) have inspired puzzlement among his supporters who want him to be one thing and detractors who fear that he might be something else.
In their modest way American movies helped pave the way for the Obama presidency by popularizing and normalizing positive images of black masculinity. Actors like Mr. Poitier and Harry Belafonte made the leap, allowing black men to move beyond porters and pimps to play detectives, judges, the guy next door, the God upstairs and the decider in the Oval Office. At the same time, while the variety of roles increased, the commercially circumscribed representational conservatism of American cinema — with its genre prerogatives and appetite for uplift, its insistence on archetypes and stereotypes, villains and heroes — meant that these images tended to fit rather than break or bend the mold. Certainly this isn’t a cinema that jibes with what, in his 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father,” Mr. Obama called “the fluid state of identity.”
Photo
The recognition of that fluidity, and the exploitation of it for creative and commercial ends, has, from the swing era through hip-hop, been much more the province of America’s popular music than its movies. Partly because movies remain a top-down, capital-intensive art form, they have been more cautious and apt to cater to rather than to subvert the perceived prejudices of the audience. In Hollywood race has often been a social problem to be earnestly addressed (and then set aside), or a marketing challenge. In the 1960s the studios congratulated themselves for making sober, correct-thinking dramas that often starred Mr. Poitier in films like “In the Heat of the Night” and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” both released in 1967 and which together reaped 17 Oscar nominations.
A few years later, when a new generation of actors and filmmakers emerged from the rubble of the old studio system, Mr. Poitier was no longer alone as African-Americans began to appear on screen and behind the camera to an unprecedented extent. Faces and voices that had once been found only in “race movies” or art-house films by the likes of Shirley Clarke (“The Cool World”) filtered into the mainstream. There were blaxploitation hits like “Shaft,” as well as crossover dramas (“Sounder”) and popular comedies, including the trilogy “Uptown Saturday Night,” “Let’s Do It Again” and “A Piece of the Action,” directed by Mr. Poitier and starring him and Bill Cosby. The independent world saw the emergence of off-Hollywood directors like Charles Burnett, Haile Gerima, Billy Woodberry and Julie Dash.
Race in American cinema has rarely been a matter of simple step-by-step progress. It has more often proceeded in fits and starts, with backlashes coming on the heels of breakthroughs, and periods of intense argument followed by uncomfortable silence. To that end, the 1980s were, with a few exceptions — or maybe just the exception of Eddie Murphy in “48 Hours,” Trading Places” and “Beverly Hills Cop” — marked as much by racial retrenchment as by the consolidation of the blockbuster mentality. More hopefully, the end of that decade ushered in a new generation of do-it-yourself black filmmakers, most famously and outspokenly Spike Lee, who tried to beat the system and then joined it.
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.
Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lee and the African-American stars who ascended in the 1990s and the decade that followed — notably Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Jamie Foxx and of course Mr. Washington — often had to shoulder the burden of representing their race even as they pursued their individual ambitions. For the most part, these stars rode to the top of the box office in stories that did not engage or address race, while the films that did take the subject on more directly — like “Ali” and “Dreamgirls” — often did so at a historical safe distance. It was almost as if, with the ascendancy of individual black movie stars, Hollywood no longer felt the need to tell stories about black people as a group.
This retreat from race by the big studios partly explains the emergence of a newly separate black cinema with its own stars (Morris Chestnut, Vivica A. Fox), auteurs (Ice Cube, Tyler Perry) and genres (including tales of buppie courtship like “Two Can Play That Game” and of neighborhood striving like the “Barbershop” franchise). Emerging from outside the mainstream and indie world, the prolific Mr. Perry has become one of the most successful directors and producers of any color. Last year he directed a much-maligned adaptation of Ntozake Shange’s “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf.” Some complained that Mr. Perry had bowdlerized that’s famous feminist work, but he had made it his own, complete with melodramatic flourishes and divas like Janet Jackson.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Mr. Lee has been among Mr. Perry’s critics. “We’ve got a black president, and we’re going back,” Mr. Lee said in 2009. “The image is troubling, and it harkens back to Amos ’n’ Andy.” The philosopher Cornel West has been more charitable (“Brother Tyler can mature”) and last year he put a larger frame around the issue of race and the movies in America, noting that with “all the richness in black life right now,” that “the only thing Hollywood gives us is black pathology. Look at the Oscars. Even ‘Precious,’ with my dear sister Mo’Nique, what is it? Rape, violation, the marginalized. Or else you get white missionary attitudes toward black folk. ‘The Blind Side?’ Oh my God! In 2010? I respect Sandra Bullock’s work, but that is not art.”
“The Blind Side” might not have been art, but along with three other best picture nominees — “Precious,” “District 9” and “Avatar” — it did take on questions of black and white relations. At the center of “The Hurt Locker,” which won best picture, was the volatile friendship between two soldiers, a hot-headed white bomb-disposal specialist played by Jeremy Renner and his cautious black sergeant, played by Anthony Mackie. Race in that movie was not a theme or a problem to be solved, but rather a subtle, complex fact of life. These nominees suggested a range of approaches to a volatile subject, from allegory to melodrama to various kinds of realism.
Did filmmakers somehow exhaust the subject? Or has the cultural ground shifted and, with the economic crisis, made other kinds of stories feel more urgent? While it might be a stretch to yoke together the differently privileged milieus of “The King’s Speech,” “The Kids Are All Right” and “The Social Network,” it is hard to escape the impression that class made something of a comeback in 2010. “The Fighter” relates the story of working-class, boxing brothers from a former Massachusetts mill town. Set in the Ozarks, “Winter’s Bone” involves the violent, clannish world of crystal meth producers whose grandfathers likely ran moonshine. “The Town,” which brought Mr. Renner his second nomination in two years, depicts a similar milieu, but with Boston bank robbers.
So is class the new race? It may be tempting to think so, given the state of the economy and the political discourse, but the two have never really stood apart in American life. And the racial complexity of American life seems, at least at the moment, to have stymied the collective imagination of the movie industry. Perhaps this next year will bring more change we can believe in. For now, though, looking down the roster of the most popular movies released in 2010, only one seems capable of acknowledging, and making a story of the perfectly ordinary reality of a black man with a blue-collar job. That was Tony Scott’s “Unstoppable,” starring none other than Denzel Washington. The rest of Hollywood, it seems, will always be chasing him. ||||| Whoopi Goldberg Misfires in Attack on Article About Black Oscar Winners
Email This Whoopi Goldberg used her bully pulpit on 'The View' on Monday to blast The New York Times and two of its marquee writers for what she believed was a
"When you win an Academy Award, that's part of what you've done, your legacy. I will always be Academy Award winner Whoopi Goldberg," she said during her lengthy rant, referring to her best supporting actress win for 'Ghost.' "This is not hidden information. And to these two critics, the head critics of The New York Times. It's hard to not take it personally." Whoopi Goldberg used her bully pulpit on 'The View' on Monday to blast The New York Times and two of its marquee writers for what she believed was a disrespectful article about race and the Academy Awards. "I'm embarrassed to tell you it hurt me terribly," the actress said in a segment focusing on a piece written by Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott that listed several black Oscar winners dating back to 1940, but didn't include Goldberg."When you win an Academy Award, that's part of what you've done, your legacy. I will always be Academy Award winner Whoopi Goldberg," she said during her lengthy rant, referring to her best supporting actress win for 'Ghost.' "This is not hidden information. And to these two critics, the head critics of The New York Times. It's hard to not take it personally."
"Real change seemed to have come to movies or at least the Academy, which had given statuettes to a total of seven black actors in the previous 73 years."
"The error lies with those who are reading the story incorrectly. The point of the piece was not to name every black actor or actress who has been awarded an Oscar, it was to draw a comparison between the number who won prior to 2002 (the year Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won) and those who have won since. And the story states very clearly that in 73 years, prior to 2002, only seven black actors/actresses won Oscars."
The article, titled 'Hollywood's Whiteout,' apparently riled Goldberg up because it seemed to list all of the black Americans who have won an Oscar. A closer look, however, proved otherwise. The authors write that nine years ago, when Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won their historic Oscars:The article then notes that after Washington and Berry came a string of Oscar wins for Jamie Foxx, Forest Whitaker, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Hudson and Mo'Nique.It was presumably this passage, along with mentions of Sidney Poitier and Hattie McDaniel, that caused Goldberg to believe she had been forgotten. "People in Somalia know. People in China know," she said on 'The View.' "I know it's hard to believe, but I'm a worldwide person who's known."But if a correction is what she desires, Goldberg will be waiting a very, very long time.reached out to the Times, and a source at the newspaper clarified that Goldberg won her Oscar for 1990's 'Ghost,' more than a decade before the time period that the authors were focusing on. In the article, Dargis and Scott were discussing race and the cinematic representation of people of color since 2002, when Berry and Washington were triumphant.Later on Monday, the Times released a statement that tweaks Goldberg without naming her:Also not mentioned in the article were Louis Gossett, Jr. (1982) and Cuba Gooding, Jr. (1996).This year's Oscars have raised ire because there are no persons of color nominated in the acting categories.Goldberg has not responded to requests to clarify her comments on 'The View,' which included some pretty pointed attacks on the journalists and the newspaper."I don't know what to say about what you've done. It's just, well, I can say, is that you're sloppy in your work and you're supposed to be better than this," she said. "This is The New York Times, not some bozo newspaper from Hoochi-Coochie land. This is The New York Times. I just, you know, it hurts."► Read the New York Times article here. ||||| As many have pointed out, there are zero black acting nominees for the Oscars this year. The New York Times did an article on the subject entitled “Hollywood’s Whiteout”, in which they discussed the very small amount of winners over the years. They listed every one most…except for Whoopi Goldberg. And don’t think she didn’t notice. On today’s View, Goldberg lashed out at the Times for its “sloppy journalism” going so far as to bring her Oscar to the set to prove that, yes, it does exist.
After Barbara Walters mentioned the apparent snub and asked how she felt, Goldberg said it “hurt [her] terribly,” while admitting that she was “embarrassed” for feeling that way. However, it was clear just how stung she was.
“It’s hard to not take it personally. It’s very hard not to take it personally. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that people say and do but this is sloppy journalism because this is not a hidden thing. Everybody kind of knows. People in Somalia know, people in China know, because I, I know it’s hard to believe, because I am a world-wide person whose known. Because there wasn’t anyone like me and it was 70 years between Hattie McDaniel, the first black woman to win, and me. So this omission, I don’t know what to say, there’s nothing I can say except you’re sloppy in your work and you’re supposed to be better than this. This is the New York Times. It’s not some bozo paper from Hoochie-Coochie Land.”
It would be easy to look quickly and condemn Goldberg as just another actress diva, however, it should be noted that she is only one of thirteen black actors to win the award, something that she clearly counts as one of the biggest moments of her life. You’d think there’d be some room to mention number four in an article of more than 2,000 words.
Still, there’s no reason to be angry at the Times. And there’s no reason to be angry at Goldberg. Who we should be angry at is Hollywood. Thirteen? Only thirteen? Seriously?
(h/t TMZ)
UPDATE: This post originally stated that the Times article listed every winner except Goldberg. This isn’t true as they also didn’t mention Louis Gossett, Jr.. I should have been clearer that the original article never claimed to list every black winner, just those in recent years. However, I still understand why Goldberg was hurt. Like I said, though, the real anger shouldn’t be directed at the Times or the actress. The real problem is that there are so few black winners that any one of them has legitimate reason to feel left out when not mentioned.
Check out the clip from The View below: | Whoopi Goldberg has lashed out at the New York Times for an article on how no black actors are being considered for Academy Awards this year. While Goldberg can sympathize with the article's main thrust, it's the fact that the authors—movie critics AO Scott and Manohla Dargis—seem to list every black Academy Award winner except her, Mediaite reports. Goldberg took her grievances—and her actual Oscar—to the View. "It’s hard to not take it personally. It’s very hard not to take it personally. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that people say and do but this is sloppy journalism because this is not a hidden thing. Everybody kind of knows. People in Somalia know, people in China know, because I, I know it’s hard to believe, because I am a world-wide person who's known," Goldberg said. Yet PopEater did some digging, and even contacted the Times, which noted that the list was not supposed to be comprehensive, and focused on race in cinema since 2002—12 years after Goldberg won her honors for 1990's Ghost. Fellow black '90s winners Louis Gossett Jr and Cuba Gooding Jr were also excluded, yet have remained silent on the issue. |
NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to undertake civilian research, development, and flight activities in aeronautics and space. Since its creation, the agency has achieved significant scientific and technical accomplishments in carrying out its mission. The agency depends heavily upon IT—hardware, software, and telecommunications—to support its programs and administrative operations at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at its 10 field centers and associated facilities across the United States. In late 1995, the agency had a workforce of approximately 21,000 civil servants and 190,000 contract employees. As an IT-dependent organization, NASA is also one of the federal government’s top IT investors. NASA estimates that it spent about $1.6 billion of its total appropriation of approximately $14 billion in fiscal year 1995 on information technology. From 1994 to 1995, the agency’s IT program ranked as the sixth largest in the United States government, after the Departments of Defense, Energy, Transportation, the Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In 1993, the agency ranked third, after Defense and Health and Human Services. NASA has been criticized in the past for its IRM practices. Reviews by GAO, the NASA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and NASA itself have identified various problems, including a lack of strong leadership, authority, and oversight; fragmented and overlapping responsibilities; redundant operations; unintegrated planning and budgeting processes; poorly managed systems development efforts; nonstandard and obsolescent systems; and multiple communications networks. Many of the problems cited in previous reviews derive from the lack of IRM leadership and authority. In a study leading to establishment of its CIO, the agency acknowledged that “the lack of focus and leadership at NASA headquarters, the lack of a common stimulus for vision and direction in IT, elements, at all levels of NASA, to evolve independently of each other.” For example: In 1995, NASA’s OIG reported that neither NASA headquarters nor any of its centers had complete inventories of information systems for which they were responsible. This led to managers spending limited resources to purchase or develop information systems which were already available elsewhere within the agency. In an internal 1993 report, NASA found that its IRM decision-making and planning were not being undertaken in a deliberate manner. IRM responsibilities were found to be fragmented, duplicative, and lacking adequate oversight. In addition, offices and managers accountable for IRM responsibilities often lacked either enforcement authority, resources, or both.In 1992, we reported that NASA’s decentralized program management structure, including a lack of management controls, inadequate software standards, and the use of different software tool sets in different locations, increased the agency’s costs and risks in developing critical space station software.In 1990, we reported that NASA had allowed its culture of autonomy and decentralization to dictate its approach to managing its administrative information systems, and, as a result, the agency could not ensure that the systems were being operated in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. In the currently constrained budget environment, and amid efforts to increase the economy and efficiency of government operations, NASA has increasingly been called upon to correct such management weaknesses, streamline operations, and reduce costs. The administration has proposed that the agency’s budget, which was estimated at $13.8 billion in fiscal year 1996, be reduced by $4 billion for fiscal years 1997 to 2000. To meet such a cut, the agency has undertaken a series of internal assessments to determine what support functions, parts of the “infrastructure,” can be consolidated or otherwise streamlined across NASA centers to achieve the necessary savings. The agency has adopted a strategy of attempting to minimize reductions to its major space and aeronautics programs by taking the deepest cuts in support functions. As one such support item, the approximately $1.6 billion NASA annually spends on IT has been targeted for reduction. Specifically, NASA plans to reduce IT budgets for fiscal years 1997 through 2000 by about $400 million. NASA appointed its first CIO in February 1995 to meet both the documented need for greater central leadership and authority in the IRM area, and the increasing pressure to streamline IT activities in order to save scarce resources. Recent reports, official policy guidance, and legislative acts identify CIOs as critical to ensuring agencywide commitment to and successful implementation of IRM improvement initiatives. Specifically, our Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994), which was based on case studies of 10 leading organizations, outlines 11 fundamental IRM “best practices,” including establishing a CIO and ensuring agencywide commitment to and involvement in new processes for improved IRM. Our report noted that it is crucial to implement all of the practices as an integrated group. Implementing only some of the practices but not others could leave weaknesses in an organization’s IRM activities and hinder the potential for obtaining significant benefits through the application of information resources. Further, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Evaluating Information Technology Investments: A Practical Guide, published in November 1995, provides a systematic approach to managing the risks and returns of IT investments. Finally, the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (ITMRA), effective August 8, 1996, requires that each federal department and agency appoint a CIO with responsibility for providing information and advice to senior officials on IRM issues. ITMRA also identifies the operative principles for establishing a supporting management framework to improve the planning and control of information technology investments. In April 1996, OMB issued preliminary guidance to clarify CIO responsibilities under ITMRA. This act amends the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires a number of IRM practices to improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of government operations. Together, the two laws, the OMB guidance, and our Executive Guide identify a number of characteristics that are key to effective management of agencywide information resources. For example: (1) An agency should place its CIO at a senior management level, making the CIO an equal partner with other senior officials in decision-making with regard to IRM issues, and supporting the position with an effective organizational framework for leading agencywide IRM initiatives. Specifically, agencies should appoint a CIO with expertise and practical experience in information and position the CIO as a senior management partner reporting directly to the agency head; ensure that the CIO is primarily responsible for IRM activities; task the CIO to serve as a bridge between top management, line management, and information management support professionals; establish a deputy CIO at the agency level and assign other CIOs as necessary in major organizational subcomponents to represent their IRM interests; and develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development of personnel to achieve a highly qualified IRM workforce. (2) The CIO should be supported with effective management controls, including a sound and integrated information technology architecture to provide a framework for evolving or maintaining existing information technology and for acquiring new information technology to achieve the agency’s strategic and IRM goals; an inventory of all agency information resources to facilitate management of these resources and support decision-making concerning additional investments; management systems and procedures to ensure, in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), a full and accurate account of information technology resources and related expenses; appropriate IRM policies, guidelines, and standards and a means of ensuring agencywide compliance with and effective implementation of them; and a means of assessing and upgrading the skills of all agency personnel with regard to IRM. (3) The CIO should be responsible for working with other agency officials to ensure the effective acquisition and management of information resources to support agency programs and missions. This includes promoting effective agency operations by implementing budget-linked capital planning for information technology investments to support the agency’s strategic plan; actively participating with other agency managers in IT planning, budgeting, and investment decision-making; promoting improvements in agency administrative and mission-related work processes before making significant IT investments; developing performance indicators to measure the extent to which information resource investments support agency programs and missions; and monitoring the performance of agency IT programs, evaluating them on the basis of applicable performance measures, and advising the agency head regarding whether to continue, modify, or terminate individual programs or projects. While the CIO is to play an active role in managing and overseeing IT investments, it is the agency head’s responsibility under the Paperwork Reduction Act and ITMRA to establish an agencywide process and framework within which such IT management and oversight is conducted. In our view, this involves the creation of a high-level forum or board composed of the CIO, the CFO, and senior line managers, with responsibility for selecting, controlling, and evaluating information technology investments against established criteria. Since it is unrealistic to expect that this agencywide board would review all IT investments across the organization, the agency head should establish criteria or thresholds for designating which investments could be delegated to the subcomponent level for approval. The agency may want to consider establishing investment boards within the major subcomponents similar to the agencywide board to further facilitate investment management and decision-making. While recognizing the need for a CIO to address long-standing IRM problems and to promote streamlining of IRM functions, NASA has been reluctant to limit the authority of its field centers and program offices to make independent decisions about how best to use information technology to carry out their space and aeronautics missions. Accordingly, NASA made compromises in setting the CIO’s power and authority. On the one hand, the CIO was given senior status and supported by a management framework for carrying out IRM policies and initiatives. On the other hand, the agency set specific limitations on the CIO’s authority over field center activities. CIO responsibilities and accomplishments within the established management framework, as well as the limitations on his power and authority, are discussed in detail below. In February 1995, the NASA Administrator instituted the CIO position as an executive-level manager within his office. IRM is the primary responsibility of the CIO, who reports directly to the Administrator on information and technology management issues, initiatives, and progress. Unlike the predecessor Designated Senior Official for IRM, the CIO is a peer of the Chief Scientist and the Chief Engineer and is positioned above the center Directors and Associate Administrators—heads of the various NASA field and headquarters offices—to promote leadership and authority for agencywide IRM. (See figure 1 for a chart illustrating the CIO’s organizational placement.) By establishing the CIO at a senior level, NASA effectively met one of the major requirements of the CIO guidance discussed above. The CIO’s specific responsibilities include developing a high-level approach to planning and managing IT investments to support mission priorities; providing broad oversight of information systems and processes across the agency; leading in planning and coordinating the acquisition of information resources to carry out cross-functional programs; establishing and monitoring agencywide use of general information technology policies, architectures, and standards to achieve interoperability, interconnectivity, and security in IRM; and assisting program organizations in planning and implementing their IRM activities. To support the CIO in carrying out these responsibilities, a deputy CIO, a staff of six, and 23 center-level CIOs were designated at the various headquarters offices and field centers. The CIO also chartered an Information Technology Management Steering Council (ITMSC) to coordinate IRM activities across programs and to help define information technology strategies, policies, and standards at the agency level. The ITMSC, chaired by the CIO, had oversight of a network of subboards and intercenter committees responsible for IRM activities, such as planning, technology and data management, communications networking, and security. In their comments on a draft of this report, NASA officials informed us of recent revisions to this CIO management structure. Specifically, on July 16, 1996, NASA created a CIO Council to establish high-level policies and standards, approve IRM plans, address issues and initiatives, and serve as the IT capital investment advisory group to the proposed NASA Capital Investment Council. The NASA Capital Investment Council will be chaired by the Associate Deputy Administrator and have responsibility for looking at all capital investments across NASA, including those for IT. Membership on the CIO Council includes the CFO and Associate Administrators for headquarters operations and the various program offices. The CIO, or in his absence, the Deputy CIO, will chair this group. NASA also replaced the ITMSC and its four subboards with the Information Technology Standards/Architecture Integration Council to better coordinate and integrate institutional and programmatic IT requirements and recommend IT policies, standards, practices, and procedures. “Lead centers,” designated to manage specific IRM systems and projects for agencywide benefit, will assume some responsibilities of the former subboards. The lead centers will also oversee the intercenter committees formed to coordinate IRM activities at the operational level. NASA took several steps to ensure that its program offices and field centers would retain broad flexibility in managing their own IRM activities. For example, based on recommendations of the working group chartered to formulate the CIO position, NASA made the following decisions: The 23 CIO representatives would continue to officially report through their normal chains of command and remain accountable to senior management at their own offices or centers, while working on a collaborative basis with the CIO. This created a dual reporting chain for the CIO representatives. The working group devised this approach so that the CIO representatives would remain “customer-focused,” viewing CIO standards and policies in the context of their agency programs and operations. The group also wanted to avoid creating the CIO structure as an independent management system and instead have the CIO and his representatives depend on the ITMSC and its subboards as a vehicle for coordination and cooperation with the rest of the agency. The CIO would use a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to reach agreement with each of the designated lead centers. By not establishing direct reporting links to the CIO, the head of the working group told us, NASA aimed to keep the CIO “dependent upon operational units below him for support ensure ’friendly tension’ and checks and balances” in their management relationships. This was also done to keep the CIO at a high, policy level rather than at an operational level. The CIO would not control any part of the NASA budget because he would not be responsible for funding individual systems or programs. NASA also accepted the working group’s position that the CIO did not need budget authority as a mechanism for enforcing policy and standards. As the head of the working group asserted, “once the CIO issues a policy decision, the rest of the agency is to adhere to it.” The CIO would not take part in individual program decisions and would not have responsibility for setting priorities, making trade-offs, or forming investment decisions among NASA-wide IT systems and programs. The head of the working group believed that the CIO would not be familiar with detailed program requirements and, thus, should not be involved in such decision-making. Because of these restrictions, the CIO’s responsibility was essentially limited to formulating high-level policy and managing cooperative initiatives to consolidate and achieve efficiencies among administrative and cross-cutting IRM resources. In contrast, NASA’s 10 field centers and related program offices retained responsibility for (1) deciding which IT projects to pursue, (2) developing supporting budgets, and (3) managing and overseeing implementation of IRM initiatives. The field centers were not specifically required to comply with CIO guidance. Consequently, the success of the CIO position has been dependent upon their cooperation. Despite the limitations imposed on his authority, the NASA CIO has taken some important first steps to improve IRM at NASA. One of the first areas the CIO targeted was administrative information resources used in day-to-day management of NASA operations. Initiatives in this area include instituting software and hardware standards and developing a technical architecture to achieve interoperability among administrative systems at the desktop and file server levels. As part of this initiative, the CIO called for restrictions on the acquisition of nonstandard desktop computers and related equipment. Specifically, the CIO set a NASA policy of not buying new equipment unless it is (1) necessary to replace obsolete equipment or (2) critical to fulfilling mission-related requirements. The policy also allows exceptions for renewal of existing software licenses. Other related administrative systems initiatives include projects to standardize electronic mail capability, consolidate management of work station hardware and software, and collaborate with the CFO to acquire commercial software for an integrated financial management system. A second major CIO effort has been to direct the consolidation of various larger elements of NASA’s IT infrastructure that are shared by components across the agency. In one case, this effort has led to physical consolidation of some IT equipment and facilities at a single site, while in other cases consolidation of management functions or support contracts is being planned or beginning implementation. The NASA Automated Data Processing Consolidation Center (NACC) at Marshall Space Flight Center, for example, is the site designated by the CIO for physically collocating all NASA administrative IBM and IBM-compatible mainframe systems and selected mission-related applications, such as the External Tank Computer Aided Productivity system. According to agency information, since the consolidation began, NACC has saved over $6 million by economizing on software licenses, labor, hardware maintenance, and capacity management. NASA estimates a total savings of $75 to $90 million from the NACC over the next 5 years. There are also plans underway for Ames Research Center to be the consolidated manager of supercomputers used for science and engineering purposes beginning in October 1996. Officials in charge of the project report that they expect to save about $228 million from fiscal years 1994 through 2000. Further, the CIO had some early involvement, in conjunction with the Office of Space Communications, in directing the consolidation of the management, engineering, and operations of NASA’s wide area telecommunications networks at Marshall. NASA expects this effort to save $236 million over the next 6 years. The CIO also has revised management processes to accompany these IT systems initiatives. These revisions include: integrating IRM planning and budgeting processes to coordinate data collection and reporting requirements; revising and updating IRM policy to reflect organization changes and meet simplifying IRM self-assessment procedures, with greater emphasis on continuous improvement and risk management. Standardization and consolidation efforts undertaken so far have been to some degree successful. Nevertheless, they have been slowed in some areas by a lack of consensus among the field centers that the CIO has been unable to overcome. Furthermore, there are additional opportunities for achieving efficiencies and savings among mission-related systems that the CIO has not yet pursued, principally because of his limited ability to influence the program offices and field centers that have direct responsibility for NASA’s space and aeronautics missions. As discussed above, the CIO has had some involvement in three major consolidation efforts undertaken to date: the NACC project to consolidate IBM mainframe systems at Marshall, the network consolidation effort being managed by Marshall, and the supercomputer consolidation project to be managed by Ames. While all three projects are likely to realize increased efficiencies and savings, at least two have experienced delays and other shortcomings that could have been resolved by a CIO who had greater authority and control over agencywide IT resources and activities. Regarding the NACC effort, a significant dispute developed among the field centers that prevented full implementation of the consolidation as originally planned by the CIO. In June 1995, the CIO requested that all IBM-type mainframes used for mission-related or administrative purposes be moved to the NACC at Marshall. However, Goddard Space Flight Center chose to exempt its mainframes used for mission-related purposes, such as monitoring the flight dynamics of unmanned space missions, from this consolidation. Goddard officials argued that it was unnecessary to transfer these machines because they were planning to invest in more advanced computer technology, which they could continue to manage and operate at Goddard. NACC officials at Marshall, as well as the CIO, however, believed the systems should be included in the consolidation. The dispute remained unresolved for several months. In July 1996, we were told by an NACC official at NASA Headquarters that the matter had been resolved. According to the official, NACC officials at Marshall agreed not to include mission-related systems in the NACC consolidation as originally envisioned. Thus, Goddard would be allowed to continue to independently maintain its mission-related systems. Lacking the necessary CIO authority to effectively organize this agencywide consolidation, the centers reduced the scope of the effort to include only administrative systems. Similar problems occurred in the context of NASA’s effort to consolidate wide area networks. In this case, the Office of Space Communications decided to begin consolidation by designating Marshall as the lead center and adopting Marshall’s approach to consolidation, despite proposals by Goddard and Ames Research Center that suggested that more economical approaches could be adopted. The CIO’s proposal that a competition be conducted among NASA centers to determine the best network consolidation strategy was not adopted by the Office of Space Communications. However, as we discussed in our recent report, the consolidation approach chosen by NASA may not result in the greatest possible savings. The approach also did not include all five of NASA’s wide area networks. Since our report was issued, NASA has accepted our recommendation to conduct an independent study of how best to consolidate its networks and has said that it may amend its approach, based on the study’s findings. In our opinion, a CIO with greater authority could have directed a more comprehensive approach from the outset. According to the CIO and other officials, the consolidation initiatives undertaken to date were chosen because they were relatively easy to identify and implement, and offered quick savings and improvements. These officials acknowledged, however, that there are additional opportunities for streamlining, consolidating, or standardizing mission-critical, scientific, or engineering systems. These opportunities could result in significant savings, especially given the fact that NASA spends as much as 91 percent of its IT budget on mission-related activities. Typical mission-related systems are used for project and data management, mission control, computer-aided design, and flight management. Often custom-designed or acquired to meet specific project requirements, these systems are managed on a decentralized basis. As such, little attention has been paid to issues of systems duplication or inefficiency among the various program offices and field centers. Several officials, including the former CIO, indicated that NASA has traditionally not concerned itself with the cost-effectiveness or return-on-investment potential of its mission-related systems. While no comprehensive effort has been undertaken to identify the full range of opportunities for consolidating and standardizing mission-related IT systems and their associated cost savings, based on discussions with various NASA officials, the following are examples of areas that could be streamlined: Project management, configuration management, action tracking, and other systems that are actually administrative in nature but are managed as mission-related program components. According to the former deputy CIO, such systems are often independently acquired and implemented from mission to mission, even though the need for them could be filled by shared or commercial systems. At least four types of software in use across the agency for orbit determination—a mathematical process to track past orbits and project future paths of NASA satellites. According to space operations officials, there is a clear opportunity to standardize operations in this area so that NASA does not continue to build redundant systems to meet similar requirements. Engineering tools, such as computer aided design/computer aided engineering (CAD/CAE) systems. According to the former deputy CIO, the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs are using incompatible CAD/CAE products. As a result, engineers from one program can view documents but cannot manipulate data in the other program’s engineering system. Multiple data archival and storage systems. In March 1995, the Information Systems Cross-Cutting Team recommended developing a standard approach for acquiring software used in data storage systems to promote sharing, interoperability, and cost reductions. NASA has more than 20 systems to archive and store scientific, engineering, and administrative data relative to spaceflight planning and analysis. However, improving the efficiency of data storage has not been part of the CIO’s improvement program. The recently enacted Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, which supplements the Paperwork Reduction Act, requires NASA to strengthen its CIO position. The new law’s requirements will take effect in August 1996. For example, ITMRA requires agencies to design and implement a strategic process for maximizing the value and assessing and managing the risks of IT acquisitions. As elaborated by our Executive Guide and OMB’s investment guide, a key component of this process is an investment review board to select, control, and evaluate IT investments. However, we found during the course of our audit that NASA lacked such an agencywide process and instead, as discussed above, allowed IT investment decisions to be made by individual field centers and program offices. NASA’s proposed Capital Investment Council may fill this need; however, the council has not yet been formally established. The lack of an agencywide process for overseeing investments means that NASA has no systematic means of ensuring that particular IT systems and projects do not duplicate other efforts underway and are an appropriate use of diminishing funds. Accordingly, the individual centers have developed redundant and unintegrated accounting and reporting systems and have acquired mission-related systems and tools on a project by project basis, often without considering opportunities for sharing or consolidation. ITMRA also requires that CIOs monitor the performance of existing information technology programs on the basis of applicable performance measurements and advise the agency head regarding whether to continue, modify, or terminate projects or programs. However, NASA’s CIO has no program in place to measure IRM performance. As discussed above, CIO efforts have focused on consolidating and achieving efficiencies among administrative and cross-cutting IRM resources. The CIO does not have the authority to conduct systems review and oversight. Existing processes for oversight of systems and programs are fragmented, conducted through various channels at various levels, depending upon the dollar amounts involved. For example, the Program Management Council chaired by the Deputy Administrator is in some ways a corporate investment review board for NASA. The Council is a high-level board responsible for planning, implementation, and management of major programs costing more than $200 million. However, the Council does not review all NASA programs and does not specifically review IT programs. Only a few IT projects, such as the Earth Observing System Data and Information System, may receive review at this level. Further, while information technology investments over $100 million may be reviewed at the headquarters level, NASA’s individual field centers and corresponding program offices are responsible for independently managing all IT investments below this threshold. More effective systems review and oversight, including consistent investment management processes and procedures agencywide, could help preclude past problems, such as costly, poorly managed, and high-risk software development efforts, from continuing in the future. NASA’s proposed Capital Investment Council, which is intended to supplement the Program Management Council by reviewing major capital investments, may address this concern once it is implemented. Further, the Paperwork Reduction Act requires agencies to develop and maintain complete inventories of their computer equipment. Knowing what information resources an organization has is necessary to effectively manage them, and further, is necessary to make decisions regarding the investment in additional resources. As we previously indicated, NASA’s Office of the Inspector General reported in its Survey of NASA Information Systems (JP-95-003, March 29, 1995) that the agency does not have a complete systems inventory, resulting in the unnecessary expenditure of limited resources to purchase or develop information systems already available elsewhere within the agency. NASA’s IRM Director said that his office keeps an inventory of major systems for reporting purposes, but conceded that it is incomplete. Though an automated standard tool is being put in place to generate an inventory of systems at the desktop and file server levels, NASA has no means of centrally identifying mission-related information systems, except to the extent that programs include desktop and file server equipment. NASA does not have a process for collecting and maintaining accurate information on its IT resources. No comprehensive agencywide budget for IT exists, and individual program offices compile separate IT budgets to support the mission requirements of field centers under their purview. Funding for administrative and institutional IT is spread among these individual budgets and cannot be accurately consolidated, given the nonstandard funding categories that the various program offices use. Data on funding for mission-related information technology must be extracted from budget subtotals for individual programs and projects and also is not very accurate. Existing summaries of agencywide IT investments are merely estimates derived from gathering and analyzing budget numbers submitted by the program offices for reporting purposes. Given such budget processes, there is no accurate means of keeping track of NASA IT financial resources and how they are spent. IRM officials told us, for example, that savings resulting from IRM improvement initiatives are not systematically tracked or visible to senior managers on an agencywide basis. Further, the CIO has no effective means of ensuring that agencywide IT expenditures are made in accordance with newly instituted effectiveness and efficiency goals. Specifically, the CIO requires that center representatives report to his office on their efforts to implement his policies regarding managing IT obsolescence, freezing procurements, and standardizing administrative systems across the agency. However, as previously discussed, the centers do not have adequate management processes or inventory systems in place for meeting such requirements. For example, the database of the NASA Equipment Management System that the centers would ordinarily rely upon to meet this need is out-of-date, and the information it contains is not detailed enough to fulfill CIO requirements. Instituting an effective IT resource tracking system will be an essential step toward ensuring the effectiveness of IT investments and meeting the requirements of ITMRA and related legislation. The CIO has initiated some efforts to facilitate center reporting, but it is still too soon to determine their impact. For example, the CIO said that he has a project underway to define a set of data that the centers will need to meet reporting requirements that are expected to begin this summer. The centers are also in the process of implementing a new system—Norton Administrator—to provide standard inventories of agencywide technology and facilitate the required reporting. However, this system only accounts for equipment connected to local area networks and does not address the existence of unique, standalone equipment. Further, the new CIO management structure recently established in July 1996 is designed to address other IT management issues, such as the need for an investment review mechanism and performance measures for evaluating progress in achieving agency objectives. However, it is too early at this point to assess the effectiveness of this management structure and the level of commitment afforded to it. NASA has gained some initial IRM improvements through its appointment of a CIO. By establishing a CIO Council to help select, control, and evaluate its systems investments, NASA is beginning to conform to the Paperwork Reduction Act and ITMRA and should be in a position to better manage its information resources in the future. However, as currently chartered, the CIO is limited in achieving substantial additional economies and efficiencies in IRM. Clear opportunities exist for a CIO with more authority to pursue greater consolidation and standardization of agency systems. Additional improvements, such as instituting effective mechanisms for IT inventorying and accounting, will also be critical. We recommend that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration strengthen the agency’s IT management processes by strengthening the requirement that NASA organizations abide by IRM policies, guidelines, standards, and architectures instituted by the CIO and establishing clear and consistent procedures for granting waivers and resolving conflicts. In addition, we recommend that the NASA Administrator direct the CIO to establish and maintain a complete and accurate inventory of agencywide IT resources for investment management and decision-making purposes, work with the CFO to develop the systems and procedures necessary to accurately account for all IT-related expenditures, define and implement IT performance measures in order to assess the effectiveness of the agency’s systems investments in meeting program and mission requirements, identify opportunities for greater efficiencies and cost reductions among mission-related IT resources and include these in ongoing standardization and consolidation efforts, and promote improvements in agency administrative and mission-related work processes through the increased use of IT. In its written comments on a draft of our report, NASA acknowledged that there was room for improvement in its IRM activities and stated that it generally supported the report’s recommendations and had activities underway to address all of them. Because it has these initiatives underway, NASA criticized the report as out-of-date and unjustifiably negative. Based on its comments, we have updated the information in our report as appropriate and believe that NASA’s actions may ameliorate our concerns over time. However, we do not believe that our findings are either out-of-date or invalid. Many of the initiatives cited by NASA were only recently implemented, and it is still too early to determine their effectiveness. The establishment of the new CIO Council, for example, was not made official until after NASA submitted its comments to us. However, as discussed in our more detailed evaluation of NASA’s comments, which are reprinted in appendix II, we deleted two proposals because of these recent initiatives. These proposals focused on establishing an IT investment review forum and clarifying the relationship between the CIO and the IRM office. As discussed in the report, we believe that NASA has taken some good first steps towards addressing past problems and improving IRM. We support NASA’s efforts to address our recommendations. We also believe that our findings and recommendations can provide a useful framework for measuring continued progress. We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of NASA; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Ranking Minority Member of your Subcommittee; and the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; the House Committee on Science; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. We will send copies to other interested parties upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-6240 if you have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. To accomplish our review objectives, we focused on (1) assessing the CIO’s placement, leadership, and authority for agencywide IRM, (2) evaluating the CIO’s approach to instituting standards and initiatives for more strategic and cost-effective IRM, and (3) examining processes and controls to support the CIO in managing information technology investments and identifying areas for improvement. We based our review on criteria from three sources: (1) the requirements of ITMRA, (2) guidance prepared by OMB on implementing ITMRA and evaluating IT investments, and (3) our Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994). To obtain background information on the long-standing IRM problems at NASA, we reviewed reports from the General Services Administration, the NASA Office of the Inspector General, NASA, and GAO. We also discussed these reports with OIG and NASA officials. To assess the CIO’s placement, leadership, and authority for agencywide IRM, we met with the CIO, his successor, the Deputy CIO, and other officials in their organization. From these officials, we obtained documentation on their vision for more strategic management of NASA-wide information resources. We examined organization charts, position descriptions, steering council minutes, and committee charters to learn about the newly instituted CIO management framework and to identify the agencywide IRM chain of command. We interviewed officials in the headquarters IRM office, program offices, and selected centers to learn about accountability to the CIO for information technology management. We also reviewed existing IRM plans and guidance and newly-issued CIO policy directives to determine their breadth of coverage and to identify oversight and control mechanisms for ensuring agencywide application. To evaluate the CIO’s approach to instituting standards and initiatives for more strategic and cost-effective IRM, we met with officials of four IRM steering council subboards and discussed their efforts to improve in the areas of planning, technology standardization, data management, and information resources consolidation. We obtained and reviewed briefing documents, plans, and correspondence that summarized these and other standardization efforts. Members of an evaluation team discussed with us the criteria and analysis they used to help the CIO select and establish lead centers to help standardize and consolidate supercomputers, mainframes, communications networks, and workgroup technology. IRM and financial management officials told us about efforts to upgrade and integrate management information systems for agencywide use. Relevant technical officials provided information on approaches to building hardware, information, and data architectures. IRM officials and information technology users in various program offices and centers told us about their commitment and steps taken to implement centrally-directed standards and initiatives. To determine whether NASA has adequate processes and controls in place to support the CIO in managing agencywide information technology investments and to identify areas for improvement, we discussed with key officials NASA’s processes for selecting, funding, and overseeing management of its information technology acquisitions and whether there are opportunities for greater CIO involvement. For this review, we also relied on the results of a separate GAO review of information technology investment management at five agencies, including NASA. We conducted our review from September 1995 through April 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We performed our work at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C.; the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California; the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The following are GAO’s comments on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s letter dated June 28, 1996. 1. NASA asserts that GAO relied on “out-of-date reports” to develop its audit findings rather than directly investigating the current activities of the CIO. This is not the case. Although we reviewed previous reports in order to obtain background information on past IRM problems at NASA, all of our audit findings were derived from a thorough data collection activity and numerous interviews with senior officials at NASA headquarters and key field centers from September 1995 through April 1996. The details of our methodology are explained in appendix I. Our background review of prior reports was used, both in our audit and in the report, chiefly as a means to establish the context of long-standing IRM problems that the newly-appointed CIO faced when he began work. We note in our report that the CIO has already made significant improvements over past NASA IRM practices, such as instituting a management framework for enhanced IRM coordination and initiating projects to standardize or consolidate agencywide information resources. NASA mentions several initiatives that it says have been underway over the past year. However, several of these activities are very recent and were not mentioned by IRM officials during our interviews. For example, the reassignment of IRM policy, planning, and oversight staff to the office of the CIO was first announced in May 1996 and has not yet been completed. Further, the CIO Council, intended to be responsible for overseeing investment strategies and decisions, was just established on July 16, 1996. Given the newness of these actions, we believe that our findings and recommendations remain useful as a framework for measuring continued progress in improving IRM. 2. Due to the recent organizational changes discussed above, the chart on the CIO Management Structure has been deleted from the report. In addition, we deleted from our draft report a proposal that NASA clarify the linkage of the IRM organization to the CIO office since NASA is in the process of addressing this relationship. We have made other changes throughout the report to include updated information where appropriate. 3. NASA states that it does not believe that the agency CIO must have budget authority over all agency IT investments in order to be effective. We agree with NASA on this point. In fact, we are not making any recommendation to give the CIO such authority. Rather, we believe that a more authoritative CIO, participating in the budget process, would be in a better position both to advise an investment review board on potential IT investments and to coordinate implementation of the prioritized decisions of the board. The new CIO Council, intended to be responsible for IT investment review and oversight, may address this concern. Accordingly, we have not included our earlier proposal that NASA establish such a council. 4. NASA states that GAO used previous reports on NASA’s IRM activities to substantiate its findings in the current report. This is not true. The previous reports are referenced in order to characterize the problems that NASA has faced in the IRM area in the past. In order to avoid confusion, we have deleted the reference to the 1994 General Services Administration report, which did not contribute substantially to characterizing NASA’s past IRM problems. Further, we disagree with NASA that the OIG’s 1995 report findings were unsubstantiated and believe that the report’s findings are relevant. For example, based on our own independent audit work, we also found that an accurate systems inventory was lacking and was needed. The findings in our report, which address the effectiveness of the CIO since inception in early 1995, are all based on recent audit work conducted by GAO. 5. The data center consolidation effort is one of the CIO activities that we cite as an example of a good first step. We believe that the consolidation effort has been beneficial. However, its implementation has been slowed by unresolved differences in approaches and opinions among the field centers and headquarters. These resulted in genuine disputes rather than merely “open, candid dialogue” as NASA has asserted. Without anyone to take charge and direct a solution, the consolidation effort was ultimately redefined to not include mission-related systems. We continue to believe that stronger leadership from the CIO could have led to a solution that would not have resulted in such a significant reduction in the scope of the effort. Reginia S. Grider, Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) efforts to implement a chief information officer (CIO) position, focusing on: (1) CIO initiatives to improve information resources management (IRM); and (2) opportunities for NASA to strengthen the CIO position and improve its IRM program. GAO found that: (1) NASA CIO has taken some action to address longstanding IRM problems including the lack of strong leadership, authority, and oversight, fragmented and overlapping responsibilities, redundant operations, unintegrated planning and budgeting processes, multiple communications networks, and poorly managed systems development efforts; (2) although NASA recognizes the need to address these IRM problems, it has been reluctant to limit the authority of its field centers and program offices to make independent decisions on how best to use information technology (IT) to carry out their missions; (3) despite these limitations, NASA CIO is instituting software and hardware standards to achieve interoperability among administrative systems, integrating IRM planning and budgeting processes, and revising IRM policies to reflect organizational changes; (4) strengthening the CIO position would enable NASA to achieve efficiencies and savings among mission-related systems; (5) agencywide investments in mission-related systems and related contractor services constitute as much as 91 percent of the annual NASA IRM budget; (6) funding for IT investments cannot be accurately consolidated given the nonstandard funding categories that various program offices use; and (7) instituting an effective IT resource tracking system is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of IT investments. |
Pursuant to House Rule X, clause 6, the Committee on House Administration (CHA) reports an omnibus, biennial "primary expense resolution" to cover the expenses of each standing and select committee, except the Appropriations Committee. The resolution is based in part on committee requests for funds to cover their necessary expenses for the two years of a Congress. The budgetary requests include estimated salary needs for staff, costs of consulting services, printing costs, office equipment and supply costs, and travel costs for committee members and staff. Some costs, such as pension and insurance contributions for committee employees, are paid from other appropriated funds, and are excluded from committee budgets. Some committees discuss and approve their proposed budgets at committee organization meetings. Committee chairs normally introduce House resolutions to provide their committees with the requisite funds for the two years of the Congress. These individual resolutions are then referred to the Committee on House Administration, which may hold a public hearing on the committee's request. The chair and the ranking minority member from each committee typically testify at these hearings. The chair of CHA then typically introduces an omnibus funding resolution, which, after its referral to the CHA, typically serves as the legislative vehicle for a full committee markup. The measure is then considered by the House. Table 1 provides the requested and authorized levels of funding for committees for the 115 th Congress. Table 2 through Table 12 provide committee funding requests and primary expense resolution authorizations in nominal dollars for House committees in the 104 th -114 th Congresses. Table 13 through Table 23 provide the authorization levels, calculated in constant (January 2017) dollars, for the 104 th through 114 th Congresses. All tables calculate the absolute and percentage differences between the total requested and the total authorized funding levels. | Pursuant to House Rule X, clause 6, the Committee on House Administration reports an omnibus, biennial "primary expense resolution" to cover the expenses of each standing and select committee, except the Appropriations Committee. The resolution is based, in part, on committee requests for funds to cover their necessary expenses for the two years of a Congress. This report provides committee funding requests and authorizations as adopted pursuant to primary expense authorizations for House committees in the 104th through 115th Congresses. For further information on the committee funding process, see CRS Report R42778, House Committee Funding: Description of Process and Analysis of Disbursements, by [author name scrubbed]. |
ST. LOUIS -- It ended with a baseball soaring through the October sky.
Soaring toward a patch of resplendent green grass, located just beyond the center-field fence.
Soaring toward its place in the story books and the history books.
Soaring to its rightful spot alongside the most famous World Series walk-offs ever hit -- alongside Mazeroski, alongside Fisk, alongside Carter, alongside Gibson.
A sea of red welcomed David Freese at home plate in the bottom of the 11th inning. Jeff Curry/US Presswire
This was how Game 6 of the 2011 World Series would end Thursday night
With a man named David Freese hitting a home run that will never stop flying.
With fireworks exploding in the night.
With teammates sprinting toward home plate to meet the man who had saved their season.
With many of the 47,325 lucky humans who made up the largest crowd in the history of Busch Stadium fighting back the tears, not to mention the overpowering urge to phone their cardiologists.
With the giant scoreboard in right field flipping the score one last time, to Cardinals 10, Rangers 9 in 11 innings of unforgettable madness.
But this was merely the final freeze frame in what we could easily argue was the greatest World Series game ever played. Describing this one last picturesque swing of the bat, painting a picture of this euphoric scene, was the easy part. These were the everlasting images in this vivid October picture book that, in David Freese's own words, "become memories."
What, though, will these St. Louis Cardinals tell their children and their grandchildren about the long and winding 4-hour, 33-minute road that led them to this incredible finale? What will they tell the next generations about the greatest World Series game ever played?
Well, here's where they ought to start:
• They should say they were a part of the first World Series game in history in which a team got down to its final strike, its final breath, twice -- once in the ninth inning, once in the 10th inning -- and somehow won.
• They should say they were a part of the first World Series game ever played in which any team trailed five times -- and still came back to win.
• They should say they were a part of the first World Series game ever in which a team found itself losing in the ninth inning and extra innings -- yet still found a way to win.
• They should say they played in the first World Series game in history in which two players -- Josh Hamilton for the Rangers, then Freese for the Cardinals -- hit go-ahead home runs in extra innings.
• They should say they were the first team in the 1,330-game history of postseason baseball to score in the eighth, ninth, 10th and 11th innings of any game.
• But mostly, they should say this: That they played in a baseball game that reminded all of them why they play, why we watch and why sports can be such a powerful force in all of our lives -- because the term "baseball game" doesn't begin to do justice to this remarkable life experience.
"The greatest game I've ever played in," said the right fielder, Lance Berkman.
“ Really and truly, this was an ugly game for about six or seven innings. But then it got beautiful, right at the end. ” -- Cardinals RF Lance Berkman
"In the 31 years I've been alive and the 11 years I've been in the big leagues, this was pretty special, man," said The Franchise, Albert Pujols. "This is what baseball is all about."
"I don't know how to describe this game," said the center fielder, Skip Schumaker. "I almost want to tell people, 'You have to see the video.' It's one of those games you have to watch. It's one of those instant classics on ESPN, just because of the magnitude of the game. ... I'm only 30 years old. But I know it's the best World Series game I've ever seen."
Well, it may not matter how long you've been alive. It may not matter how many October baseball games you've watched in your lifetime. You would have a very, very, very difficult time making a case that any of them were better than this one -- because an extra-inning walk-off home run was almost a secondary plot line, to the sight of a team coming back from the dead. Twice.
"It's just an exhilarating feeling," said Berkman, whose game-tying 10th-inning hit was part two of the late-inning CPR, "when you're like Lazarus and you come back from the dead."
That's not to say this game was some kind of work of art or anything. It would be tough to ignore the five errors, the unearned runs that scored in three different innings, the baserunning mistakes and the miscommunications that left potholes all over the highway for the first half of this extravaganza.
Long before Freese turned into Mr. October, for instance, he clanked a routine popup and failed to catch another catchable foul ball while nearly impaling himself on a railing beyond third base.
"I felt like I was part of a circus out there," he would say later, "bouncing balls off the top of my hat a little bit."
In a matter of minutes, Cardinals fans went from thinking about next year to dreaming about the franchise's 11th World Series title. AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
But all that goofiness was kind of entertaining in its own right. And fortunately, at least it was confined to only the first act of this show.
"Really and truly, this was an ugly game for about six or seven innings," said the relentlessly honest Berkman. "But then it got beautiful, right at the end."
No kidding. And by our calculations, it was about the seventh inning when the Louvre acquisitions committee should have lurched to attention. One second, this was a 4-4 game. The next, Adrian Beltre and Nelson Cruz were launching back-to-back homers to springboard the Rangers back into the lead. And here's all you need to know about how rare that was:
According to the Elias Sports Bureau, had the Rangers won, it would have been the first time a team hit back-to-back home runs in taking the lead that late in a clinching game since two nobodies named Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig hit a game-tying bomb and a go-ahead shot back-to-back in the final game of the 1928 World Series. Pretty cool.
And by the time that seventh inning ended, the Rangers led 7-4 with six outs to go and three of their most trusted pitchers -- Derek Holland, Mike Adams and Neftali Feliz -- lined up to nail down those six outs. Now here's how secure a spot THAT was:
According to the invaluable website WhoWins.com, 41 previous home teams had trailed by three runs after seven innings in any best-of-seven postseason series -- and only one of them had ever come back to win. That was the 2008 Red Sox, against Tampa Bay in Game 5 of the American League Championship Series. So obviously, no team had ever survived a mess like this and won in a World Series game.
But the 2011 Cardinals are no ordinary team. We don't need to retell the story of their season. But if there ever was a team that wouldn't be inclined to look at a deficit like that and decide it was hopeless, it would be an outfit that trailed by 10½ games in the last week of August, by 8½ with 21 games to go and by three games with five to play.
"We've been playing must-win games since August and September, when we were 10½ back and 8½ back," said reliever Jason Motte. "So we've been there before. These guys just don't give up."
Still, when the bottom of the ninth rolled around, they were still trailing by two runs, 7-5. Then Feliz marched in and blew away Ryan Theriot with a 98 mile-an-hour scorchball. And The End was two outs away.
But then Pujols pounded a double up the gap in left-center and Berkman walked. And the tying run was actually on base. But when Feliz punched out Allen Craig with a vicious 2-and-2 breaking ball, you could feel the energy begin to drain out of a charged up ballpark.
Then Feliz jumped ahead of Freese, 1-and-2. So here was Texas, one strike away.
The Rangers' players climbed to the top step of the dugout. Feliz walked to the back of the mound and stared out to center field, then left field, picturing the pitch that was going to finish off the first championship season in Rangers history.
Freese leaned on his back foot, watching, waiting and thinking, he would say later, "What a great way to have my first career AB off Feliz." But he also reminded himself to keep his swing as short as possible. And when he found another 98 mph fastball headed his way, he "didn't miss that one."
He practically flicked the ball 350 feet toward deep right field. But Cruz appeared to have a line on it. As he drifted back, almost casually, toward the warning track, his teammates were practically into their victory celebration. Then, to their horror, the ball sailed to the left of Cruz's glove and clattered off the wall. Triple. Tie game. Cue the first wave of pandemonium.
It was just the third game-tying RBI hit in World Series history by any player whose team was one out from elimination. (The other two came from Otis Nixon in 1992 and Josh Devore in 1911.) But Freese was an excellent candidate to add his name to that, or any, list of October clutchiness. He is now hitting 8-for-18 in this postseason with runners in scoring position, with three doubles, two homers, that heart-thumping triple and 15 RBIs.
"He's just got it," said Berkman. "I don't know exactly what 'it' is. But he's got it. He's one of those players who can perform when it matters most. He may not always come through, but the moment is never bigger than he is."
Before sending the Cardinals to a Game 7, David Freese dropped a routine pop fly in the fifth inning. AP Photo/Jeff Roberson
The stadium must have rattled continuously for the next five minutes after this stunning turn of events. But the elation didn't last long, because three hitters into the top of the 10th inning, Josh Hamilton pounded a towering two-run homer off Motte that seemed, once and for all, to settle this deal.
What the heck. How many times could one team come back anyway? When a team has already made four leads disappear, performed an act of reincarnation when it was one strike away from elimination and STILL finds itself two down in the 10th inning, that's not what you'd call a real good formula for how to win the World Series.
So out in right field, Berkman admitted he thought, just for a moment, about what an amazing story it would be for Hamilton, a man with a positively cinematic life story, to be the hero of this World Series. But his very next thought, he said, was: "Let's fight back and see what happens."
And whaddaya know, this game would come down to him.
There were two outs in the 10th. It was a 9-8 game. The tying run was on third, thanks to a not-exactly-textbook bunt by -- don't even ask us how it came to this -- a pitcher (Kyle Lohse) who was hitting for another pitcher (Edwin Jackson) who was announced as the pinch-hitter for a third pitcher (Motte). And Pujols had just been intentionally walked by the Rangers for the fifth time in three games.
But Berkman said he felt "really calm, really at peace as I was walking up to the plate" to face Scott Feldman, a guy he'd faced enough to go 4-for-10 against, with a .500 on-base percentage.
"I actually felt pretty good about it," Berkman said, "because I figured I was in a no-lose situation."
And why was it a no-lose situation? Because nobody could possibly have expected THIS, right? Not after all this team had been through over the last eight weeks. Not after already surviving one near-death experience just moments before.
So once again, the count went to 1-and-2, and then 2-and-2. Feldman stood on the rubber and tried to blow warmth into his fingertips. Berkman wagged his bat, as those rally towels spun and the P.A. system pounded.
Feldman rocked, fired and tried to jam Berkman with a cutter that had just enough movement to break Berkman's bat. But somehow, he was able to stroke it into center, in front of Hamilton. And once again, this was a tie game -- at (gulp) 9-9.
Asked later if this was a moment he'd dreamed of as a kid, Berkman quipped: "When you're a little kid and you're out there, you don't have a bunch of reporters and fans that are ready to call you a choking dog if you don't come through. So when you're a kid you don't realize what a big moment that is. I'm just going to caution all little kids out there: Be careful what you wish for."
That's excellent advice, kiddies. But the truth is, what you're wishing for is this:
You're wishing for the chance to be David Freese, standing there at home plate in the 11th inning -- bat wagging, crowd erupting -- as the seventh Texas reliever of the night, Mark Lowe, stared him in the eyeballs. ||||| 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. ||||| MLB Game 6 Revisited: "How Did This Happen?" By Jonah Keri on October 28, 2011 9:06 AM ET
Rob Carr/Getty Images
Imagine living your life with no clock.
No more dragging yourself out of bed when it's still dark out. No more fighting through miles of traffic, everyone around you bound to the same schedule, stuffing muffins in their faces, spilling coffee on their laps, texting with one hand, driving with no hands. No risk of getting dumped or fired or scorned for being late. There are no deadlines. Only moments. Only possibilities.
You might go the rest of your life and never see a more perfect example of that existence than what happened last night. Only baseball could have made that happen.
For the record, the Cardinals' 10-9, 11-inning win over the Rangers in Game 6 of the World Series took four hours and 33 minutes to play. But this game, like every other baseball game ever played, wasn't bound by timed quarters, halves, or periods. Baseball games are marked only by outs. Never has getting those outs seemed more difficult.
After six innings, Game 6 looked poised to go down as one of the worst World Series battles of all-time. Hell, we even ran a data query for it. Mark Simon, the excellent researcher at ESPN Stats & Info, framed the question this way: "How many World Series games have featured a combined five errors, a pickoff at third base, and at least two wild pitches/passed balls combined?" Answer: none.
These were, admittedly, arbitrary parameters. Leaving aside the rarity of a third-base pickoff, there's no perfect way to measure the worst World Series game in history, just as there's no perfect way to measure the best one. But it certainly felt like something historic was going on. With all the miscues happening on the field, and all the preposterous decisions being made by the managers (mostly one manager), Game 6 was shaping up as quite possibly the most excruciating World Series game of our lifetime.
The carnage started in the fourth inning, with the score tied 2-2. Fernando Salas relieved Jaime Garcia, who looked nothing like the dominant pitcher he was in Game 2, and escaped with only two runs allowed thanks to some guile on his part and a whole lot of blown chances by Rangers hitters. Nelson Cruz, the first batter facing Salas, lofted a popup to shallow left. Rafael Furcal drifted back, onto the outfield grass, further and still further, well into Matt Holliday territory. The outfielder going forward must always call off the backpedaling infielder in that situation. Holliday did not. Replays would later show Holliday's furtive cry to Furcal: "Take it!" Furcal could not, nor could Holliday, and disaster ensued. When Mike Napoli cashed Cruz with an RBI single to right, you couldn't help but think the Rangers would win it all, and Napoli, with 10 World Series runs driven in and a long list of big moments, would be MVP.
Two batters later, more ugliness. Colby Lewis hit a tapper back to the mound. Salas wheeled and fired to second air mailing everybody. Two on, one out, a chance for the Rangers to tack on more runs. Didn't happen. Texas put 14 men on base through the first five innings, but scored only four runs. Those early failures kept St. Louis in the game, as did the Rangers' own defensive breakdowns. Lance Berkman reached first to start the bottom of the fourth on an error by Michael Young, who booted the grounder wide of first, then made a poor throw to pull Lewis away from the bag. Holliday redeemed himself a bit with a walk and a takeout slide at second, forcing an errant throw by Andrus that helped set up the tying run. The Cardinals returned the favor, with David Freese bonking a routine popup by Josh Hamilton to start the fifth, and looking ridiculous doing it.
Then Ron Washington decided not to pinch-hit with a one-run lead, Salas on the ropes, the bases loaded, a deep, fully rested bullpen and several on-call starters standing by, and Colby Freaking Lewis the guy deemed irreplaceable.
Then, an inning later, Young made yet another error, this time doing nothing more than taking the ball out of his glove, only to drop it.
Then Washington decided he needed to go even further with Lewis.
Then Lewis, by now running on fumes, walked Freese to load the bases.
Then Washington looked down at the bullpen, considered an entire army of choices, and tapped the one guy who'd been a complete disaster throughout the World Series, Alexi Ogando.
Then Ogando walked in the tying run by very nearly hitting Yadier Molina in the face.
Then Holliday, failing spectacularly at bat and in the field throughout the World Series, completed the trifecta with brutal baserunning, getting picked off third by Napoli with the bases loaded on a throw from Napoli's knees.
Had the game kept going in that vein and ended in some generic way, this would have been a stinker for the ages. If you hadn't made a Tom Emanski joke by this point, you didn't have a pulse. But that's the thing about a sport with no clock. You don't have a finite amount of time to take a lead or mount a comeback. Anything is possible, so long as you have outs still left to burn. From this moment on, finding outs was something neither team could manage.
Leading off the seventh, Adrian Beltre launched a shot over the wall in right-center to reclaim the lead for the Rangers. Then Cruz bashed a ball into the stratosphere to make it 6-4 Texas. As Lance Lynn stood dejectedly on the mound, Tony La Russa no doubt had the same thought that he did during BullpenPhoneGate: What the hell is he doing out there? Four batters later, Ian Kinsler knocked home Derek Holland with the Rangers' seventh run, and the game seemed well in hand.
But there were tactical errors, more heroics by the unkillable Cardinals, and more amazing moments still to come. Holland led off the bottom of the eighth by retiring the fifth straight batter he'd faced. He'd more than done his job, especially after throwing 116 pitches in Game 4, and with a cavalcade of right-handed hitters now coming up. The Rangers had spent two good prospects to get Mike Adams at the trade deadline. He was their clear eighth-inning guy, so much so that Washington wouldn't think to use him two innings earlier, when Lewis stayed in way too long and Ogando threw gas on the fire. Surely Adams was coming in now, right? Nope. First, Allen Craig blasted a homer to cut the lead to 7-5. Two batters later, Molina singled. Finally, only after La Russa sent punchless backup catcher Gerald Laird up as the potential tying run did Washington go to his setup man. The Cardinals followed with two straight singles, the first one a play that was a clear error by Andrus, which allowed pinch-hitter Daniel Descalso to reach. But Furcal, the only Cardinal rivaling Holliday for World Series futility, spoiled a bases-loaded rally by hitting the ball 40 feet. On the first pitch. Inning over.
When Texas went down quietly in the top of the ninth, the Cardinals were down to their final three outs of the season. But no matter what the Rangers tried from that point on, they couldn't seize that last out.
In what was supposed to be the final at-bat of his Cardinals career (again), Pujols lashed a first-pitch double. Neftali Feliz, a fire-breather of a closer with a 100-mph fastball but also some scary command issues, walked Berkman on four pitches. Still, the Rangers seemed ready to celebrate. Feliz struck out Craig on an unexpected slider, then got two strikes on Freese. One more strike and the Rangers would have their first World Series in their 50-year franchise history. Feliz threw a fastball. Freese drilled it. Cruz, playing all the way back near the warning track, needed just a few steps to get to the wall. Somehow, he still missed the ball by a mile, the carom whizzing by him, and Freese buzzing into third with a triple. A two-run, game-tying, down-to-their-last-strike, outfield-can't-possibly-allow-a-triple, triple.
From then on, you couldn't breathe. We'd crossed the plane of reality to some screenwriter's fantasy, a script so implausible that no one would ever greenlight it.
Josh Hamilton, he of the groin so wrecked that one jackass baseball writer told his manager he should be benched, walloped a two-run homer to give the Rangers a 9-7, 10th-inning lead.
Then Darren Oliver, a pitcher who's been around so long he was once Nolan Ryan's teammate, came in to face two Cardinals lefties and both of them scratched out singles.
Then La Russa used a pitcher, Edwin Jackson, to pinch-hit for another pitcher, Jason Motte. Then, before Jackson could get to home plate, he pinch-hit with another pitcher, Kyle Lohse, for Jackson.
Then after a Lohse sacrifice, Scott Feldman came in, looking for his first career save.
Then after Feldman notched the second out of the inning, Washington ordered the fourth intentional walk of Pujols in two games.
Then, down to their final strike once more, Berkman lined a single to center to tie the game, saving the season yet again.
Then with two outs in the top of the 11th and a runner on first, Washington sent up light-hitting, seldom-used utilityman Esteban German to die a quick pinch-hit death against Jake Westbrook, yanking Feldman out of the game in the process and leaving the Rangers bullpen exposed.
Then Washington went to his worst, and least-used reliever, Mark Lowe, with the game on the line.
And then, in a final masterstroke of temporal chaos, David Freese, the kid who grew up a Cardinals fan on the edges of St. Louis, the unlikely hero who hoisted his teammates on his back to get to the World Series, the man of destiny who waited until one strike remained in his season before granting his team deliverance, hit a cannon to straightaway center that sailed over the wall and into baseball history.
As the Cardinals piled onto the field and their fans reached a state of delirium, Joe Buck delivered an homage to his father, aping Jack's Game 6-ending call to the 1991 World Series, "We will see you tomorrow night."
And we will. Cruz and Holliday are both questionable with injuries, Napoli's hobbled after a badly turned ankle, the bullpens will get another full night, the Rangers will try to recover from the worst playoff loss since that other Game 6 a quarter-century ago, and Chris Carpenter will go for the win in a park where he's been nearly perfect all year.
But the Game 7 prognostication could wait. As Freese's teammates shredded his jersey at the bottom of a dog pile, the words of Buck's broadcast partner Tim McCarver kept resonating. Amid a din that engulfed half the state of Missouri, he could only rightfully ask, "How did this happen?"
It happened because only a game with no clock could give us a play-by-play graph that mimicked the roller coaster ride we all felt while watching. It happened because only a game with no clock could render one of the worst World Series games into one of the best, thanks to the wildest finish we've ever seen.
It happened because it's baseball, a game where time stands still, and the impossible becomes possible.
Jonah Keri's new book, The Extra 2%: How Wall Street Strategies Took a Major League Baseball Team from Worst to First, is a national best-seller. Follow him on Twitter at @JonahKeri.
Follow Grantland on Twitter or check out Grantland's Facebook page.
Read more of The Triangle, Grantland's sports blog.
Contact us at [email protected] | The words “best ever” are being thrown around a lot this morning, after the Cardinals’ epic 10-9 win over the Texans in Game 6 of the World Series. Here’s what the breathless sportswriters out there are saying: “The term ‘baseball game’ doesn’t begin to do justice to this remarkable life experience,” writes Jayson Stark of ESPN. No matter how many postseason games you’ve seen, “you would have a very, very, very difficult time making a case that any of them were better than this one.” From the ninth inning on, “you couldn’t breathe,” writes Jonah Keri of Grantland. “We'd crossed the plane of reality to some screenwriter's fantasy.” This could only happen in baseball, the game with no clock, the “game where time stands still, and the impossible becomes possible.” Busch Stadium felt like “an open-air insane asylum,” writes Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. All night “these red-clad crazies couldn't tell if they were living or dying.” Now, after David Freese’s magnificent blast, “it’s Christmas and New Year’s Day and every other delightful holiday all rolled into one." Really, this win-probability chart from Fangraphs says it all. As Keri writes, it looks just like "the roller coaster ride we all felt while watching.” |
Story highlights President Barack Obama says Russia's actions will have costs, consequences
Russia's ambassador to the United States blames Kiev for the current escalation
Ukraine says it will reinstate compulsory military service in the fall
Donetsk rebel leader: Up to 4,000 Russians are fighting; some are active servicemen
A top Ukrainian army officer said a "full-scale invasion" of his country was under way Thursday, as a U.S. official said up to 1,000 Russian troops had crossed Ukraine's southern border to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels.
U.S. officials said Russian troops were directly involved in the latest fighting, despite Moscow's denials.
Rebels backed by Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers fought Ukrainian forces on two fronts Thursday: southeast of rebel-held Donetsk, and along the nation's southern coast in the town of Novoazovsk, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the Russian border, said Mykhailo Lysenko, the deputy commander of the Ukrainian Donbas battalion.
Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine NATO: Images show Russian forces in Ukraine – At a press conference on Thursday, August 28, Dutch Brig. Gen. Nico Tak, a senior NATO commander, revealed satellite images of what NATO says are Russian combat forces engaged in military operations in or near Ukrainian territory. NATO said this image shows Russian self-propelled artillery units set up in firing positions near Krasnodon, in eastern Ukraine. Hide Caption 1 of 6 Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine NATO: Images show Russian forces in Ukraine – These two images show a military deployment site on the Russian side of the border near Rostov-on-Don, NATO said. This location is about 31 miles from the Dovzhansky border checkpoint. Hide Caption 2 of 6 Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine NATO: Images show Russian forces in Ukraine – This image, captured on July 23, depicts what are NATO says are probably six Russian 2S19 self-propelled, 153mm guns near Kuybyshevo, Russia. This site is 4 miles south of the Ukraine border, near the village of Chervonyi Zhovten. Although the guns are not in Ukraine, NATO said, they are pointed north, toward Ukrainian territory. Hide Caption 3 of 6 Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine NATO: Images show Russian forces in Ukraine – This image shows a wider overview including the position of the self-propelled guns from image 4. Hide Caption 4 of 6 Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine NATO: Images show Russian forces in Ukraine – Pictured here, NATO said, are Russian military units moving in a convoy formation with self-propelled artillery in the area of Krasnodon, Ukraine. Hide Caption 5 of 6 Photos: Russian Combat Forces Inside the Territory of Ukraine NATO: Images show Russian forces in Ukraine – Intelligence now indicates that up to 1,000 Russian troops have moved into southern Ukraine with heavy weapons and are fighting there, a U.S. official told CNN on Thursday. Hide Caption 6 of 6
"This is a full-scale invasion," Lysenko said, referring to the fighting in the south.
Intelligence now indicates that up to 1,000 Russian troops have moved into southern Ukraine with heavy weapons and are fighting there, a U.S. official told CNN on Thursday.
JUST WATCHED Obama: Russia behind violence in Ukraine Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: Russia behind violence in Ukraine 02:05
JUST WATCHED Fighting in Ukraine may be spreading Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Fighting in Ukraine may be spreading 01:40
Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels fire artillery Tuesday, October 14, at Donetsk Sergey Prokofiev International Airport, which is on the outskirts of Donetsk, Ukraine. Fighting between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian rebels in the country has left more than 3,000 people dead since mid-April, according to the United Nations. Hide Caption 1 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Smoke rises behind the train station in Donetsk, Ukraine, during an artillery battle between pro-Russian rebels and Ukrainian government forces on Sunday, October 12. Hide Caption 2 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, center, inspects Ukrainian army positions close to Donetsk on Friday, October 10. Hide Caption 3 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – The main terminal of Donetsk Sergey Prokofiev International Airport is hit by shelling during fighting between pro-Russian rebels and Ukrainian forces on Wednesday, October 8. Hide Caption 4 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels fire mortars toward Ukrainian positions near to the Donetsk airport on October 8. Hide Caption 5 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel walks past a burning house after shelling in the town of Donetsk, Ukraine, on Sunday, October 5. Hide Caption 6 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – An Ukrainian sniper aims his weapon at a checkpoint near Popasna, Ukraine, on Thursday, October 2. Hide Caption 7 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Smoke rises from the area near the Donetsk airport after heavy shelling on October 2. Hide Caption 8 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – An injured man is transported at a hospital after shelling in Donetsk on Wednesday, October 1. Hide Caption 9 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A woman injured at a bus station cries at a Donetsk hospital on October 1. Hide Caption 10 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel guards a damaged school in Donetsk on October 1. Hide Caption 11 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian servicemen patrol in the Donetsk region on Friday, September 26. Hide Caption 12 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel guards a destroyed bridge in Nyzhnya Krynka, Ukraine, on Tuesday, September 23. Hide Caption 13 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Residents clean up debris at a building damaged by rockets in Debaltseve, Ukraine, on Monday, September 22. Hide Caption 14 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A firefighter checks out a damaged office building after shelling in Donetsk on Sunday, September 21. Hide Caption 15 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian soldier guards pro-Russian rebels during a prisoner exchange near Donetsk on September 21. Hide Caption 16 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Members of the Ukrainian military, held as prisoners of war, sit in a bus waiting to be exchanged near Donetsk on Saturday, September 20. Hide Caption 17 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Smoke rises after an explosion at a weapons factory controlled by pro-Russian rebels near Donetsk on September 20. The cause of the explosion was not immediately known. Hide Caption 18 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian helicopter patrols an area near Donetsk on September 20. Hide Caption 19 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A firefighter walks past the rubble of a building destroyed by shelling in Donetsk on Wednesday, September 17. Hide Caption 20 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A protester holds a smoke bomb during a demonstration outside the Presidential Palace in Kiev, Ukraine, on September 17. Activists protested the adoption of legislation giving greater autonomy to rebel-held parts of eastern Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Hide Caption 21 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A man covers the body of his mother, who was killed on a bus during a battle in Donetsk on Tuesday, September 16. Hide Caption 22 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – People walk through a market Monday, September 15, in the Kievsky district of Donetsk. Hide Caption 23 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Smoke rises around the Donetsk International Airport on Saturday, September 13, as shelling continues between pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian army. Hide Caption 24 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian soldier stands guard as residents rally in support of a united Ukraine in the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol on September 13. Hide Caption 25 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Russian trucks, flying Russian flags and carrying humanitarian aid for eastern Ukraine, line up at a border checkpoint in Donetsk on September 13. Hide Caption 26 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Workers unload supplies from Russia in Luhansk, Ukraine, on September 13. More than 200 Russian trucks entered Ukraine with supplies for the city, which has been cut off from electricity and water for weeks. Hide Caption 27 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian soldiers ride on an armored vehicle near Kramatorsk, Ukraine, on September 13. Hide Caption 28 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – People look at a large crater from a reported missile strike that hit a bus station Friday, September 12, in Makiivka, Ukraine. Hide Caption 29 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Workers clear rubble Thursday, September 11, after the bombing of a mine in Donetsk. Hide Caption 30 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A column of Ukrainian forces is seen in Volnovakha, Ukraine, on September 11. Hide Caption 31 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – An elderly woman sits next to a Ukrainian soldier standing guard in Volnovakha on September 11. Hide Caption 32 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Armed pro-Russian rebels walk September 11 in front of the destroyed Luhansk International Airport. The rebels took control of the airport on September 1 after heavy fighting with the Ukrainian army. Hide Caption 33 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Residents of Lutuhyne, Ukraine, push containers in a wheelbarrow September 11 as they walk between destroyed armored vehicles left behind by the Ukrainian army. Hide Caption 34 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian troops protect themselves from a nearby shooting in Debaltseve on Tuesday, September 9. Hide Caption 35 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Young residents of Berdyansk, Ukraine, dig trenches September 9 to help Ukrainian forces protect the city from possible rebel attacks. Hide Caption 36 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, left, inspects military personnel during a visit to Mariupol on Monday, September 8. Hide Caption 37 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel stands next to a truck with a heavy machine gun attached to it Sunday, September 7, in Donetsk. Hide Caption 38 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Homes smolder after being hit by shelling in Donetsk on September 7. Hide Caption 39 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A woman stands next to a road sign September 7 after an overnight bombing attack at an Ukrainian army checkpoint on the outskirts of Mariupol. Hide Caption 40 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian troops stand on a deserted road as they patrol the border area of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Friday, September 5, near Debaltseve. Hide Caption 41 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A man repairs damage to a building caused by shelling in Donetsk on September 5. Hide Caption 42 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Smoke rises on the outskirts of Mariupol after pro-Russian rebels fired heavy artillery on September 5. Hide Caption 43 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian soldiers ride a tank on a road close to where pro-Russian rebels fired heavy artillery outside Mariupol on September 5. Hide Caption 44 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A wounded Ukrainian soldier is helped by a medical team on the outskirts of Mariupol on September 5. Hide Caption 45 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel holds a destroyed weapon in the village of Novokaterynivka, Ukraine, on Thursday, September 4. Hide Caption 46 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Unmarked military vehicles burn on a country road in Berezove, Ukraine, on September 4 after a clash between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian rebels. For months, Ukrainian government forces have been fighting the rebels near Ukraine's eastern border with Russia. Hide Caption 47 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – People wait by their cars near Berezove on September 4 as rockets hit the road ahead. Hide Caption 48 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel holds a dog, which has a hand grenade attached to its leash, in Donetsk on Wednesday, September 3. Hide Caption 49 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels fire at Ukrainian army positions in Donetsk on September 3. Hide Caption 50 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian military vehicle patrols in the Donetsk region on September 3. Hide Caption 51 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels hold a man near a column of destroyed Ukrainian military vehicles in Novokaterynivka on Tuesday, September 2. Hide Caption 52 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian military truck passes by a serviceman resting in his military camp in Ukraine's Donetsk region on September 2. Hide Caption 53 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A destroyed Ukrainian military vehicle sits abandoned on the side of the road near Novokaterynivka on September 2. Hide Caption 54 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Men clear rubble in Ilovaisk, Ukraine, on Sunday, August 31. Hide Caption 55 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian troops leave the rebel-held town of Starobesheve on Saturday, August 30. Hide Caption 56 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian loyalist fighter from the Azov Battalion stands guard on a hill on the outskirts of Mariupol on August 30. Hide Caption 57 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel listens to the news on a transistor radio in the town of Novoazovsk, Ukraine, on Friday, August 29. Hide Caption 58 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian soldiers stop on a roadside as they wait for the start of their march into Mariupol on Wednesday, August 27. Hide Caption 59 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A man opens a box filled with rocket-propelled grenades left by the Ukrainian army in Starobesheve. Hide Caption 60 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel walks through a local market damaged by shelling in Donetsk on Tuesday, August 26. Hide Caption 61 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian servicemen of the volunteer battalion Azov leave for Novoazovsk on August 26. Hide Caption 62 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels escort captured Ukrainian soldiers in a central square in Donetsk on Sunday, August 24. Hide Caption 63 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – People yell as Ukrainian prisoners are paraded through Donetsk in eastern Ukraine on August 24. Hide Caption 64 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel delivers a speech atop a damaged Ukrainian armored personnel carrier in Donetsk on August 24. Hide Caption 65 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – People look at damaged Ukrainian military equipment in Donetsk on August 24. Hide Caption 66 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – The first trucks of a Russian aid convoy roll on the main road to Luhansk in eastern Ukraine on Friday, August 22. The head of Ukraine's security service called the convoy a "direct invasion" under the guise of humanitarian aid since it entered the country without Red Cross monitors. Hide Caption 67 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel holds shrapnel from a rocket after shelling in Donetsk on August 22. Hide Caption 68 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Residents sit in a makeshift bomb shelter during a shelling in Makiivka on Wednesday, August 20. Hide Caption 69 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Dogs play together as a Russian convoy carrying aid supplies stops at a border control point with Ukraine on August 20. Hide Caption 70 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian forces take their position not far from Luhansk on August 20. Hide Caption 71 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Clouds of smoke are on the horizon as Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels clash in Yasynuvata, Ukraine, on Tuesday, August 19. Hide Caption 72 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – An Ukrainian helicopter flies near Kramatorsk on August 19. Hide Caption 73 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian soldiers load a missile during fighting with pro-Russian rebels Monday, August 18, near Luhansk. Hide Caption 74 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Boys play at a refugee camp, set up by the Russian Emergencies Ministry, near the Russian-Ukrainian border on August 18. Hide Caption 75 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian soldiers carry weapons at a checkpoint near Debaltseve on Saturday, August 16. Hide Caption 76 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels greet each other as they pass near Krasnodon, Ukraine, on August 16. Hide Caption 77 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A fireman tries to extinguish a fire after shelling in Donetsk on August 16. Hide Caption 78 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian border guards patrol near Novoazovsk on Friday, August 15. Hide Caption 79 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Trucks of a Russian humanitarian convoy are parked in a field outside the town of Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, in the Rostov region of Russia about 20 miles from the Ukraine border, on August 15. Ukrainian officials were preparing to inspect the convoy, which was bound for the conflict-torn east. Hide Caption 80 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A truck driver from the convoy jumps out of a trailer on August 15. The Ukrainian government had expressed fears that the convoy was a large-scale effort to smuggle supplies or troops to pro-Russian rebels. Hide Caption 81 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A tank belonging to pro-Russian rebels moves along a street in Donetsk on August 15. Hide Caption 82 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian soldier walks past a line of self-propelled guns as a column of military vehicles prepares to head to the front line near Ilovaisk on Thursday, August 14. Hide Caption 83 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A Ukrainian soldier prepares a mortar at a position near Ilovaisk on August 14. Hide Caption 84 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A man inspects damage at his house after a shelling in Donetsk on August 14. Hide Caption 85 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A convoy of trucks, which Moscow said was carrying relief goods for war-weary civilians, moves from Voronezh, Russia, toward Rostov-on-Don, Russia, on August 14. Hide Caption 86 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Pro-Russian rebels on the outskirts of Donetsk stand at a checkpoint near a bullet-riddled bus on Wednesday, August 13. Hide Caption 87 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel inspects damage after shelling in Donetsk on Thursday, August 7. Hide Caption 88 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Smoke billows from a Ukrainian fighter jet crash near the village of Zhdanivka, Ukraine, on August 7. Hide Caption 89 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Residents of eastern Ukraine cry in a hospital basement being used as a bomb shelter August 7 in Donetsk. Hide Caption 90 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ordnance from a Ukrainian rocket launcher shoots toward a pro-Russian militant position in the Donetsk region on August 7. Hide Caption 91 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Relatives of Ukrainian military member Kyril Andrienko, who died in combat in eastern Ukraine, gather during his funeral in Lviv, Ukraine, on August 7. Hide Caption 92 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Refugees from southeastern Ukraine wait at a refugee camp in Donetsk on Wednesday, August 6. Hide Caption 93 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian rebel adjusts his weapon in Donetsk on August 6. Hide Caption 94 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Men walk past a bomb crater in Donetsk on August 6. Hide Caption 95 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A man steps out of his car as Ukrainian soldiers inspect the vehicle at a checkpoint in Debaltseve on August 6. Hide Caption 96 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian servicemen sit on a bus near Slovyansk, Ukraine, on Tuesday, August 5. Hide Caption 97 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A pro-Russian separatist guards a road as Australian, Malaysian and Dutch investigators prepare to examine the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Rossipne, Ukraine, on August 5. U.S. and Ukrainian officials allege that a Russian-made missile shot down the plane from rebel-held territory, killing all 298 people on board. Russia and the rebel fighters deny involvement. Hide Caption 98 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Rescue workers carry the body of a woman who was killed during a bomb shelling in Donetsk on August 5. Hide Caption 99 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A boy stands in a hallway of a refugee hostel run by pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk on Monday, August 4. Hide Caption 100 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian servicemen from the Donbass volunteer battalion clean their guns Sunday, August 3, in Popasna, Ukraine. Hide Caption 101 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian soldiers fire shells toward rebel positions near Pervomaysk, Ukraine, on Saturday, August 2. Hide Caption 102 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – Ukrainian troops patrol near the village of Novoselovka on Thursday, July 31. Hide Caption 103 of 104 Photos: Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Crisis in Ukraine – A woman says goodbye to her mother as she flees her home in Shakhtersk, Ukraine, on Tuesday, July 29. See more photos of the crisis from earlier this year Hide Caption 104 of 104
NATO provided what it said is evidence: satellite images showing Russian troops engaged in military operations inside Ukraine.
"The images, captured in late August, depict Russian self-propelled artillery units moving in a convoy through the Ukrainian countryside and then preparing for action by establishing firing positions in the area of Krasnodon, Ukraine," NATO said in a news release.
Commercial satellite imagery shows the same, according to a British security source with detailed knowledge of UK intelligence estimates. One image that British intelligence has analyzed, dated Tuesday, shows 15 heavy trucks, at least seven armored vehicles and at least nine artillery positions.
Russia's military actions in eastern Ukraine "must cease immediately," British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday.
"I'm extremely concerned by mounting evidence that Russian troops have made large-scale incursions into South Eastern Ukraine, completely disregarding the sovereignty of a neighbor," Cameron said. "The international community has already warned Russia that such provocative actions would be completely unacceptable and illegal."
As the Russian presence grows, so does its influence over the separatist leadership in Ukraine, the British security source told CNN.
According to the source, the UK has determined that Russian artillery and rockets -- across the border and from within Ukraine -- have been fired against the Ukrainian military.
Two SA-22A gun/missile air defense systems were observed in separatist-controlled parts of Luhansk province on August 2, the source said. This system is not in Ukraine's inventory but is used by the Russian military.
Ukraine's National Defense and Security Council said that Russian forces were in full control of Novoazovsk as of Wednesday afternoon.
Russia's military fired Grad rockets into the town and its suburbs before sending in two convoys of tanks and armored personnel carriers from Russia's Rostov region, it said in a statement
"Ukrainian troops were ordered to pull out to save their lives. By late afternoon both Russian convoys had entered the town. Ukraine is now fortifying nearby Mariupol to the west," the NDSC said.
JUST WATCHED Ukraine: Russians captured in east Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ukraine: Russians captured in east 01:46
JUST WATCHED Ukrainians fight to survive amid siege Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ukrainians fight to survive amid siege 02:32
JUST WATCHED Questions return with Russian convoy Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Questions return with Russian convoy 02:32
A number of villages in the Novoazovsk, Starobeshiv and Amvrosiiv districts were also seized, it said.
The NDSC also warned that a rebel counterattack is expected in the area where Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down in July. Ukrainian and Western officials say they believe it was downed by rebels armed with Russian-made weapons.
Novoazovsk is strategically important because it lies on the main road leading from the Russian border to Ukraine's Crimea region, which Russia annexed in March. Separatist leaders in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions then declared independence from Kiev.
U.N. Security Council meets
As international concern mounted over the apparent escalation in fighting, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting on Ukraine.
Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, accused Russia of lying.
"It has manipulated. It has obfuscated. It has outright lied. So we have learned to measure Russia by its actions and not by its words," Power said, calling for "serious negotiations."
"In the face of this threat, the cost of inaction is unacceptable," she warned.
According to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, more than 2,000 people have been killed in the conflict and more than 800,000 have been displaced.
He blamed the current escalation on the "reckless policy" of Kiev.
"The Kiev authorities have torpedoed all political agreements on resolving the crisis," Churkin told the Security Council meeting. "The only thing we're seeing is a fight against dissent."
Ukraine's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, meanwhile, put his colleagues on alert.
"The world is challenged by a military-nuclear might, ignoring universal principles and craving absolute power," Oleksandr Pavlichenko said about Russia. "How many more red lines have to be crossed before this challenge is addressed?" he asked.
The latest flare-up comes despite a meeting between Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Belarus on Tuesday at which some progress appeared to have been made toward finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
Poroshenko canceled a planned trip to Turkey on Thursday "due to sharp aggravation of the situation in Donetsk region ... as Russian troops were brought into Ukraine," a statement from his office said.
In a Cabinet meeting, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that Russia "has very much increased its military presence in Ukraine" and that tougher measures may be needed to curb Russia's support for the rebels.
"Unfortunately, the sanctions were unhelpful as to de-escalating the situation in Ukraine," he said, referring to the economic sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union against Russian individuals and companies.
Yatsenyuk suggested one way to halt "Russian aggression" could be to freeze all assets and ban all Russian bank transactions until Russia "pulls out all its military, equipment and agents" from Ukraine.
"Vladimir Putin has purposely started a war in Europe. It is impossible to hide from the fact," he said.
President Barack Obama, similarly, placed blame for the violence in Ukraine on Russia.
"The violence is encouraged by Russia. The separatists are trained by Russia; they are armed by Russia; they are funded by Russia," he told reporters in Washington.
Calling sanctions against Russia already in place "effective," he said it would face additional costs and consequences for its ongoing incursion.
"Russia is already more isolated than at any time since the end of the Cold War," Obama said.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the flow of weapons is hindering efforts.
"This remains a key obstacle to the de-escalation of the situation on the ground, as arms and heavy weaponry reportedly continue to flow unabated into Ukraine from Russia," Ban said. "There is an urgent need to ensure a secure border between the two countries, with international verification."
U.S. ambassador: Russia is directly involved
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt also said Thursday that Russian soldiers were directly involved in the fighting, alongside the pro-Russian rebels.
"Russian-supplied tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers have been insufficient to defeat Ukraine's armed forces, so now an increasing number of Russian troops are intervening directly in the fighting on Ukrainian territory," he said on Twitter.
"Russia has also sent its newest air defense systems including the SA-22 into eastern Ukraine and is now directly involved in the fighting."
Moscow denies supporting and arming the pro-Russian rebels. It has also repeatedly denied allegations by Kiev that it has sent troops over the border.
A Russian senator and the deputy head of the Committee on Defense and Security in Russia's upper house of Parliament, Evgeny Serebrennikov, dismissed the latest reports of a Russian incursion as untrue.
"We've heard many statements from the government of Ukraine, which turned out to be a lie. What we can see now is just another lie," he said to Russian state news agency RIA Novosti.
Russian lawmaker Leonid Slutsky also accused Kiev of lies, in comments to RIA Novosti.
"I can only say that there's no ground for claims like this, and the junta tries to lay its own fault at someone else's door," he said, referring to the Kiev government.
Moscow regards it as illegitimate because it took charge after Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in February.
Rebel leader: 3,000 to 4,000 Russians in our ranks
However, the Prime Minister of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, acknowledged Thursday that there are current Russian servicemen fighting in the rebels' ranks in eastern Ukraine.
In his statement, televised on state-run Russia 24, Zakharchenko said the rebels have never concealed that many Russians are fighting with them. He said up until now there were 3,000 to 4,000 volunteers, some of whom are retired Russian servicemen.
Zakharchenko went on to reveal that the Russian servicemen currently fighting in their ranks are active, "as they came to us to struggle for our freedom instead of their vacations."
On Tuesday, Ukraine's Security Service said it had detained 10 Russian soldiers in Ukraine.
Russian state media cited a source in the Russian Defense Ministry as saying the soldiers had been patrolling the border and "most likely crossed by accident" at an unmarked point.
The NDSC said Thursday that Ukraine's Security Service detained another Russian serviceman who testified that his unit was supplying heavy military equipment to militants.
Separately, Ukraine announced Thursday that it would reinstate compulsory military service in the fall. Fresh recruits will not be sent to the country's area of conflict in the east, Mihaylo Koval, the deputy secretary of the National Defense and Security Council, told reporters.
Ukrainian volunteers retreat from Mariupol area
Pro-Kiev forces apparently already have engaged with rebel forces between Novoazovsk and Mariupol, the Sea of Azov port city 35 kilometers (22 miles) to the west that the country's security council said was being fortified.
A CNN crew north of Mariupol saw a ragged convoy of about 25 vehicles, some with their windows smashed out, belonging to pro-Kiev volunteer fighters heading away from the city Thursday afternoon.
The volunteers, including two from the country of Georgia, said they'd been involved in fighting in the Mariupol area but didn't provide details.
Earlier Thursday and farther north, the CNN crew was near Donetsk city, which Ukrainian forces have been trying to wrest from rebels for weeks. Heavy Ukrainian artillery fire targeted areas near Donetsk's southern suburbs amid a heavy downpour of rain.
The main highway 9 miles (15 kilometers) south of Donetsk was deserted. With return fire coming from Donetsk, villagers in the area said they'd been taking shelter indoors or underground, coming out only for an hour or two a day to get supplies.
The city of Luhansk, a rebel stronghold, has also been at the center of fighting for days, prompting a humanitarian crisis. The NDSC said it remained without water, power or phone connections Thursday. ||||| UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council is preparing to meet in emergency session on the growing crisis in Ukraine.
Diplomats said Thursday that the council will meet at 2 p.m. (1800 GMT) at the request of Lithuania.
Alarm has grown as a top NATO official said at least 1,000 Russian troops have poured into Ukraine with sophisticated equipment and have been in direct "contact" with Ukrainian soldiers, resulting in casualties.
Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin told reporters "You're at a loss" as he walked into a morning council session and gave no further comment.
UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told reporters that "Russia will be asked to explain why Russia has its troops inside Ukraine. It's very clear that Russian regular troops are now in Ukraine." | The UN Security Council is set to hold an emergency meeting this afternoon at the request of Lithuania to address what Ukraine is calling a Russian invasion across the border, reports the AP. At least 1,000 Russian troops were said to have entered Ukraine with "sophisticated equipment" and have already killed Ukrainian soldiers, according to a NATO official cited by the AP. Although Russia maintains it's not helping pro-Russian rebels on the front lines, the US ambassador to Ukraine tweeted that "Russian-supplied tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers have been insufficient to defeat Ukraine's armed forces, so now ... Russian troops are intervening directly in the fighting on Ukrainian territory," notes CNN. "Russia will be asked to explain [at the UN meeting] why Russia has its troops inside Ukraine," says the UK's ambassador to the UN, per the AP. |
The Results Act is the centerpiece of a statutory framework to improve federal agencies’ management activities. The Results Act was designed to focus federal agencies’ attention from the amounts of money they spend or the size of their workloads to the results of their programs. Agencies are expected to base goals on their results-oriented missions, develop strategies for achieving their goals, and measure actual performance against the goals. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with the Congress in developing their strategic plans. This gives the Congress the opportunity to help ensure that their missions and goals are focused on results, are consistent with programs’ authorizing laws, and are reasonable in light of fiscal constraints. The products of this consultation should be clearer guidance to agencies on their missions and goals and better information to help the Congress choose among programs, consider alternative ways to achieve results, and assess how well agencies are achieving them. fiscal year 1999 budget submissions, which were due to OMB by September 8, 1997. OMB, in turn, is required to include a governmentwide performance plan in the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget submission to the Congress. As required by the Results Act, GAO reviewed agencies’ progress in implementing the act, including the prospects for agency compliance. VA’s August 15, 1997, draft strategic plan represents a significant improvement over the June 1997 draft. The latest version is clearer and easier to follow, more complete, and better organized to focus more on results and less on process. At the same time, VA has still not fully addressed some of the key elements required by the Results Act; the draft plan has a lack of goals focused on the results of VA programs for veterans and their families, such as assisting veterans in readjusting to civilian life; limited discussions of external factors beyond VA’s control that could affect its achievement of goals; a lack of program evaluations to support the development of results-oriented goals; and insufficient plans to identify and meet needs to coordinate VA programs with those of other federal agencies. The draft strategic plan, acknowledging that three of these four elements (results-oriented goals, program evaluations, and agency coordination) have not been fully addressed, does plan to address them. VA has indicated that it views strategic planning as a long-term process and intends to continue refining its strategic plan in consultation with the Congress, veterans service organizations, and other stakeholders. Another challenge for VA is to improve its financial and information technology management, so that the agency’s ongoing planning efforts under the Results Act will be based on the best possible information. VA’s draft strategic plan addresses several financial and information technology issues, such as the need for cost accounting systems for VA programs and the need to improve VA’s capital asset planning. results. VA officials indicated that, based on consultations with staff from the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees, which included input from GAO, the draft strategic plan would be revised to make it clearer, more complete, and more results-oriented. The August 15, 1997, version reflects significant progress in these areas. Instead of presenting four overall goals, three of which were process-oriented, VA has reorganized its draft strategic plan into two sections. The first section, entitled “Honor, Care, and Compensate Veterans in Recognition of Their Sacrifices for America,” is intended to incorporate VA’s results-oriented strategic goals. The second section, entitled “Management Strategies,” incorporates the three other general goals, related to customer service, workforce development, and taxpayer return on investment. In addition, VA has filled significant gaps in the discussions of program goals. The largest gap in the June 1997 draft was the lack of goals for four of the five major veterans benefit programs. The current plan includes goals for each of these programs, stating them in terms of ensuring that VA benefit programs meet veterans’ needs. Finally, the reorganized draft plan increases the emphasis on results. The June 1997 draft appeared to make such process-oriented goals as improving customer service and speeding claims processing equivalent to more results-oriented goals such as improving veterans’ health care. In the August 1997 version, the process-oriented goals remain but have been placed in their own process-oriented section supplementing the plan’s results orientation. At the same time, VA believes that the process-oriented portions of the plan are important as a guide to VA’s management. It considers customer service very important because VA’s focus is on providing services to veterans and their families. The Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, in written comments on a draft of our July 1997 letter, stated that VA continues to believe “that processes and operations are important to serving veterans and [VA] will continue to place appropriate emphasis on the areas of customer service, workforce development, and management issues.” VA also contends that the Results Act does not preclude process-oriented goals from its strategic plan. We agree that many of the process issues VA raises are important to its efficient and effective operation and can be included in VA’s strategic plan as long as they are integrated with the plan’s primary focus on results. Perhaps the most significant deficiency in VA’s draft strategic plan, in both the June 1997 and current versions, is the lack of results-oriented goals for major VA programs, particularly for benefit programs. While discussions of goals for benefit programs have been added to the current version, they are placeholders for results-oriented goals that have not yet been developed. The general goals for 4 of the 5 the major benefit program areas—compensation and pensions, education, vocational rehabilitation, and housing credit assistance—are stated in terms of ensuring that VA is meeting the needs of veterans and their families. The objectives supporting VA’s general goal for its compensation and pension area are to (1) evaluate compensation and pension programs to determine their effectiveness in meeting the needs of veterans and their beneficiaries; and (2) modify these programs, as appropriate. For the three other major benefit program areas, the objectives suggest possible results-oriented goals and are supported by strategies aimed at evaluating and improving programs. For example, the objectives under vocational rehabilitation include increasing the number of disabled veterans who acquire and maintain suitable employment and are considered to be rehabilitated. The strategies under this objective include evaluating the vocational rehabilitation needs of eligible veterans and evaluating the effect of VA’s vocational rehabilitation program on the quality of participants’ lives. VA has noted that developing results-oriented goals will be difficult until program evaluations have been completed. Given the program evaluation time periods stated in the draft strategic plan, which calls for evaluations to continue through fiscal year 2002, results-oriented goals may not be developed for some programs for several years. Another difficulty VA has cited is that, for many VA programs, congressional statements of the program purposes and expected results are vague or nonexistent. VA officials cited VA’s medical research and insurance programs as examples of programs with unclear purposes. This is an area where VA and the Congress can make progress in further consultations. individual goals generally did not link demographic changes in the veteran population to VA’s goals. VA’s current draft has added discussions of the implications of demographic changes on VA programs. For example, VA notes that the death rate for veterans is increasing, which will lead VA to explore various options for meeting increased demands for burials in VA and state veterans’ cemeteries. Meanwhile, the goal to ensure that VA’s burial programs meet the needs of veterans and their families is accompanied by a detailed list of specific cemetery construction and land acquisition projects and by a specific target for expanding burials in state veterans’ cemeteries. The discussion of external factors related to this goal focuses on the Congress’ willingness to fund VA’s proposed projects and the cooperation of the states in participating in the State Cemetery Grants Program. What is missing in the draft is a link between the projected increase in veteran deaths and the proposed schedule of specific cemetery projects. Similarly, we recently reported that National Cemetery System strategic planning does not tie goals for expanding cemetery capacity to veterans’ mortality rates and their preferences for specific burial options. We noted that the goals in VA’s June 1997 draft strategic plan were not supported by formal program evaluations. Evaluations can be an important source of information for helping the Congress and others ensure that agency goals are valid and reasonable, providing baselines for agencies to use in developing performance measures and performance goals, and identifying factors likely to affect agency performance. As noted above, VA cites the lack of completed evaluations as a reason for not providing results-oriented goals for many of its programs. The first general goal of VA’s plan is to conduct program evaluations over a period of several years. VA plans to identify distinct programs in each of its 10 major program areas and then prioritize evaluations of these programs in consultation with the Congress, veterans’ service organizations, and other stakeholders. VA expects to complete this prioritization sometime in fiscal year 1998, complete the highest-priority evaluations by the end of fiscal year 2000, and complete at least one evaluation in each of the 10 major program areas by fiscal year 2003. In our comments on the June 1997 draft strategic plan, we noted that VA has not clearly identified the areas where its programs overlap with those of other federal agencies, nor has it coordinated its strategic planning efforts with those of other agencies. Three areas where such coordination is needed (and the relevant key federal agencies) are employment training (Department of Labor), substance abuse (departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development), and telemedicine (Department of Defense). In addition, we noted that VA relies on other federal agencies for information; for example, VA needs service records from the Department of Defense to help determine whether veterans have service-connected disabilities and to help establish their eligibility for Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits. VA’s current draft strategic plan addresses the need to improve coordination with other federal agencies and state governments. This will involve (1) identifying overlaps and links with other federal agencies, (2) enhancing and improving communications links with other agencies, and (3) keeping state directors of veterans’ affairs and other state officials apprised of VA benefits and programs and of opportunities for collaboration and coordination. As we noted in our comments on VA’s June 1997 draft strategic plan, VA has made progress in financial management and information technology. Like other federal agencies, VA needs accurate and reliable information to support executive branch and congressional decision-making. The “Management Strategies” section of VA’s current draft strategic plan addresses some financial management and information technology issues. Since VA has identified the need to devote a portion of its strategic plan to process-oriented goals, it is appropriate that some of these goals should focus on improving its management in these areas. much of its costs were attributable to each of the benefit programs it administers. According to the plan, this system would include two cost accounting systems already in development: VHA’s Decision Support System (DSS) and VBA’s Activity Based Costing (ABC) system. Another goal in the current draft plan is to establish a VA capital policy that ensures that capital investments, including capital information technology investments, reflect the most efficient and effective use of VA’s resources. Achieving this goal involves developing a VA-wide Agency Capital Plan and establishing a VA Capital Investment Board to generate policies for capital investments and to review proposed capital investments based on VA’s mission and priorities. Still another goal is designed to address the need for VA-wide information technology management to facilitate VA’s ability to function as a unified department. Achieving of this goal involves developing a VA-wide information technology strategic plan and a portfolio of prioritized information technology capital investments. In addition, the plan calls for the promotion of crosscutting VA information technology initiatives in order to improve services to veterans. The draft plan’s discussion of information technology addresses one of the information technology issues we have identified as high-risk throughout the federal government—the year-2000 computer problem. Unless corrections are made by January 1, 2000, VA’s computers may be unable to cope with dates in 2000, which could prevent VA from making accurate and timely benefit payments to veterans. VA’s draft plan includes as a performance goal that full implementation and testing of compliant software (that is, software capable of processing dates beyond 1999) will be completed by October 1999. Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony this morning. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO discussed the draft strategic plan developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. GAO noted that: (1) VA has made substantial progress in its strategic planning, based in part on consultations with the Congress; (2) however, as with many other agencies, VA's process of developing a plan that meets the requirements of the Results Act is an evolving one that will continue well after the September 30, 1997, deadline for submitting its first strategic plan to the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); (3) the August 15, 1997, draft that VA submitted to OMB for review is an improvement over the June 1997 version, because it is easier to follow, places more emphasis on results and less on process, and fills in some major gaps in the June 1997 draft; (4) however, the latest draft strategic plan continues to lack some of the key elements expected under the Results Act; and (5) as with the June 1997 draft, the August 15, 1997, draft lacks results-oriented goals for several major VA programs, lacks a program evaluation schedule, and contains inadequately developed discussions of external factors and the need to coordinate with other federal agencies. |
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's John Sudworth: "Family members have been told to prepare for the worst"
Radar signals show that a Malaysia Airlines plane missing for more than 24 hours may have turned back, Malaysian officials have said.
Rescue teams looking for the plane have now widened their search area.
Investigators are also checking CCTV footage of two passengers who are believed to have boarded the plane using stolen passports.
Flight MH370 from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing disappeared south of Vietnam with 239 people on board.
Analysis Malaysia Airlines lost contact with flight MH370 for five hours before it confirmed the news. After that, the authorities began to hold regular news briefings but they were cautious about what they revealed. The slow pace of information forced Malaysians to turn to social media first - then ask the authorities to confirm speculation or reports that appeared online. Among the many questions was how two passengers with fake European passports could have boarded flight MH370. Over the past four years, I have travelled frequently through the same airport. As a Canadian passport holder I have to scan both index fingers before I enter the country but not when I leave. The biometric system was set up in 2011 to prevent foreigners from repeatedly coming in to work illegally and to curb human trafficking and wildlife smuggling. Malaysian officials say they are working hard to answer questions. They have reminded people to avoid speculation, but it hasn't reassured distressed family members. What we know about Flight MH370
Air and sea rescue teams have been searching an area of the South China Sea south of Vietnam for more than 30 hours, but there have been no definite sightings of wreckage.
Late on Sunday, the Vietnamese authorities said a navy aircraft had spotted "an object" suspected of belonging to the missing plane, but officials said it was too dark to be certain.
The object is thought to be near a potential oil slick that was spotted on Saturday, but again officials have urged that this may be nothing to do with flight MH370.
Malaysia's civil aviation chief, Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, told a press conference in Kuala Lumpur that the search area had been expanded to include the west coast of Malaysia.
Five passengers booked on the flight did not board, he added. Their luggage was consequently removed.
There are now 40 ships and 34 aircraft from nine different nationalities taking part in the search. But no signal has been received from the plane's emergency locator transmitter, Malaysian aviation authorities say.
Air force chief Rodzali Daud said the investigation was now focusing on a recording of radar signals that showed there was a "possibility" the aircraft had turned back from its flight path.
Fake passports
The BBC has confirmed that a man falsely using an Italian passport and a man falsely using an Austrian passport purchased tickets at the same time, and were both booked on the same onward flight from Beijing to Europe on Saturday.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Alice Budisatrijo describes the growing search effort
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "There is a possibility the aircraft did make a turn back"
Both had purchased their tickets from China Southern Airlines, which shared the flight with Malaysia Airlines, and they had consecutive ticket numbers.
The real owners had their passports stolen in Thailand in recent years.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Aerial search teams may have spotted wreckage but ships must wait until dawn to confirm
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Military ships have joined the search off Vietnam
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Developments have been the subject of intense media attention in Beijing
The international police agency Interpol confirmed that at least two passports recorded as lost or stolen in its database were used by passengers on the flight - and that no checks of its database had been made for either passport between the time they were stolen and the departure of the flight.
Manifest for Flight MH370 153 Chinese including one child
38 Malaysians
7 Indonesians
6 Australians
5 Indians
4 French
3 Americans including one child
2 each from New Zealand, Ukraine and Canada
One each from Russia, Taiwan, Italy, Netherlands and Austria ( although both Italy and Austria deny any of their nationals were onboard) Source: Malaysia Airlines Who were passengers?
"Whilst it is too soon to speculate about any connection between these stolen passports and the missing plane, it is clearly of great concern that any passenger was able to board an international flight using a stolen passport listed in Interpol databases," the agency's Secretary General Ronald Noble said in a statement.
He expressed frustration that few of Interpol's 190 member countries "systematically" search the database.
Malaysia's Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said international agencies including the FBI had joined the investigation and all angles were being examined.
"Our own intelligence have been activated and, of course, the counterterrorism units... from all the relevant countries have been informed," he said.
"The main thing here for me and for the families concerned is that we find the aircraft."
The passengers on the flight were of 14 different nationalities. Two-thirds were from China, while others were from elsewhere in Asia, North America and Europe.
Boeing 777 fact sheet Twin-engine jet launched in June 1995
One of the world's most popular long-distance planes
Seats between 300 and 380 passengers
Has flown around five million flights
Often used for non-stop flights of 16 hours or more
In September 2001 a crew member died in a re-fuelling fire on a 777 at Denver International Airport
In 2013 three Chinese women died when the 777 Asiana Flight 214 crashed in San Francisco
The plane vanished from radar south of Vietnam at 17:30 GMT Friday (01:30 local time Saturday).
Malaysia Airlines had previously said it last had contact with air traffic controllers 120 nautical miles off the east coast of the Malaysian town of Kota Bharu.
Distraught relatives and loved ones of those on board are being given assistance at both the arrival and departure airports.
Many have expressed anger at the lack of information.
"I can't understand the airline company. They should have contacted the families first thing," a middle-aged woman told AFP news agency at Beijing airport, after finding out her brother-in-law was on the flight.
Texas firm Freescale Semiconductor says 20 of its Malaysian and Chinese employees were on the flight, according to a statement on its website.
Malaysia's national carrier is one of Asia's largest, flying nearly 37,000 passengers daily to some 80 destinations worldwide.
Correspondents say the route between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing has become more and more popular as Malaysia and China increase trade. ||||| KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Military radar indicates that the missing Boeing 777 jet may have turned back before vanishing, Malaysia's air force chief said Sunday as authorities were investigating up to four passengers with suspicious identifications.
A Chinese relative of the passengers aboard the missing Malaysia Airlines plane passes a demand letter for the airlines, signed by other relatives, to the media at a hotel, in Beijing, China Sunday, March... (Associated Press)
Family members of passengers aboard a missing plane cry at a hotel in Putrajaya, Malaysia, Sunday, March 9, 2014. Military radar indicates that the missing Boeing 777 jet of Malaysia Airlines may have... (Associated Press)
Hugh Dunleavy, left, from commercial director of the Malaysia Airlines is escorted by an unidentified Chinese man after speaking for relatives or friends of passengers aboard the missing plane, in Beijing... (Associated Press)
This photo provided by Laurent Errera taken Dec. 26, 2011, shows the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER that disappeared from air traffic control screens Saturday, taking off from Roissy-Charles de Gaulle... (Associated Press)
In this photo released by Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, a patrol vessel of Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency searches for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane off Tok Bali Beach in Kelantan,... (Associated Press)
A Chinese relative of passengers aboard a missing Malaysia Airlines plane cries as she leaves a hotel room for relatives or friends of passengers aboard the missing airplane, in Beijing, China Sunday,... (Associated Press)
A vendor prepares newspapers carrying a headline story and pictures of Saturday's missing Malaysian Airlines plane, in Shah Alam, outside Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Sunday, March 9, 2014. An international... (Associated Press)
This screengrab from flightradar24.com shows the last reported position of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, Friday night March 7, 2014. The Boeing 777-200 carrying 239 people lost contact over the South... (Associated Press)
Buddhist monks offer a special prayer for passengers aboard a missing plane, at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang, Malaysia, Sunday, March 9, 2014. Military radar indicates that the missing... (Associated Press)
A Chinese relative of passengers aboard a missing Malaysia Airlines plane, center, cries as she is escorted by a woman while leaving a hotel room for relatives or friends of passengers aboard the missing... (Associated Press)
The revelations add to the uncertainties surrounding the final minutes of flight MH370, which was carrying 239 people when it lost contact with ground controllers somewhere between Malaysia and Vietnam after leaving Kuala Lumpur early Saturday morning for Beijing.
A massive international sea search has so far turned up no trace of the plane, which lost contact with the ground when the weather was fine, the plane was already cruising and the pilots didn't send a distress signal — unusual circumstance for a modern jetliner operated by a professional airline to crash.
Vietnamese air force jets spotted two large oil slicks Saturday, but it was unclear if they were linked to the missing plane, and no debris was found nearby.
Air force chief Rodzali Daud didn't say which direction the plane veered when it apparently went off course, or how long it flew in that direction.
"We are trying to make sense of this," he told a media conference. "The military radar indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by civilian radar."
Malaysia Airlines Chief Executive Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said pilots were supposed to inform the airline and traffic control authorities if the plane does a U-turn. "From what we have, there was no such distress signal or distress call per se, so we are equally puzzled," he said.
Authorities were checking on the suspect identities of at least two passengers who appear to have boarded with stolen passports. On Saturday, the foreign ministries in Italy and Austria said the names of two citizens listed on the flight's manifest matched the names on two passports reported stolen in Thailand.
Malaysian Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said that authorities were looking at two more possible cases of suspicious identities. He said Malaysian intelligence agencies were in contact with their international counterparts, including the FBI. He gave no more details.
"All the four names are with me and have been given to our intelligence agencies," he said. "We are looking at all possibilities."
The stolen passports, and the sudden disappearance of the plane that experts say is consistent with a possible onboard explosion, strengthened existing concerns about terrorism as a possible cause for the disappearance. Al-Qaida militants have used similar tactics to try and disguise their identities.
Despite that, other possible causes would seem just as likely at this stage, including a catastrophic failure of the engines or the plane itself, extreme turbulence and pilot error or even suicide. Establishing a cause with any certainty will need data from flight recorders and a detailed examination of any debris, something that will take months if not years.
European authorities on Saturday confirmed the names and nationalities of the two stolen passports: One was an Italian-issued document bearing the name Luigi Maraldi, the other Austrian under the name Christian Kozel.
A telephone operator on a China-based KLM hotline on Sunday confirmed "Maraldi" and "Kozel" were both booked to leave Beijing on a KLM flight to Amsterdam on March 8. Maraldi was then to fly to Copenhagen on KLM on March 8, and Kozel to Frankfurt on March 8.
She said the pair booked the tickets through China Southern Airlines so she had no information on where they bought them.
Having an onward reservation from Beijing would have meant the pair, as holders of EU passports, would not have needed a visa for China. Beyond that, it was unclear whether this had any possible implications for the investigation.
A total of 22 aircraft and 40 ships have been deployed to the area by Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, China and the United States, not counting Vietnam's fleet.
Two-thirds of the jet's passengers were Chinese. The rest were from elsewhere in Asia, North America and Europe.
After more than 30 hours without contact with the aircraft, Malaysia Airlines told family members they should "prepare themselves for the worst," Hugh Dunleavy, the commercial director for the airline told reporters.
Finding traces of an aircraft that disappears over sea can take days or longer, even with a sustained search effort. Depending on the circumstances of the crash, wreckage can be scattered over many square kilometers (miles). If the plane enters the water before breaking up, there can be relatively little debris.
A team of American experts was en route to Asia to be ready to assist in the investigation into the crash. The team includes accident investigators from National Transportation Safety Board, as well as technical experts from the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing, the safety board said in a statement.
Malaysia Airlines has a good safety record, as does the 777, which had not had a fatal crash in its 19-year history until an Asiana Airlines plane crashed last July in San Francisco, killing three passengers, all Chinese teenagers.
Jason Middleton, the head of the Sydney-based University of New South Wales' School of Aviation, said terrorism or some other form of foul play seemed a likely explanation.
"You're looking at some highly unexpected thing, and the only ones people can think of are basically foul play, being either a bomb or some immediate incapacitating of the pilots by someone doing the wrong thing and that might lead to an airplane going straight into the ocean," Middleton said. "With two stolen passports (on board), you'd have to suspect that that's one of the likely options."
But Clive Williams, a counter-terrorism expert at Australia's Macquarie University and a former military intelligence officer, said he doubted the two stolen passports aboard the flight were related to the disaster. The latest Interpol data showed there were 39 million lost or stolen passports reported as of Dec. 2013.
"Any flight of that size in Asia would be carrying a couple of people with false passports," he said. "When you think about the number of passports that have been stolen or gone missing around the world ... it could be related, but it's probably not."
___
Brummitt reported from Hanoi, Vietnam.
___
Associated Press journalist Rod McGuirk in Canberra; Didi Tang, Gillian Wong and Louise Watt in Beijing; Joan Lowy in Washington; and Scott Mayerowitz in New York contributed this report. | The search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane has so far yielded nothing more than a pair of oil slicks and suspicions over two passengers' passports, but authorities today said that radar indicates that Flight MH370 may have diverted its course or turned back before losing contact. "We are trying to make sense of this," said the head of Vietnam's air force, which spotted the two oil slicks but no wreckage. "The military radar indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by civilian radar." Officials didn't say in which direction the Boeing 777 might have turned, notes the BBC, but the search has expanded to include Malaysia's west coast. What could have gone wrong remains an utter mystery: The weather was clear, the plane was cruising, and pilots gave no indication that the plane had diverted as they were supposed to, reports the AP. "From what we have, there was no such distress signal or distress call per se, so we are equally puzzled," says Malaysia Airlines' chief exec. Meanwhile, Interpol is checking its database on passengers' passports, and the number of names considered suspicious has risen to four. |
The head of the rail company involved in a devastating train derailment and explosion in Quebec defended his decision to wait several days to travel to the scene, saying he was more effective working with his staff in Chicago than he would have been wandering around the disaster site.
Edward Burkhardt, head of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, says he plans to travel to Lac-Megantic Tuesday to join the dozen or so staff the rail line already has on the ground.
"I made a decision that I would stay back here and try to handle the press, the insurance people, and a host of other relationships that are important to this entire issue," Burkhardt told CTV's Canada AM.
"I've been working 20 hour days ever since Saturday dealing with this, and I think I can be more effective in my office with a staff than I can be trying to work a cell phone on the edge of the cordoned-off area in Megantic."
Burkhardt is likely to face some criticism when he does arrive in the Quebec community located about 250 kilometres east of Montreal.
The town is still reeling after a train rolled into the town from the community of Nantes, about 13 kilometres away, then derailed and caught fire.
The blast overnight Friday killed at least 13 people, and nearly 40 more are still missing. And many have wondered why Burkhardt hasn't been present to explain to the media and townspeople what happened.
He said Tuesday morning the company is "not trying to duck out of anything -- we're meeting our responsibilities as best we can at this point," but acknowledged that not everyone agrees with his choice to wait several days before travelling to Lac-Megantic.
"I am headed there today and that had been my plan. One of the worst things is to be wandering around at the time the first responders are trying to make their emergency rescues in the city, you can do absolutely nothing so I think I made a good decision there although I realize I'm taking severe criticism from some quarters for it," he said.
There have been questions about what led up to the horrific accident. A fire crew in Nantes battled a blaze on the train on Friday evening, and Burkhardt claims they shut the train down which could have disengaged its air brakes and sent it rolling down the tracks.
"They shut down the engine that was maintaining the brakes that were holding the train. They didn’t do that on purpose, this was inadvertent," Burkhardt said.
Nantes fire chief Patrick Lambert told The Canadian Press his crew had been trained by MMA to handle fires on its line, and was following the company's own procedures when firefighters shut off the engine to battle the blaze.
And once the fire was out, the crew received the all-clear from MMA to depart the scene, Lambert said.
However, MMA maintains the crew should have alerted the engineer, who at that point was sleeping in a hotel.
After the fire crew left the scene, the train began rolling downhill towards Lac-Megantic.
The train was carrying 72 tanker cars full of shale oil from North Dakota, and was destined for an Irving oil refinery in Saint John, N.B. ||||| Story highlights Evidence that a criminal act may have led to train incident, provincial police captain says
At least 15 people are dead and 35 are still missing, according to captain
Some residents of the town are allowed to return home, officials say
Canadian authorities have found evidence that a criminal act may have led to a train crash in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that killed at least 15 people, provincial police Capt. Michel Forget said Tuesday.
There have been many questions about the crash and explosion that wiped out a swath of the town 130 miles east of Montreal. As of Tuesday evening, 35 people were still missing, Forget said.
Authorities offered no further details about the case but said it was not caused by terrorism.
"I will not speculate on the elements that we have recovered," Forget told reporters.
Investigators had earlier said that they are trying to figure out whether the train's brakes were disabled before it barreled at a dangerous speed into the Quebec town, derailed and burst into a deadly inferno.
JUST WATCHED Pipeline vs. rail safety concerns Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pipeline vs. rail safety concerns 02:25
JUST WATCHED Transport Canada extends condolences Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Transport Canada extends condolences 02:56
JUST WATCHED Death toll rises in train explosion Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Death toll rises in train explosion 01:46
JUST WATCHED See massive fire after train derailment Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH See massive fire after train derailment 00:32
Firefighters in the nearby town of Nantes put out a separate blaze on the train shortly before it crashed into Lac-Megantic early Saturday. Ed Burkhardt, chief executive officer and president of Rail World, the parent company of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, has told media outlets there's evidence the engine powering the brakes was shut down at some point.
Pressed to elaborate by CTV, Burkhardt wrote Tuesday in an e-mail exchange, "We are now aware the firefighters shut down the locomotive. By the time (Montreal, Maine & Atlantic) people found out, it was too late."
In earlier comments to the Montreal Gazette, he said the matter needs further investigation, and his company has begun an internal inquiry.
"There are a number of missing pieces here," Burkhardt told the paper , saying he didn't suspect "the event was malicious or an act of terrorism."
The company did not immediately return phone calls from CNN about the report.
Asked during an earlier news conference whether authorities suspected sabotage, Ed Belkaloul, manager of rail operations for Canada's Transportation Safety Board's eastern region, said there was no evidence to that effect.
The train began rolling -- unbeknownst to dispatchers and rail traffic controllers -- about an hour after the fire in Nantes was reported. It picked up speed because the track between Nantes and Lac-Megantic lies on a 1.2% downward slope, which Belkaloul said is relatively steep.
"On the principal lines, as soon as there is an uncontrolled movement, the controllers of rail traffic can see that there is an uncontrolled movement," Belkaloul said. But on smaller lines like the one between Nantes and Lac-Megantic, "there is no way for the dispatcher or the controller to realize that there is an uncontrolled movement."
Seventy-two tanker cars carrying crude oil jumped the track early Saturday, setting off a huge fireball.
Officials in Lac-Megantic say some victims were likely vaporized by the intense blaze, which burned for 36 hours after the crash.
The fire is under control, authorities said Tuesday morning. Of the roughly 2,000 residents evacuated, about 1,200 will be permitted to return home immediately. Another 800 cannot go back yet, the officials said.
Notices were placed on doors instructing residents how to clean and air out their homes. Officials suggested throwing out any food and boiling all water because the city's water treatment plant is not operational.
Firefighters are now using infrared detectors to find any remaining hot spots in the wreckage. They've stopped hosing down the area because it was inhibiting the investigation, officials said.
Rolling oil bomb?
The train had already been on fire hours before the Saturday accident, Canadian broadcaster CBC reported, sourcing fire officials. Firefighters in the town of Nantes, seven miles northwest of Lac-Megantic, extinguished a small blaze on the freight train.
When they left, the train was still parked where it was supposed to stay for the night, the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway said.
Earlier, the company said air brakes holding the train in place failed, allowing it to barrel downhill into Lac-Megantic. It was not clear if Rail World executive Burkhardt was suggesting to CTV that firefighters were responsible for disabling the brakes, but he told Reuters earlier that the brakes were disabled when firefighters shut down the engine powering them.
Investigators plan to check the brakes once the crumpled, burned tankers are accessible.
The train rolled into town much faster than a train under an engineer's control would have.
"Usually they're traveling between 5 and 10 miles an hour," said Quebec police officer Benoit Richard. "On that night, this train was going at least between 30 and 40 miles an hour."
Sonia Pepin recalls hearing the train like never before. The tracks are a few feet from her home, and her whole house shook, she said.
Investigators with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada found the locomotive event recorder, which they can analyze for information on throttle position and speed, among other data.
Oil transport safe?
Petroleum products have increasingly been transported via rail in the past five years, according to the railroad industry , and Canada has had multiple issues with derailments in recent months.
Last month, four Canadian Pacific rail cars carrying flammable petrochemicals used to dilute oil derailed on a flood-damaged bridge spanning Calgary's Bow River, according to the Calgary Herald.
In another incident involving Canadian Pacific, five tankers containing oil derailed in rural Saskatchewan in May, spilling 575 barrels of crude, the Toronto Sun reported.
A month earlier, 22 Canadian Pacific rail cars jumped the tracks near White River, Ontario. Two of the cars leaked about 400 barrels -- almost 17,000 gallons -- of oil, The Globe and Mail in Toronto reported.
Canadian Pacific was also involved in a stateside spill in March. Fourteen cars on a mile-long, 94-car train derailed in western Minnesota, about 150 miles northwest of Minneapolis, spilling about 30,000 gallons of crude, Reuters reported.
A rail car can carry roughly 700 barrels of oil, with 42 gallons per barrel.
Popular Quebec performer missing
The runaway train rumbled toward Lac-Megantic while patrons at the Musi-Cafe were enjoying a summer night of live music. Some were sitting on the pub's front porch.
The Musi-Cafe is no longer standing, one of an estimated 40 buildings leveled in the crash and explosions. Some of its patrons have been counted among the 13 confirmed dead.
"We know that there will be many more," said police Lt. Michel Brunet.
Authorities believe some of those still missing were in the pub at the time of the accident. Quebecois musician Guy Bolduc had been performing there.
The pub's Facebook page is filling up with messages of condolence, as has a page created for the victims of the disaster. Bolduc's fans are searching for him on social media.
"All of his fans, all over Quebec, but also his fellow singers (of whom I am one) hope to see him again alive!!! Come on my GuyBol, come out of your hiding place," one member wrote.
"Hot zones" lingering more than two days after the train derailment hampered authorities' efforts to search for missing people.
Forensic specialists have asked victims' families for hair samples, clothing, anything to help identify their loved ones.
In a town of just 6,000 residents, most everyone is affected by the deaths and destruction.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has described the scene as a "war zone." ||||| LAC-MEGANTIC, Quebec/CHICAGO (Reuters) - The death toll in Quebec's oil train disaster jumped to 13 people on Monday and police said about 37 more people were missing, a sign the derailment and explosion could be the worst accident in Canada since the Swissair crash of 1998.
Police said they estimated a total of around 50 people were either dead or missing after the gigantic blast destroyed dozens of buildings in the center of Lac-Megantic early on Saturday.
Previously they had said five people were dead and 40 were missing. Given the devastation in the town center, few residents expect any of the missing to be found alive.
The coroner's office asked relatives of the missing to bring in toothbrushes, hair brushes, combs and razors so specialists could extract DNA samples from strands of hair.
If the death toll does hit 50, that would make it Canada's deadliest accident since 229 people died in 1998 when a Swissair jet crashed into the sea off eastern Canada.
Asked when authorities would declare the missing people dead, police spokesman Benoit Richard replied: "When we find the bodies."
The runaway oil tanker train derailed in the town of 6,000 people shortly after 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, causing a huge explosion and deadly ball of flame.
Air brakes that would have prevented the disaster failed because they were powered by an engine that was shut down by firefighters as they dealt with a fire shortly before the calamity occurred, the head of the railway that operated the train said on Monday.
The train had been parked at a siding on a slope near the town of Nantes, which is 12 kilometers (8 miles) west of Lac-Megantic. The volunteer Nantes fire service was called out late on Friday night to deal with an engine fire on one of the train's locomotives.
Nantes Fire Chief Patrick Lambert told Reuters the crew had switched off the engine as they extinguished a "good-sized" blaze in the engine, probably caused by a fuel or oil line break in the engine.
BRAKES FAILED, SAYS CHAIRMAN
The problem was that the engine had been left on by the train's engineer to maintain pressure in the air brakes, Ed Burkhardt, chairman of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA), said in an interview. As the pressure gradually "leaked off," the air brakes failed and the train began to slide downhill, he said.
The fire service said it contacted a local MMA dispatcher in Farnham, Quebec, after the blaze was out. "We told them what we did and how we did it," Lambert said.
Asked whether there had been any discussion about the brakes, he replied: "There was no discussion of the brakes at that time. We were there for the train fire. As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them."
It was not immediately clear what the MMA dispatcher did after speaking with the fire service. Burkhardt said the fire service should have also tried to contact the train's operator, who was staying at a nearby hotel.
"If the engine was shut off, someone should have made a report to the local railroad about that," he said.
Andre Gendron, 38, lives on a wooded property next to the rail yard in Nantes. He said he was burning a campfire outside his trailer on Friday night when he heard the fire trucks.
"About five minutes after the firemen left, I felt the vibration of a train moving down the track. I then saw the train move by without its lights on," Gendron told Reuters.
"I found it strange its lights weren't on and thought it was an electrical problem on board. It wasn't long after that I heard the explosion. I could see the light from the fires in Lac-Megantic."
Federal Transport Minister Denis Lebel said inspectors from his department had examined the locomotive on July 5, the day before the disaster, and found nothing wrong.
Canadian crash investigators say they will look at the two sets of brakes on the train: the airbrakes and the handbrakes. Members of the team are due to speak to reporters at 10 a.m. (1400 GMT) on Tuesday.
Burkhardt said that after the pressure leaked out of the airbrakes, the handbrakes would not have been strong enough to keep the train in place.
During the course of the day police relaxed the security perimeter around the center of Lac-Megantic, a lakeside town near the border with Maine. Authorities said that over the next few days around 1,500 of the 2,000 people who had been evacuated would be allowed to go back home.
One of the destroyed buildings was a music bar popular with young people, and witnesses reported fleeing the area around the building as the heat and flames closed in.
Montreal Maine & Atlantic is one of many North American railroads that have vastly stepped up shipments of crude oil as pipelines from North Dakota and from oil-producing regions in Western Canada fill to capacity, and the accident is bound to raise concern about the practice of transporting oil by rail.
(Additional reporting by Julie Gordon in Lac-Megantic; Writing by David Ljunggren and Janet Guttsman; Editing by Peter Galloway and Eric Walsh) | The company that owns the runaway train that decimated the heart of a small Quebec town thinks firefighters working on it hours before the crash are to blame, reports CNN. The firefighters put out a fire aboard the train when it was parked in the town of Nantes. While doing so, "they shut down the engine that was maintaining the brakes that were holding the train," Edward Burkhardt of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway tells CTV. "They didn’t do that on purpose, this was inadvertent." At some point after the fire was out, the train began rolling on its own toward nearby Lac-Megantic, picking up speed as it went because it's a downhill journey. By the time it reached the town, a distance of 8 miles, the driver-less train was out of control. The Nantes fire chief, meanwhile, tells Reuters that its crew informed an MMA dispatcher of exactly what it did while extinguishing the blaze. "We were there for the train fire," he says. "As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them." As of today, 13 people were confirmed dead and up to 50 were missing, reports the Montreal Gazette. Canadian transportation officials say it will be awhile before the investigation is complete. |
Waste discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants into rivers and streams, lakes, and estuaries and coastal waters are a significant source of water quality problems throughout the country. States report that municipal discharges are the second leading source of water quality impairment in all of the nation's waters. Pollutants associated with municipal discharges include nutrients (which can stimulate growth of algae that deplete dissolved oxygen, a process that harms aquatic ecosystems, since most fish and other aquatic organisms "breathe" oxygen dissolved in the water column), bacteria and other pathogens (which may impair drinking water supplies and recreation uses), and metals and toxic chemicals from industrial and commercial activities and households. The Clean Water Act (CWA) prescribes performance levels to be attained by municipal sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful quantities of waste into surface waters, and to ensure that residual sewage sludge meets environmental quality standards. It requires secondary treatment of sewage (equivalent to removing 85% of raw wastes), or treatment more stringent than secondary where needed to achieve water quality standards necessary for recreational and other uses of a river, stream, or lake. In addition to prescribing municipal treatment requirements, the CWA authorizes the principal federal program to aid wastewater treatment plant construction. Congress established this program in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), significantly enhancing what previously had been a modest grant program. Since then, Congress has appropriated more than $92 billion to assist cities in complying with the act and achieving the overall objectives of the act: restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters (see Table 1 ). Title II of P.L. 92-500 authorized grants to states for wastewater treatment plant construction under a program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal funds are provided through annual appropriations under a state-by-state allocation formula contained in the act; the formula (which has been modified several times since 1972) is based on states' financial needs for treatment plant construction and population. States used their allotments to make grants to cities to build or upgrade categories of wastewater treatment projects including treatment plants, related interceptor sewers, correction of infiltration/inflow of sewer lines, and sewer rehabilitation. Amendments enacted in 1987 ( P.L. 100-4 ) initiated a new program to support, or capitalize, State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRFs). States continue to receive federal grants, but now they provide a 20% match and use the combined funds to make loans to communities. Monies used for construction are repaid to states to create a "revolving" source of assistance for other communities. The SRF program replaced the previous Title II program in FY1991. Federal contributions to SRFs were intended to assist a transition to full state and local financing by FY1995; SRFs were to be sustained through repayment of loans made from the fund after that date. The intention was that states would have greater flexibility to set priorities and administer funding in exchange for an end to federal aid after 1994, when the original CWA authorizations expired. However, although most states believe that the SRF is working well today, early funding and administrative problems, plus remaining funding needs (discussed below), delayed the anticipated shift to full state responsibility. Congress has continued to appropriate funds to assist wastewater construction activities, as shown in Table 1 . (This table excludes appropriations for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure grants in individual communities and regions, which totaled $7.5 billion from FY1989 through FY2015.) When the SRF program was created, it represented a major shift in how the nation finances wastewater treatment needs. In contrast to the Title II construction grants program, which provided grants directly to localities, SRFs are loan programs. States use their SRFs to provide several types of loan assistance to communities, including project construction loans made at or below market rates, refinancing of local debt obligations, and providing loan guarantees or purchasing insurance. States also may provide additional subsidization of a loan (including forgiveness of principal and negative interest loans) in certain instances. Loans are to be repaid to the SRF within 30 years, beginning within one year after project completion, and the locality must dedicate a revenue stream (from user fees or other sources) to repay the loan to the state. States must agree to use SRF monies first to ensure that wastewater treatment facilities are in compliance with deadlines, goals, and requirements of the act. After meeting this "first use" requirement, states may also use the funds to support other types of water quality programs specified in the law, such as those dealing with nonpoint source pollution and protection of estuaries. The law identifies a number of types of projects as eligible for SRF assistance, including wastewater treatment plant construction, stormwater treatment and management, energy-efficiency improvements at treatment works, reuse and recycling of wastewater or stormwater, and security improvements at treatment works. States also must agree to ensure that communities meet several specifications (such as requiring that locally prevailing wages be paid for wastewater treatment plant construction, pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act). In addition, SRF recipients must use American-made iron and steel products in their projects. As under the previous Title II program, decisions on which projects will receive assistance are made by states using a priority ranking system that typically considers the severity of local water pollution problems, among other factors. Financial considerations of the loan agreement (interest rate, repayment schedule, the recipient's dedicated source of repayment) are also evaluated by states under the SRF program. All states have established the legal and procedural mechanisms to administer the loan program and are eligible to receive SRF capitalization grants. Some with prior experience using similar financing programs moved quickly, while others had difficulty in making a transition from the previous grants program to one that requires greater financial management expertise for all concerned. More than half of the states currently leverage their funds by using federal capital grants and state matching funds as collateral to borrow in the public bond market for purposes of increasing the pool of available funds for project lending. Cumulatively since 1988, leveraged bonds have comprised about 48% of total SRF funds available for projects; loan repayments comprise about 20%. Small communities and states with large rural populations had the largest problems with the SRF program. Many small towns did not participate in the previous grants program and were more likely to require major projects to achieve compliance with the law. Yet many have limited financial, technical, and legal resources and encountered difficulties in qualifying for and repaying SRF loans. These communities often lack an industrial tax base and thus face the prospect of very high per capita user fees to repay a loan for the full capital cost of sewage treatment projects. Compared with larger cities, many are unable to benefit from economies of scale which can affect project costs. Still, small communities have been participating in the SRF program: since 1989, nationally, 67%% of all loans and other assistance (comprising 23% of total funds loaned) have gone to assist towns and cities with less than 10,000 population. While the Clean Water Act is the principal federal program of this type, some other assistance is available. For example, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) operates grant and loan programs for water supply and wastewater facilities in rural areas, defined as areas of not more than 10,000 persons. Funds available for these programs as a result of FY2015 appropriations for water and waste disposal grants and loans are $347 million. Two other programs are: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For FY2015, Congress provided $3.0 billion for CDBG funds, of which approximately $900 million is available for smaller communities. Water and waste disposal projects compete with many other funded public activities and are estimated by HUD to account for less than 20% of CDBG obligations. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce. EDA provides project grants for construction of public facilities, including but not limited to water and sewer systems, as part of approved overall economic development programs in areas of lagging economic growth. For FY2015, EDA's public works and economic development program is funded at $99 million. The federal government directly funds only a small portion of the nation's annual wastewater treatment capital investment. State and local governments provide the majority of needed funds. Local governments have primary responsibility for wastewater treatment; they own and operate 16,000 treatment plants and 24,000 collection systems nationwide. Construction of these facilities has historically been financed with revenues from federal grants, state grants to supplement federal aid, and broad-based local taxes (property tax, retail sales tax, or in some cases, local income tax). Where grants are unavailable—and especially since SRFs were established—local governments often seek financing by issuing bonds and then levy fees or charges on users of public services to repay the bonds in order to cover all or a portion of local capital costs. Almost all such projects are debt-financed (not financed on a pay-as-you-go basis from ongoing revenues to the utility). The principal financing tool that local governments use is issuance of tax-exempt municipal bonds—at least 70% of U.S. water utilities rely on municipal bonds and other debt to some degree to finance capital investments. Shifting the Clean Water Act aid program from categorical grants to the SRF loan program had the practical effect of making localities ultimately responsible for 100% of project costs, rather than less than 50% of costs. This has occurred concurrently with other financing challenges, including the need to fund other environmental services, such as drinking water and solid waste management; and increased operating costs (new facilities with more complex treatment processes are more costly to operate). Options that localities face, if intergovernmental aid is not available, include raising additional local funds (through bond issuance, increased user fees, developer charges, general or dedicated taxes), reallocating funds from other local programs, or failing to comply with federal standards. Each option carries with it certain practical, legal, and political problems. Over the past 40-plus years since the CWA was enacted, the nation has made considerable progress in controlling and reducing certain kinds of chemical pollution of rivers, lakes, and streams, much of it because of investments in wastewater treatment. Between 1968 and 1995, biological oxygen demand (BOD) pollutant loadings discharged from sewage treatment plants declined by 45%, despite increased industrial activity and a 35% growth in population. EPA and others argue that without continued infrastructure improvements, future population growth will erode many of the CWA achievements made to date in pollution reduction. The total population served by sewage treatment plants that provide a minimum of secondary treatment increased from 85 million in 1972 to 223 million in 2008, representing 72% of the U.S. population. However, about 3.8 million people are served by facilities that provide less than secondary treatment, which is the basic requirement of federal law. About 79 million people are served by on-site septic systems and not by centralized municipal treatment facilities. Despite improvements, other water quality problems related to municipalities remain to be addressed. A key concern is "wet weather" pollution: overflows from combined sewers (from sewers that carry sanitary and industrial wastewater, groundwater infiltration, and stormwater runoff which may discharge untreated wastes into streams) and separate stormwater sewers (sewers that carry only sanitary waste). Untreated discharges from these sewers, which typically occur during rainfall events, can cause serious public health and environmental problems, yet costs to control wet weather problems are high in many cases. In addition, toxic wastes discharged from industries and households to sewage treatment plants cause water quality impairments, operational upsets, and contamination of sewage sludge. Although more than $91 billion in CWA assistance has been provided since 1972, funding needs remain very high: an additional $298 billion, according to the most recent Needs Survey estimate by EPA and the states, released in 2010, a 17% increase above the estimate reported four years earlier. This current estimate includes $187.9 billion for wastewater treatment and collection systems ($26.7 billion more than the previous report), which represent more than 60% of all needs; $63.6 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections ($1.4 billion less than the previous estimate); $42.3 billion for stormwater management ($17 billion more than the previous estimate); and $4.4 billion to build systems to distribute recycled water ($700 million less than the previous estimate). These estimates do not include potential costs, largely unknown, to upgrade physical protection of wastewater facilities against possible terrorist attacks that could threaten water infrastructure systems, an issue of great interest since September 11, 2001. Needs for small communities represent about 8% of the total. The largest needs in small communities are for pipe repair and new sewer pipes, improved wastewater treatment, and correction of combined sewer overflows. Seven states accounted for 50% of the small community needs (Pennsylvania, New York, Iowa, Utah, Illinois, West Virginia, and Ohio). In 2002, EPA released a study called the Gap Analysis that assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs (both capital and operation and maintenance). EPA estimated that, over the next two decades, the United States needs to spend nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater systems (including for some projects not eligible for CWA funding, such as system replacement) and to build new ones. According to the Gap Analysis, if there is no increase in investment, there will be about a $6 billion annual gap between current capital expenditures for wastewater treatment and projected spending needs. The study also estimated that, if wastewater spending increases by 3% annually, the gap would shrink by nearly 90%. Although that study is now more than a decade old, the analysis is still recognized as a strong indicator of the gap between water infrastructure investment and perceived needs. At issue has been what should the federal role be in assisting states and cities, especially in view of such high projected funding needs. Authorizations for SRF capitalization grants expired in FY1994, making this an issue of congressional interest. (Appropriations have continued, as shown in Table 1 .) In the 104 th Congress, the House passed a comprehensive reauthorization bill ( H.R. 961 ), which included SRF provisions to address problems that have arisen since 1987, including assistance for small and disadvantaged communities and expansion of projects and activities eligible for SRF assistance. However, no legislation was enacted, because of controversies over other parts of the bill. One recent focus has been on projects needed to control wet weather water pollution, overflows from combined and separate stormwater sewer systems. Funding needs for projects to address these types of projects are estimated to be nearly $106 billion. The 106 th Congress passed a bill authorizing $1.5 billion of CWA grant funding specifically for wet weather sewerage projects (in P.L. 106-554 ), because under the SRF program, "wet weather" projects compete with other types of eligible projects for available funds. However, authorization for these "wet weather" project grants expired in FY2003 and has not been renewed. No funds were appropriated. In several Congresses since the 107 th , House and Senate committees have approved bills to extend the act's SRF program and increase authorization of appropriations for SRF capitalization grants, but no legislation other than appropriations has been enacted until recently. Issues debated in connection with these bills included extending SRF assistance to help states and cities meet the estimated $298 billion in funding needs; modifying the program to assist small and economically disadvantaged communities; and enhancing the SRF program to address a number of water quality priorities beyond traditional treatment plant construction, particularly the management of wet weather pollutant runoff from numerous sources, which is the leading cause of stream and lake impairment nationally. Congress did enact certain changes to the SRF provisions of the CWA in 2014 ( P.L. 113-121 ). These amendments addressed several issues, including extending loan repayment terms from 20 years to 30 years, expanding the list of SRF-eligible projects to include energy- and water-efficiency, increasing assistance to Indian tribes, and imposing "Buy American" requirements on SRF recipients. However, the amendments did not address other long-standing or controversial issues, such as: authorization of appropriations for SRF capitalization grants, which expired in FY1994; state-by-state allocation of capitalization grants; and applicability of prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act, which currently apply to use of SRF monies. This legislation also includes provisions authorizing a five-year pilot program for a new type of financing, a Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, authorizing federal loans and loan guarantees for wastewater and public water supply projects. This new program is intended to assist large water infrastructure projects, especially projects of regional and national significance, and to supplement but not replace other types of financial assistance, such as SRFs. Congress has recently focused extensively on reducing federal spending, making it a challenge for legislators to provide federal assistance for water infrastructure programs. Although interest in meeting the nation's water infrastructure needs is strong and likely to continue, policy makers will balance proposals to assist local communities with policies to achieve greater fiscal discipline. Unclear for now is how infrastructure programs will fare in these debates. | The Clean Water Act prescribes performance levels to be attained by municipal sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful wastes into surface waters. The act also provides financial assistance so that communities can construct treatment facilities to comply with the law. The availability of funding for this purpose continues to be a major concern of states and local governments. This report provides background on municipal wastewater treatment issues, federal treatment requirements and funding, and recent legislative activity. Meeting the nation's wastewater infrastructure needs efficiently and effectively is likely to remain an issue of considerable interest to policy makers. |
Hervé Falciani’s long, strange journey from bank computer expert to jailed fugitive to candidate for office to spokesman for whistleblowers
They almost had him.
On December 22, 2008, Swiss federal police handcuffed 36-year-old Hervé Falciani, a systems specialist they suspected of stealing data from HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), his employer, and trying to sell it to banks in Lebanon. They seized his computer, searched his Geneva home and interrogated him for hours.
Then – on the condition that he return the next day for more questioning – they let him go.
And go he did. Renting a car, Falciani picked up his wife and daughter and drove straight to France. There he began downloading vast amounts of HSBC data that he had stored on remote servers and that has since been causing havoc for wealthy people the world over who use offshore accounts to hide money from taxation: client names and account holdings as well as notes about the bank’s conversations with them.
That day was the pivot point in a long, strange journey for Falciani, a colorful figure who has since moved from country to country on the lam from Swiss authorities – and possibly from criminal elements who mean him harm. He presents himself as a whistleblower and has attracted wide media attention; he even ran unsuccessfully for the European Parliament. He has been known to use an assumed identity, to wear disguises, and to appear in public with bodyguards. He has been jailed – and indicted: In December, the Swiss attorney general charged Falciani with data theft from HSBC, saying his intent was “cashing in.”
Falciani’s HSBC data trove ended up first in the hands of authorities in France, which then indicted London-based HSBC for illegal direct marketing to French nationals, money laundering and facilitating tax fraud.
The French authorities shared the data with other countries, including the U.S., and it is being used in tax probes and attempts to recover evaded taxes all around the world. The French newspaper Le Monde obtained the data as well, and shared it with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
HSBC posted bail and confirmed that French magistrates were investigating “whether the bank acted appropriately between 2006-07 in relation to certain clients of the bank who had French tax reporting requirements, as well as in relation to the way the bank offered its services in the country.”
It also said it will “continue to cooperate with the French authorities to the fullest extent possible.”
Criminal prosecutors in Argentina and Belgium are also investigating the Swiss unit of London-based HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks, and some of its customers. In addition, in Greece the former finance minister Giorgos Papaconstantinou faces criminal charges of breach of trust, doctoring an official document and dereliction of duty growing out of his alleged failure to act on the list when he received it and his alleged removal of the names of three relatives from the list.
Switzerland, however, is continuing its pursuit of Falciani. The Swiss attorney general charged him with data theft from HSBC on Dec. 11, 2014, accusing him in a press release announcing the indictment of compiling “data and information on the Bank’s clients that was both personal and financial in nature, thus creating complete client profiles with the intent – as is the hypothesis of the (Office of the Attorney General) –at least in the initial phase in Lebanon, of cashing in on this data.”
Whatever Falciani’s original intent – whether to sell the data and enrich himself or to use it to expose wrongdoing – his timing couldn’t have been better. The data landed in the hands of French officials a year into the Great Recession, the longest and deepest since the Depression. Many European nations, desperate for revenue, were also facing a popular backlash against tax evasion that sheltered the earnings of the extremely rich and shifted the tax burden to those less able to pay. While some countries, including the U.S., did very little with the data initially, others recognized it as a way to recover money for their treasuries.
Clashing stories on what happened
It all began in 2006, when Falciani, who holds citizenship in both France and Italy, was transferred from HSBC Monaco to HSBC Private Bank in Geneva. There, according to his telling of the story to French authorities, he wanted to improve oversight of the Geneva bank’s activities and better protect client data. But, he says, he met resistance.
Falciani said he had helped put systems in place in Monaco “allowing us to discover fraudulent activities by someone there who was prosecuted,” and that he hoped to do the same thing in Switzerland. “I wanted to put in place an IT project that would allow better checks of the bank’s activities. . . . I worked with others in a group called ‘change the bank,’ but this was against another group called ‘run the bank,’ which wanted to do things without being monitored,” he said in a deposition in France in June 2013.
“Banks such as HSBC have created a system for making themselves rich at the expense of society, by assisting in tax evasion and money laundering,” he said in a July 2013 interview with Der Spiegel. He said that HSBC had a division to help hide client identities and transactions. “For example, a bank might bring in intermediary companies, sometimes at multiple levels, and make sure business isn’t conducted through the bank’s own accounts.”
He also described the bank recruiting customers from abroad. “These branches invite their clients to sporting and cultural events, where they meet intermediaries who explain how to get money to Switzerland without having to physically transport it across the border.”
Falciani said he alerted bank officials to data problems at the bank. But an investigation by the Swiss police said that assertion wasn’t supported either by anyone at the bank or any other evidence.
“HSBC has no record of HF ever escalating any concerns to his line management, or using the Whistleblowing hotline that was in place at the time of the theft,” HSBC said in a statement to ICIJ. The bank also described measures it has put in place to “ensure that HSBC has a robust anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance programme.”
Falciani also said that he went to Swiss authorities about the data problems in 2006. But he maintains that Swiss authorities declined to work with him because he wanted to retain his anonymity to protect himself and his family. After that, according to Falciani, he made attempts to interest authorities in other countries about the data and the wrongdoing it revealed.
The bank and Swiss officials tell a different story: that Falciani stole the data and hoped to profit from it, first by shopping it to banks in Lebanon and then by offering it to authorities in countries outside of Switzerland.
Falciani also claims that “official contact was made with the American judicial authorities from 2007. With the IRS, from April 2008.” Those claims have not so far been corroborated.
Selling data in Lebanon
In February 2008, Falciani went to Lebanon with Georgina Mikhael, with whom he had been working at HSBC and who had helped him create a Hong Kong-based company called Palorva. The company claimed on its website that it could help banks recruit wealthy customers by data mining. According to the Swiss police report, the company’s name was an acronym for the words in English: Project and lay over the risk via ambition.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the website also sported this motto: “Business is the art of extracting money from another man’s pocket without resorting to violence.”
Mikhael and Falciani, who was married, had a romantic relationship according to the Swiss police report. That relationship has since ended.
Together they called on several banks that had representatives in Lebanon, using business cards that referred to Falciani as the sales manager, using the alias Ruben Al-Chidiack. The Journal, attributing the information to officials of the banks, reported that the couple offered to sell data to the banks but evaded questions about how it had been obtained. Mikhael, who subsequently identified Falciani to Swiss police as the person who had taken the data, has also said Falciani was trying to sell the data.
“He said the only reason he went to work at HSBC was to steal a large sum of money,” Mikhael told Business Week. He needed the money for a divorce, she said.
“Georgina thought we were going to settle in Lebanon,” Falciani said in the 2013 deposition in the French case. “I let her think I had the same idea. I never made her think I would sell the HSBC files.” Instead, he maintains that the sales calls were a ruse that would “create an alert that would get back to the Swiss authorities . . . like an alert about the vulnerability of banking secrecy.”
The couple’s sales calls did trigger an alert. One bank posted an alert on the website of the Swiss Bankers Association that someone was offering to sell “data on clients of various Swiss banks.” The Office of the Attorney General in Switzerland noticed and opened an investigation.
This was in 2008. In its announcing the charges against Falciani six years later, the attorney general’s office said that criminal proceedings against another former HSBC employee had been dropped due to a “marginal” role. The release did not name the other employee but spoke of a “Franco-Lebanese national” who had a personal relationship with Falciani and accompanied him to Lebanon; Mikhael is Franco-Lebanese.
‘Tax evasion: client list available’
Once Falciani and Mikhael returned from Lebanon, they contacted European tax authorities and intelligence agencies, offering “the client list of one of the world’s largest wealth management banks,” according to Swiss police reports. “Tax evasion: client list available” was the subject line in the emails, according to The Wall Street Journal, which also noted that the emails didn’t ask for money.
Falciani went even further with French officials. Using the Al-Chidiack alias, he contacted Jean-Patrick Martini, an official at the National Directorate of Tax Investigations and offered an encrypted list containing the personal information on seven HSBC clients based in France, including the amount of their wealth in U.S. dollars. There was some back and forth about the data before they met in person.
“At our first meeting I kept my distance and had trouble ‘getting him,’” Martini said in a deposition. “The second time I went with a psychologist and understood he had serious information…. Clearly this man, who wouldn’t give his name, wanted to know that we could use this data.”
After his run-in with Swiss police in HSBC’s Geneva offices, Falciani revealed his identity to his French contacts. On Christmas Eve 2008, a few days after Falciani fled, he called again to tell them of his arrival in France, Martini said. He added that he and Falciani met in Nice a few days later, “and he gave me everything.”
Meanwhile, Swiss authorities were closing in. On January 20, 2009, the prosecutor’s office in Nice, responding to a request from Swiss authorities, ordered a search of Falciani’s father’s home, where he had been staying. Falciani told the Nice police that he had been in touch with Martini and that some of the material that the Swiss wanted to take was “relevant to France,” in the words of Nice’s chief prosecutor, Eric de Montgolfier. In a deposition in the French court case, the prosecutor said he decided that was a good enough reason to say no to Swiss authorities. “We could resist giving the material back to the Swiss because it contained things that seemed to be against France’s national interest,” said de Montgolfier.
"In Falciani’s version of events he is part James Bond ... and part disappointed idealist. It’s a tale he has recounted frequently – if not always consistently."
The French then set to work on what they had, which was a mass of data (nearly 600 files with a size of more than 100 gigabytes) that took time to put in useable form. French tax authorities noted in a memo that it was “necessary to rebuild and reanalyze relationships between clients and their files using various code tables, which had to be first decrypted.”
And, with that, they had help from Falciani, who from that point on would appear in a variety of disguises, frequently accompanied by bodyguards, resisting attempts by Swiss authorities to extradite him, sometimes expressing fear for his life in his frequent interviews with journalists.
Once France had assembled the data in a usable form, authorities began sharing shorter lists with other European countries, including Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Greece, of HSBC clients who might be liable for taxes in those countries.
Cat-and-mouse game
As all these events were unfolding, Falciani was continuing his own odyssey. In February 2012, that included a cat-and-mouse game with the Bern prosecutor and the Switzerland’s federal prosecutor, according to Falciani. “I met them at the Geneva airport. I had a safe passage for several hours. If I pleaded guilty to several things, they would give me a suspended sentence,” he said in a deposition in a French court case against HSBC and the French clients. The deal never came together.
Later that year, in an account that so far has not been corroborated, Falciani said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País that he started working with U.S. Department of Justice officials on June 1, 2012. They warned him, he said, that the U.S. Senate “would be launching serious allegations against HSBC because of its lax money laundering and terrorist financing controls, and that the bank would be prosecuted. I was told that from then my life would be in danger. I had two choices: start a new life in the United States or travel elsewhere to buy some time.”
There were, indeed, hearings based on a report by the House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in July 2012, entitled “U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History,” but according to a subcommittee aide, none of the data that Falciani had taken from the bank was provided to the committee or used in the investigation.
Subsequent to the Senate investigation, in July 2013, HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion to settle federal charges that it had enabled money laundering by Latin American drug cartels.
According to Falciani, U.S. officials told him that “the only safe place in Europe would be Spain.” On July 1, 2012, he was arrested in Barcelona, where he had sailed from Sète, France, and jailed for five and a half months under a Swiss arrest warrant. He was released from jail Dec. 18, while Switzerland continued to seek his extradition.
Spain’s National Court granted conditional freedom to Falciani because he was aiding European countries in tax investigations and demonstrating a positive attitude. But the court prohibited Falciani from leaving Spain and required him to report regularly to a police station.
On May 8, 2013, the same court denied Switzerland’s request that Falciani be extradited, saying that the charge of violating bank secrecy laws was not a punishable crime in Spain. The court noted that he had turned over records to competent authorities and was helping authorities pursue tax evasion. Falciani returned to France from Spain and began working with French officials to put the data to work, tracking down tax evaders and providing other countries with similar tools for their own uses. He was still looking over his shoulder.
“I am weak and alone,” he said in an interview with Canwest News Service, now known as Postmedia News of Canada, which noted that he said so “as three round-the-clock bodyguards provided by the French government looked on with hard stares.”
In Falciani’s version of events he is part James Bond, evading dangerous, powerful opponents and working with government intelligence agents, and part disappointed idealist, shocked by the reality he encountered in the bank he once worked for.
It’s a tale he has recounted frequently – if not always consistently.
Mossad enters the story
The Canwest story also noted that Mikhael was pursuing a defamation lawsuit against Falciani in France “stemming from his contention that he was kidnapped by Mossad secret agents in Geneva who were seeking bank information about people with Hezbollah ties,” including Mikhael, who says she has no Hezbollah ties and is a Christian.
The alleged 2007 Mossad incident has been mentioned in stories about Falciani that suggest no doubts in Falciani’s mind about their identities. “He has been on the run from Swiss police for six years, claims to have been kidnapped by agents from Mossad and has sparked the biggest tax evasion investigation in history,” wrote the Sunday Times of London.
But in an interview with Business Week, he was more nuanced. The story said he recounted that he was walking in Geneva “when some men jumped out of a van, forced him to get in, and took him to the basement of a deserted building. They identified themselves as agents of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, he says, and asked if he would help them ensure that HSBC ‘did not continue its practices.’ The men didn’t say specifically what they were concerned about but Falciani says he later suspected they were worried about hidden sources of terrorist money. Falciani says he agreed to help, although he says he had no way to verify whether the men actually worked for Mossad.”
The story went on to report that Falciani said it was the Mossad agents who proposed the Beirut trip, hoping that Lebanese banks would alert law-enforcement officials that the bank’s account secrecy had been compromised.
Falciani is adamant in his protests that he was never out for the money. And at least one French official deposed in the French court case against HSBC agreed. Falciani “was clear he didn’t want money,” said Martini, a tax inspector who met with him to discuss the data in late 2008, before Falciani fled Switzerland for France.
“He didn’t even want to talk about it,’’ Martini was quoted as saying. “He didn’t ask us for anything and said he was acting out of his civic duty. He said there was fraud, that the bank was complicit in a lot of irregularities and that it needed to stop. I always thought he was acting out of civic duty.”
He added that without Falciani’s help the French would have had a hard time pursuing cases. “He helped us massively.”
Disillusionment with banks
Today Falciani styles himself as a spokesman for all whistleblowers. In the past year he has appeared more relaxed, showing up for meetings on a small scooter, which he folds and tucks under his arm. He was employed for a time by the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, a national research institution focusing on computer science and applied mathematics. More recently, he told Le Monde that he is unemployed and doing short-term contract work.
He is also involved in a nonprofit that hopes to create a platform that will make it easier and safer for whistleblowers to speak. (ICIJ Director Gerard Ryle is one of five directors of the nonprofit, which is registered in France).
When Der Spiegel interviewed Falciani in July 2013, he was asked why he went into banking.
He cited growing up in Monaco, where the financial sector was a big employer, and added: “When I was young, I thought banks were there to protect the assets of people who had justified concerns, because of their experience under communism for example. At HSBC, I quickly learned they were there for something else entirely.”
Did he think banks would change, as they have often promised to? “No, I don’t. Just the fact that they face international competition ensures that banks will continue to offer wealthy clients ways to evade tax authorities.”
His many interviews clearly have not set well with Swiss authorities. “Sometimes hailed as a hero abroad, the Franco-Italian national is now to answer for his alleged crimes before a Swiss court,” said the announcement of the indictment.
“The Swiss Criminal Procedure Code does not exclude the possibility of holding a court trial of the accused person in absentia.”
“I’ll be convicted, but I’ll turn the page,” he told Le Monde and ICIJ last December. “I’m going to apply for a name change, disappear, to have a normal family life.”
He sounded alternatively wistful and proud. “The only time I’ll get official recognition is when the Swiss convict me,” he said. “I would have liked a term, a nickname – the informer, the insider – that would have been my real medal, the real sign of respect for all the risks I’ve run. Today I’ve got nothing.”
“I’m not a white knight, but there is something beautiful and exhilarating about establishing the truth. It carries you through the bad times,” he said. “I don’t have to worry about a retirement that I won’t have. I don’t have the risk of tomorrow. I can concern myself with something more: we are useful.” ||||| Data in massive cache of leaked secret bank account files lifts lid on questionable practices at subsidiary of one of world’s biggest financial institutions
HSBC’s Swiss banking arm helped wealthy customers dodge taxes and conceal millions of dollars of assets, doling out bundles of untraceable cash and advising clients on how to circumvent domestic tax authorities, according to a huge cache of leaked secret bank account files.
The files – obtained through an international collaboration of news outlets, including the Guardian, the French daily Le Monde, BBC Panorama and the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists – reveal that HSBC’s Swiss private bank:
• Routinely allowed clients to withdraw bricks of cash, often in foreign currencies of little use in Switzerland.
• Aggressively marketed schemes likely to enable wealthy clients to avoid European taxes.
• Colluded with some clients to conceal undeclared “black” accounts from their domestic tax authorities.
• Provided accounts to international criminals, corrupt businessmen and other high-risk individuals.
The HSBC files, which cover the period 2005-2007, amount to the biggest banking leak in history, shedding light on some 30,000 accounts holding almost $120bn (£78bn) of assets.
The revelations will amplify calls for crackdowns on offshore tax havens and stoke political arguments in the US, Britain and elsewhere in Europe where exchequers are seen to be fighting a losing battle against fleet-footed and wealthy individuals in the globalised world.
Approached by the Guardian, HSBC, the world’s second largest bank, has now admitted wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary. “We acknowledge and are accountable for past compliance and control failures,” the bank said in a statement. The Swiss arm, the statement said, had not been fully integrated into HSBC after its purchase in 1999, allowing “significantly lower” standards of compliance and due diligence to persist.
That response raises serious questions about oversight of the Swiss operation by the then senior executives of its parent company, HSBC Group, headquartered in London. It has now acknowledged that it was not until 2011 that action was taken to bring the Swiss bank into line. “HSBC was run in a more federated way than it is today and decisions were frequently taken at a country level,” the bank said.
HSBC was headed during the period covered in the files by Stephen Green – now Lord Green – who served as the global bank’s chief executive, then group chairman until 2010 when he left to become a trade minister in the House of Lords for David Cameron’s new government. He declined to comment when approached by the Guardian.
Although tax authorities around the world have had confidential access to the leaked files since 2010, the true nature of the Swiss bank’s misconduct has never been made public until now. Hollywood stars, shopkeepers, royalty and clothing merchants feature in the files along with the heirs to some of Europe’s biggest fortunes.
In one memo, an HSBC manager is recorded discussing how a London-based financier whom the bank codenamed “Painter”, and his partner, could cheat on Italian tax. “The risk for the couple is, of course, that when they return to Italy the UK tax authorities will pass on information on them to the Italian tax authorities. My own view on this was that … there clearly was a risk.”
According to the files, HSBC’s Swiss bankers were also prepared to help Emmanuel Shallop, who was subsequently convicted of dealing in “blood diamonds”, the illegal trade that fuelled war in Africa.
One memo records: “We have opened a company account for him based in Dubai … The client is currently being very careful because he is under pressure from the Belgian tax authorities who are investigating his activities in the field of diamond tax evasion.”
The records indicate HSBC managers were untroubled that a customer collecting cash bundles of kroner might be breaking Danish law. HSBC staff were instructed: “All contacts through one of her 3 daughters living in London. Account holder living in Denmark, i.e. critical as it is a criminal act having an account abroad non declared.”
HSBC’s Swiss bankers routinely handed over large sums of cash to visiting clients, asking few questions, the files show. The bank said it had since tightened its controls. “The amended terms and conditions allowed the private bank to refuse a cash withdrawal request, and placed strict controls on withdrawals over $10,000 [£6,600],” its statement said.
One example of the old system detailed in the files involves Richard Caring, a British tycoon and owner of London’s celebrity-packed Ivy restaurant, who on one day in 2005 removed 5m Swiss francs (£2.25m) in cash. When the Guardian asked him why, he declined to explain. His lawyer said it was a private matter and involved no impropriety. Caring’s UK tax status allowed him legally to keep his accounts secret from the tax authorities.
The files show how HSBC in Switzerland keenly marketed tax avoidance strategies to its wealthy clients. The bank proactively contacted clients in 2005 to suggest ways to avoid a new tax levied on the Swiss savings accounts of EU citizens, a measure brought in through a treaty between Switzerland and the EU to tackle secret offshore accounts.
The documents also show HSBC’s Swiss subsidiary providing banking services to relatives of dictators, people implicated in African corruption scandals, arms industry figures and others. Swiss banking rules have since 1998 required high levels of diligence on the accounts of politically connected figures, but the documents suggest that at the time HSBC happily provided banking services to such controversial individuals.
The Guardian’s evidence of a pattern of misconduct at HSBC in Switzerland is supported by the outcome of recent court cases in the US and Europe. The bank was named in the US as a co-conspirator for handing over “bricks” of $100,000 a time to American surgeon Andrew Silva in Geneva, so that he could illegally post cash back to the US.
Another US client, Sanjay Sethi, pleaded guilty in 2013 to cheating the US tax authorities. He was one of a group of convicted HSBC clients. The prosecution said an HSBC banker promised “the undeclared account would allow [his] assets to grow tax-free, and bank secrecy laws in Switzerland would allow Sethi to conceal the existence of the account”.
In France, an HSBC manager, Nessim el-Maleh, was able to run a cash pipeline in which plastic bags full of currency from the sale of marijuana to immigrants in the Paris suburbs were collected. The cash was then taken round to HSBC’s respectable clients in the French capital. Bank accounts back in Switzerland were manipulated to reimburse the drug dealers.
HSBC is already facing criminal investigations and charges in France, Belgium, the US and Argentina as a result of the leak of the files, but no legal action has been taken against it in Britain.
Former tax inspector Richard Brooks tells BBC Panorama in a programme to be aired on Monday night: “I think they were a tax avoidance and tax evasion service. I think that’s what they were offering.
“There are very few reasons to have an offshore bank account, apart from just saving tax. There are some people who can use an ... account to avoid tax legally. For others it’s just a way to keep money secret.”
The Labour party said: “Tax avoidance and evasion harms every taxpayer in Britain, and undermines public services like the NHS. What is truly shocking is that HMRC were made fully aware of these practices back in 2010 but since then very little has been done.” ||||| HSBC: Secret files reveal bank helped businessmen, models and sports stars dodge taxes
Posted
A cache of secret bank files shows HSBC's Swiss banking arm helped wealthy customers avoid taxes and hide millions of dollars, according to a report by a network of investigative journalists.
The files, analysed by reporters in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), showed the British banking giant provided accounts to international criminals, corrupt businessmen, politicians and celebrities.
"HSBC profited from doing business with arms dealers who channelled mortar bombs to child soldiers in Africa, bagmen for third-world dictators, traffickers in blood diamonds and other international outlaws," the ICIJ reported.
The files list a range of former and current politicians from Britain, Russia, India and Africa, as well as Saudi, Bahraini, Jordanian and Moroccan royalty, late Australian press magnate Kerry Packer and model Elle Macpherson.
The revelations were likely to stoke calls for a crackdown on sophisticated tax avoidance by the wealthy and by multinational companies.
Notes in the files indicated HSBC workers were aware of clients' intentions to keep money hidden from national authorities.
Of one Danish account holder collecting cash bundles of kroner, an employee wrote:
"All contacts through one of her three daughters living in London. Account holder living in Denmark, i.e. critical as it is a criminal act having an account abroad non declared."
In another memo, an HSBC manager discussed how a London-based financier codenamed Painter and his partner could avoid Italian tax:
"The risk for the couple is, of course, that when they return to Italy the UK tax authorities will pass on information on them to the Italian tax authorities. My own view on this was that ... there clearly was a risk."
In response to the reports, HSBC Holdings Plc admitted failings by its Swiss subsidiary.
"We acknowledge and are accountable for past compliance and control failures," HSBC said in a statement.
It said that its Swiss arm had not been fully integrated into HSBC after its purchase in 1999, allowing "significantly lower" standards of compliance and due diligence to persist.
Businessmen, politicians, sportsmen, models named in files
The investigation was done by the ICIJ, linked to the US-based Centre for Public Integrity, which enlisted more than 140 journalists from 45 countries in cooperation with France's Le Monde, Britain's BBC and The Guardian, US program 60 Minutes, German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and more than 45 other media organisations.
Names in the files included people sanctioned by the US, including Turkish businessman Selim Alguadis, and Gennady Timchenko, an associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin targeted by sanctions over Ukraine.
Mr Alguadis told the ICIJ it was prudent to keep savings off-shore, while a spokesman for Mr Timchenko said he was fully compliant with tax matters.
Also named were designer Diane von Furstenberg, who told the ICIJ the accounts were inherited from her parents, and Elle Macpherson, whose lawyers told the ICIJ she was fully in compliance with UK tax law.
Motorcycle champion Valentino Rossi, listed as having $23.9 million in two accounts, said he had regularised his tax situation with Italian authorities.
The files were a version of a set obtained by former HSBC employee-turned-whistleblower Herve Falciani, who copied thousands of bank documents before fleeing from Switzerland to France where they were obtained by tax authorities in 2009.
They were used by the French government to track down tax evaders and shared with other states in 2010, leading to a series of prosecutions for tax evasion.
HSBC Private Bank, the Swiss subsidiary of the British banking group, is under formal investigation in a French probe into tax fraud.
In 2012, HSBC paid a record $1.9 billion fine in a settlement in a money laundering case after a US Senate investigation found it was used to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels.
AFP
Topics: banking, industry, business-economics-and-finance, human-interest, tax, switzerland, united-kingdom ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Nick Robinson: ''This tax bombshell has been ticking since 2007''
Banking giant HSBC helped wealthy clients across the world evade hundreds of millions of pounds worth of tax, the BBC has learned.
Panorama has seen accounts from 106,000 clients in 203 countries, leaked by whistleblower Herve Falciani in 2007.
The documents include details of almost 7,000 clients based in the UK.
HSBC admitted that it was "accountable for past control failures." But it said it has now "fundamentally changed".
"We acknowledge that the compliance culture and standards of due diligence in HSBC's Swiss private bank, as well as the industry in general, were significantly lower than they are today," it added.
The bank now faces criminal investigations in the US, France, Belgium and Argentina, but not in the UK, where HSBC is based.
HSBC said it is "co-operating with relevant authorities".
Treasury minister David Gauke defended the government's actions on tax avoidance in the House of Commons after Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood Shabana Mahmood tabled an urgent question.
He insisted that the Treasury approach has been "very successful", saying it has sought prosecution for "serial tax evaders" and raised extra tax revenue.
Offshore accounts are not illegal, but many people use them to hide cash from the tax authorities. And while tax avoidance is perfectly legal, deliberately hiding money to evade tax is not.
Find out more Watch Panorama: The Bank of Tax Cheats on BBC One on 9 February at 20.30 GMT or later on the BBC iPlayer. BBC iPlayer Read HSBC's response in full
The French authorities concluded in 2013 that 99.8% of their citizens on the list were probably evading tax.
Joint investigation
The thousands of pages of data were obtained by the French newspaper Le Monde. In a joint investigation, the documents have now been passed to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the Guardian newspaper, Panorama and more than 50 media outlets around the world.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was given the leaked data in 2010 and has identified 1,100 people from the list of 7,000 British clients who had not paid their taxes. But almost five years later, only one tax evader has been prosecuted.
HMRC said £135m in tax, interest and penalties have now been paid by those who hid their assets in Switzerland.
But the chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge MP, said: "I just don't think the tax authorities have been strong enough, assertive enough, brave enough, tough enough in securing for the British taxpayer the monies that are due."
HSBC did not just turn a blind eye to tax evaders - in some cases it broke the law by actively helping its clients.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption BBC Panorama to Lord Green: "The tax payer was missing out because of things you were allowing to happen"
The bank gave one wealthy family a foreign credit card so they could withdraw their undeclared cash at cashpoints overseas.
HSBC also helped its tax-dodging clients stay ahead of the law.
When the European Savings Directive was introduced in 2005, the idea was that Swiss banks would take any tax owed from undeclared accounts and pass it to the taxman.
It was a tax designed to catch tax evaders. But instead of simply collecting the money, HSBC wrote to customers and offered them ways to get round the new tax.
HSBC denies that all these account holders were evading tax.
'Dodge liabilities'
Richard Brooks, a former tax inspector and author of The Great Tax Robbery, said: "I think they were a tax avoidance and tax evasion service. I think that's what they were offering. They knew full well that people come to them to dodge their tax liabilities."
The man in charge of HSBC at the time, Stephen Green, was made a Conservative peer and appointed to the government.
Lord Green was made a minister eight months after HMRC had been given the leaked documents from his bank. He served as a minister of trade and investment until 2013.
He told Panorama: "As a matter of principle I will not comment on the business of HSBC past or present."
HSBC's Swiss accounts in numbers 106,000 clients with Swiss bank accounts 203 countries involved $118bn total assets held in Swiss accounts
11,235 clients from Switzerland held $31.2bn
9,187 clients from France held $12.5bn
7,000 clients from UK held $21.7bn Reuters
Treasury minister David Gauke defended Lord Green's appointment on BBC's Radio 4. "I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that Lord Green was involved in this sort of activity", but said he did not know whether anyone asked him about HSBC prior to his government appointment.
But Ms Hodge said: "Either he didn't know and he was asleep at the wheel, or he did know and he was therefore involved in dodgy tax practices.
"Either way he was the man in charge and I think he has got really important questions to answer."
Verbal messages
Meanwhile, HSBC said it has completely overhauled its private banking business and has reduced the number of Swiss accounts by almost 70% since 2007.
In a statement, the bank said: "HSBC has implemented numerous initiatives designed to prevent its banking services being used to evade taxes or launder money."
The bank said it now puts compliance and tax transparency ahead of profitability.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Treasury minister David Gauke defended the government's actions on tax avoidance, saying its record proved it ''was willing to address this problem''
But Panorama has spoken to a whistleblower who said there were still problems with tax dodging at HSBC private bank when she worked there in 2013.
Sue Shelley was the private bank's head of compliance in Luxembourg. She said HSBC did not keep its promise to change. "I think the verbal messages were great but they weren't put into practice and that disturbed me greatly," she said.
It was her job to make sure HSBC followed the rules, but she said she was sacked after raising concerns. She has since won a tribunal hearing for unfair dismissal.
Watch Panorama: The Bank of Tax Cheats on February 9 at 20.30 GMT on BBC1. | Herve Falciani may not be a household name, but he has done to banking giant HSBC what Edward Snowden did to the NSA. A huge cache of files the IT expert obtained in 2007 has revealed how HSBC's Swiss arm not only held secret accounts for some of the world's shadiest characters, it actively helped wealthy clients dodge taxes in their home countries, reports the Guardian. Reporters in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists who've analyzed the files say HSBC "profited from doing business with arms dealers who channeled mortar bombs to child soldiers in Africa, bagmen for third-world dictators, traffickers in blood diamonds, and other international outlaws," AFP reports. The documents Falciani made off with in 2007 held the details of more than 100,000 clients from around the world. Although they were only obtained in full by the media yesterday, they have already led to prosecutions in such countries as the US and France, the BBC reports. "We acknowledge and are accountable for past compliance and control failures," HSBC said in a statement, stressing that it has "completely overhauled" its banking business in the years since the leak. Authorities in Switzerland, meanwhile, are still pursuing Falciani, who fled the country for France when he turned whistleblower, the ICIJ reports. He has been charged with violating the country's bank secrecy laws, but the French, who used his files to identify tax evaders, have refused to extradite him. |
Today is the second annual Amazon Prime Day, which means two things. The first is that in the future, we will have international holidays that are actual exclusive branded events — woe betide those who forget to re-up their Christmas subscriptions in December. The second is that if you're currently paying for Amazon Prime, or you're able to sign up for the 30-day free trial period Amazon offers, July 12th could be a chance to pick up some very solid deals.
Prime Day is available to people who use Amazon's subscription service in the US, the UK, Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, Belgium, and Austria. In the US, it officially starts at midnight Pacific Time, although there are already a few "countdown deals" available beforehand. Some sales will run all day, but others will appear in fixed quantities for limited times — so if you're interested, you'll want to keep a close eye on Amazon's upcoming deals, which will appear on its site and mobile app.
Read more from The Verge:
Uber is caught in a legal disaster after investigating its opponents
Mr. Robot season premiere 'leaked' on social media by show's creators
Google is making better apps for the iPhone than for Android
On the first Prime Day last year, we saw price cuts on products like the Kindle and Echo, along with a variety of other discounted home goods, electronics, games, and more. We'll probably see a lot of similar offers in 2016. ||||| FILE - In this June 30, 2011 file photo, a United Parcel Service driver delivers packages from Amazon.com in Palo Alto, Calif. Amazon is offering deals July 12, 2016, for the second edition of its annual... (Associated Press)
FILE - In this June 30, 2011 file photo, a United Parcel Service driver delivers packages from Amazon.com in Palo Alto, Calif. Amazon is offering deals July 12, 2016, for the second edition of its annual... (Associated Press)
SEATTLE (AP) — Amazon's "Prime Day" has returned for a second year with the online retail giant promising twice as many deals as last year.
The company launched the event last July in an effort to promote its $99 annual Prime loyalty program, which offers free two-day shipping and other perks. Some of the big discounts are on large screen TVs and Amazon devices like its Echo, Kindle and Fire TV products.
Consumers may be hoping for better deals than last year, when #PrimeDayFail became a trending topic amid complaints that the products offered were unimpressive and the best items were quickly out of stock.
Retailers are countering Amazon with deals of their own. Wal-Mart has cut prices throughout the month on a host of products online. ||||| Nowadays, many people rely on Amazon to deliver the basics right to their doors. And while the online retailer has unbeatable prices on certain items, there are still some things that should be purchased elsewhere.
RELATED: 9 things you should never buy at Walmart
According to CheatSheet, you should never buy these six items on Amazon.
1. Clothes
CheatSheet recommends shopping around before committing to a shirt or pair of pants you find on Amazon:
“For one thing, listed prices can be misleading on Amazon, since the price can vary based on the size and color you order. Shipping can be free for select Prime eligible items, but in other cases it can cost up to $4.99 unless you spend a minimum amount (normally around $50).”
Go here instead: Check the section of Ebay that allows direct purchases instead of bidding. The prices are usually much lower. (Just make sure you only buy from sellers with good reviews!)
2. Batteries
This is one item that’s best purchased in bulk. And we all know the king of bulk…
Go here instead: Costco! Warehouse clubs consistently beat Amazon’s prices on batteries.
RELATED: Employees reveal 14 ways to save even more money at Costco
3. Paper goods
Amazon’s Subscribe & Save program sends household products, such as paper towels, right to your door. While it’s convenient, it’s not saving you money.
Go here instead: Target’s prices on paper goods slaughter Amazon’s, often by several dollars.
4. Pet food
It’s not always fun lugging a heavy bag of dog food around a store. That fact plus free shipping makes Amazon a very attractive place for purchasing food for Fido. But you’ll pay more — a lot more.
Go here instead: The big box stores, namely Target and Walmart, offer that same bag of pet food for much, much less. Chewy.com has the lowest prices of all, but you’ll also pay for shipping (unless you spend at least $49).
5. Certain grocery items
Again, if you buy nonperishable food items from Amazon, you’re paying for convenience.
Go here instead: Your neighborhood grocery store’s prices are bound to be lower. Really, Amazon’s grocery delivery service, AmazonFresh, is strictly for those who dread going to the supermarket.
RELATED: Walmart on wheels: Some of your favorites will soon be delivered right to your door
6. School supplies
That time of year will be here before you know it, but resist the urge to skip the crammed stores and order your notebooks and pens online.
Go here instead: Both big box and office supply stores sell the same items, sometimes for half the price! And for the truly thrifty, there’s always the dollar store.
(H/T: CheatSheet) ||||| Update (July 11 at 2:00am Pacific): We’ve added new Cell Phone & Accessories updates to our picks for best Prime Day deals. We may add new deals later in the morning if we find any others that are worthwhile.
Amazon Prime Day is an official yearly event now—and Amazon’s pushing harder than ever for its summer sale to rival the likes of Black Friday and Cyber Monday. For 2017, the retailer has promised more deals, better discounts, and higher inventories.
Amazon seems to be focusing solely on brand-new items this year: no more old, open-box items that suggest more of a warehouse clearing than a major sale. Still, for we tech enthusiasts, the pickings aren’t as bountiful as we might have hoped.
Note: In order to participate in Amazon Prime Day, you must be an Amazon Prime member. You can sign up for a free 30-day trial to take advantage of these sales prices, and then cancel before you’re charged for the $99 yearly membership fee.
Amazon Prime Day 2017: The best deals
We’ve listed the most notable all-day deals below, sorted by their Amazon categories. Our picks focus on smart-home and entertainment gadgets, as well as gear of interest to Windows and Android users. Unfortunately, Amazon still doesn’t seem interested in discounting Apple-oriented gear and accessories. Do note that all-day deals can run out of stock before Prime Day is over.
As for Lightning Deals, the company has increased the number of those short, timed sales. Because they vary in duration and can end with an abrupt halt if their allotted inventory runs out, we won’t list the best of those here. We do have some tips in our explanation of Amazon Prime Day to help you make the most of Lightning Deals, though.
Note: Since we’ll actually be doing some price-verification as the deals go live, we’ll be rolling out our top picks in short waves at 6 p.m Pacific on Monday and again at midnight on Tuesday.
If you’re in the UK, visit our sister site TechAdvisor for the best UK Prime Day deals.
Amazon Devices
AMAZON
$0.99 - Amazon Dash (assorted, comes with $4.99 credit after first purchase)
Three of Amazon’s house products are far and away the best deals you’ll find during this year’s Prime Day. The Echo, Echo Dot, and Tap are the cheapest we’ve ever seen them. The Echo and Tap undercut their lowest prices ever by $10, while the Echo Dot is $5 less than its last low.
You can also find some deals on Fire tablets, Kindles, and Kindle Bundles. Discounts are available for all Kindle models, but we’ve selected only the ones with good prices. Some even match their last lowest prices, like the base model Kindle and the Kindle for Kids bundle.
Cell Phones & Accessories
Cell Phones
Amazon
For Prime Day, Amazon’s best cell phone deal is its discount on its ad-supported version of the fifth-generation Moto G Plus. Normally, the stock version of this unlocked phone goes for $300—so this is a fairly steep discount if you can tolerate Amazon’s skin of our favorite budget phone. Amazon apps come pre-installed, and Amazon ads will show on the lockscreen. However, you can pay an extra $45 to get rid of that bloat, which still leaves you with a very good (though not incredible) price for the standard version of the phone.
Amazon is also offering a 64GB Samsung S8 unlocked phone bundled with a Gear VR headset and a fast charger for less than the usual cost of a 64GB Samsung Galaxy S8. Even if you’re not a fan of VR, it’s a worthwhile bundle for just the unlocked phone and the fast charger alone.
Accessories
Christopher Hebert/IDG
Of the cell phone-related accessory deals, the Huawei Watch 2 is the best of the lot. Not only is it down to an all-time low price, it's also our current top pick for Android Wear 2.0 smartwatches. It is a little chunky, however, so it may not fit as comfortably for small-boned individuals.
Electronics
Adam Patrick Murray/IDG
Given that the Oculus Rift launched at $599, Amazon’s Prime Day bundle is impressively priced. You get the Rift, Oculus’s Touch controllers, and a $100 Amazon.com gift card—so essentially, if you shop at Amazon regularly, you’re spending $299.99. That’s half of what it would have cost you to buy just the Rift last year.
Health & Personal Care
Amazon
Technically, the Fitbit Flex 2 is not part of Amazon’s Prime Day sales, but nonetheless it’s dropped back down to its lowest price and thus it gets a mention.
As for the Blaze, we like it for its activity tracking abilities—and while Amazon’s Prime Day price is about $10 more than its all-time low, it’s still a respectable price if you’re in the market for a more full-fledged fitness tracker.
Home Entertainment
Amazon
Of the budget TVs on sale, these two TCL models both have favorable user reviews and what we’d consider good prices for TVs of their size and resolution. Other TCL models are on sale, but while their discounts put them below Amazon’s all-time low, their prices aren’t exciting for the size and type of TV. (A $124.99 32-inch 720p TV, for example, is only an okay deal.)
Home Improvement
Philips
For the most part, these deals are the best prices Amazon’s offered so far, with the exception of the Chamberlain garage opener and the Schlage Connect. Even then, the prices on those bits of smart home tech are just a few more dollars than their all-time low.
Some of our favorite products sit in this bunch, like the LIFX smart multicolor bulb (our runner-up for “Best color smart bulb”). It’s a great bulb and extremely bright, and doesn’t require a hub to work with Alexa, Google Home, or Nest. The winner of our “Best color smart bulb” is on this list as well—we liked the Philips Color Bulb and Starter Kit for how complete the Hue lineup is.
PC
Accessories
With one exception, these all match or slightly beat the previous lowest prices. (The Astro A50 discount ends up being just a few dollars shy of the last all-time low.) And yes, the Astro A50 is compatible with PC despite its branding as an Xbox One headset.
Of this set, the standout deal is the $50 HyperX Cloud Pro, which is our pick for the best all-around gaming headset. However, the Sennheiser Game Zero and Razer Man O'War headsets have dropped to prices that make them highly attractive, and LG's incredibly lux widescreen 144Hz FreeSync monitor is down to its lowest price ever. There's lots to like here.
Components
Amazon
The standout deal for PC components this year is a Ryzen 7 1700X CPU, which is a full $100 off its MSRP of $400. This discount matches the best we’ve seen elsewhere, which was last month at Walmart. With it, you can pair either a well-priced but modest B350 made by Asus, or a blingy RGB Gigabyte motherboard—both are also on sale currently.
Desktops
Amazon
Before the Ethereum mining craze, these desktops might have seem rather run of the mill. However, it’s expensive to build your own gaming PC nowadays, thanks to the shortage on affordable graphics cards.
These particular rigs have the more modest versions of the RX 480 and RX 580, respectively, with just 4GB of VRAM, but you’ll still pay a lot less for each machine overall than if you tried to build your own comparable system.
Laptops
Gordon Mah Ung
This year, you can get excellent deals on Chromebooks and popular laptops. Amazon’s best-selling laptop, the Aspire E 15, is down to its lowest price ever. For $310, a 15.6-inch laptop with a full HD screen and a Core i3 processor feels like a steal, especially since it’s easy to upgrade the machine’s RAM and hard drive.
Update, 7/11/17 12:13am: Looks like the Aspire E 15 has sold out of its Prime Day inventory. All gone!
As for the Chromebooks, three models in particular are well below their all-time lowest prices: the Chromebook CB3-131-C3SZ, Chromebook R 11 convertible, and the ASUS Chromebook C300SA. The others are fairly priced, but don’t offer steep discounts.
Delightfully, one of our favorite gaming laptops is on sale during Prime Day. Though the MSI GS63VR isn’t at its lowest price ever, $1,250 is still a great price for a four-pound notebook that’s capable of 1080p Ultra gaming. You can even save an additional $150 for a total price of $1,110 if you file the mail-in rebate. ||||| Black Friday Deals Are Already on Amazon
Amazon has revolutionized our shopping experience and become a huge player in the annual Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales, but now it wants a day all its own: Amazon ‘ Day’. At midnight begins Amazon Prime Day 2016 and some of the biggest deals have already leaked. But how good are they?
The exciting news is Amazon Prime Day 2016 is trying to outdo all the other shopping holidays with some real bargains that undercut previous Black Friday offers. It is also worth noting that Amazon will keep adding to the deals below, often with ‘Lightning Deals’ (which last only a few hours or even minutes at a time) as the day goes on. But for now this is the definitive break down…
Note: my thanks to BestBlackFriday.com which has worked with me to collate these deals and create order from the inevitable annual chaos
Star Buys
As always, some of the best Amazon offers are on its own range of products and this is true again with a number of deals making my top picks and outshining previous Black Friday deals:
Save $30 on Amazon Fire TV – regularly $100 (previously $25 off on Black Friday)
Amazon Fire tablet starting at just $33.33 (previously $34.99 on Black Friday)
Save $30 on Kindle Paperwhite (only $20 off on Black Friday)
Save $50 on Amazon Echo
32-Inch 720p Roku Smart TV for $119.99 (beats the best Black Friday price last year by $5)
Samsung UN55KU6600 Premium Curved 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV (2016 model) for $649.99 – Amazon Exclusive
Samsung UN55KU6300 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV (2016 model) for $549.99 – regularly $819
Solid Deals
On top of the above Prime Day 2016 deals, you’ll find some solid Amazon discounts on a lot of home cinema equipment:
2.1 Channel Sound Stand for $89.99
VIZIO 5.1 Channel Sound Bar for $199.99
RIF6 Cube 2-Inch Mobile Projector for $189.99
Save $15 on Fire TV Stick (same discount as Black Friday)
BOGO deal – Order a Fire HD 10 tablet and get a second Fire HD 10 tablet for $129 which saves 43% (useful for family purchases)
Treat With Caution
In typical Amazon style, you will also find a lot of promotions on Prime Day 2016 which which sound great on paper, but are too vague to endorse until the specific models are revealed:
43-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV for $299.99
40-Inch 1080p LED TV for $139.99
32-Inch 720p LED TV for $99.99
Samsung Curved 3D Blu-ray Player for $49.99
As mentioned above, Amazon will continue to add to these deals as the day goes on and be sure to keep an eye out for Lightning Deals. Also expect rivals like to attempt to counter Amazon with a few hot anti-Prime day deals of their own.
Happy shopping!
___
Follow Gordon on Twitter, Facebook and Google+
More On Forbes
Apple Makes iPhone 7 $100 Cheaper?
iPhone 7 Leak Reveals Important Late Upgrades
How To Stop Windows 10 Installing Automatically
New Galaxy Note 7 Leak Has Two Nasty Surprises
iPhone 6S Vs Galaxy S7: What’s The Difference? ||||| Ready, set, go! (Getty Images)
Shoppers, charge your phones, memorize your credit card's CVV and log into your Amazon Prime account.
Amazon Prime Day is on July 12, and you'll want to be poised to snatch up all the exceptional deals.
Amazon has been dropping hints about its upcoming shopping holiday for several months, but the company only revealed the official date in early July. On Amazon Prime Day, the massive online marketplace is set to release more than 100,000 deals across all departments and product categories. These deals will be available exclusively to Amazon Prime members in the U.S. and abroad, including those in the U.K., Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, Belgium and Austria.
What to Expect on July 12
When the clock strikes midnight Pacific Time, the 24-hour savings storm will commence. According to Amazon, Prime Day will be its "biggest event ever" and feature more deals in one day than ever in Amazon history. The 2016 Prime Day sale is to feature more than twice the number of deals of Prime Day 2015, and boast twice as many TVs as Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales combined. Prime Day is expected to rival these major shopping holidays as one of the most heavily trafficked holiday of the year.
Throughout July 12, the site will offer new deals as often as every 10 minutes. Shoppers will see savings on nearly every type of product imaginable, from HDTVs to women's shoes to health supplements. Most deals will fall into three main categories, including:
Prime Day Spotlight Deals
These deals include huge discounts on renowned brands and coveted products. Prime Day Spotlight products will be available until they run out of stock. Amazon calls Spotlight Deals the "best deals you'll find on Prime Day."
Amazon Lightning Deals
These fleeting promotions will pop up and disappear within a few hours throughout the sale. On every Lightning deal icon, a timer counts down the minutes until the deal is over, while a status bar lets you know how many items are left in stock.
Prime Savings and Deals
These promos run through the whole sale. Prime Member promotions will be available on the Prime Day Deals page, and discounts will be applied at checkout.
In addition to Amazon products, the sale will spotlight a huge array of small businesses. The online marketplace has promised twice as many third-party sellers as last year, and maintains that 30 percent of all Lightning Deals will be from independent businesses.
The Amazon Prime Day Countdown
Leading up to Prime Day, Amazon has been giving shoppers a taste of the exceptional sale to come. Every day from July 5 to 11, Amazon has doled out Countdown deals in different themes. Here's what the 2016 Amazon Prime Countdown schedule included:
July 5: Summer Entertainment
July 6: Tastes of Summer
July 7: Summer Travel
July 8: Gadgets on the Go
July 9: Outdoor Living and Summer Parties
July 10: Wardrobe Essentials: Back-to-School and Summer Fashions
July 11: Summer Basics
Throughout the Amazon Prime Countdown Sale, we saw significant savings. Past deals included things like:
$119.99 for a 32-inch TV bundle with a Fire TV Stick
20 percent off a Garmin vivofit fitness band
$250 for an Acer 15-inch Chromebook
A 50-inch Vizio with a $150 eGift card
24 set of James Bond movies for $90
Up to 50 percent off jewelry top sellers
Up to 66 percent off men's and women's bestselling watches
60 percent off luggage and accessories
Throughout the Prime Countdown sale, Amazon has been offering up to 40 percent off Kindle subscriptions, as well as deals on streaming of popular movies and TV series.
Essential Tips for Shopping the Sale
With Amazon Prime Day coming but once a year, you have only 24 hours to snap up the deals. So before you key "amazon.com" into your address bar, keep these essential Prime shopping tips in mind:
1. You'll need an Amazon Prime account. Without an account, you won't be able to shop the sale. If you're not a Prime member, set up a 30-day trial on the site. You'll be able to access the sale and enjoy Prime benefits until your trial is up in a month, when you can cancel the membership, free of charge.
2. Consider downloading the Amazon shopping app. Using the app, you can track your favorite deals and receive notifications as soon as they launch. This will help you catch the most sought-after Lightening Deals before they disappear.
3. Set up one-click purchasing. The one-click purchase setting allows you to place orders with a single click. To turn on one-click, visit your account and navigate to the "manage addresses" page to link a payment method with your shipping address. ||||| CLOSE Amazon is bringing back Black Friday discounts for its Amazon Prime members on Tuesday July 12. Jefferson Graham reports. USA TODAY
Amazon Prime Day is finally here! (Photo: Reviewed.com / Kyle Looney)
Instead of waiting until November, Amazon is bringing Black Friday to the summer with its second annual Prime Day on Tuesday, July 12.
The team at Reviewed.com will be searching for the best deals, from electronics to small appliances.
Just keep in mind that in order to get the full discount, you'll need to be an Amazon Prime member. Sign up for a free 30-day trial of Amazon Prime here.
Below, you'll see the best deals available. Be sure to check this page often as we'll be updating it with new deals as we find them.
Smart Home
The Amazon Echo is one of the most popular smart home devices on the market. (Photo: Amazon)
Smartphones & Accessories
Huawei Smartwatch: Reviewed.com's pick for Best Smartwatch of 2016 (Photo: Reviewed.com / Kyle Looney)
Personal Audio
The Beats Solo 2 headphones give you fun, colorful style at an affordable price. (Photo: Michael Desjardin / Reviewed.com)
Beats Solo 2 On-Ear Headphones ($119.99, 22% off) These candy-colored on-ears pack style and surprisingly good sound. Our tests found them to not be the most comfortable on-ears, but if you love the Beats style, this is a great deal. They were on sale earlier for just $100, but $120 is still a good price.
These candy-colored on-ears pack style and surprisingly good sound. found them to not be the most comfortable on-ears, but if you love the Beats style, this is a great deal. They were on sale earlier for just $100, but $120 is still a good price. Bose SoundSport In-Ear Headphones ($49.95, 50% off) Is there a more recognizable name when it comes to audio electronics? Marked down a full 50% off their normal price, these Bose SoundSport in-ears are the perfect spotter for the gym.
Is there a more recognizable name when it comes to audio electronics? Marked down a full 50% off their normal price, these Bose SoundSport in-ears are the perfect spotter for the gym. ASTRO Gaming A38 Wireless Headset, Gray ($181.38, 21% off)
Blue Microphones Yeti USB Microphone ($89.00, 31% off) We use this excellent USB microphone for our own video voiceover recording... and it's popular with streamers and home audio recording fanatics. Snap one up for high quality audio under $100.
We use this excellent USB microphone for our own video voiceover recording... and it's popular with streamers and home audio recording fanatics. Snap one up for high quality audio under $100. Bose SoundTrue Around-Ear Headphones II ($99.95, 44% off)
Archeer Portable Outdoor Bluetooth Speaker ($29.99, 66% off) If you want your tunes on the go—or outside for those backyard barbecues, this will do the trick. The deal is doing so well today that it's out of stock, but order today and it will ship in just a few days.
Jaybird X2 Wireless Sport Headphones ($79.99, 45% off) We've reviewed these Bluetooth headphones and think they're great for runners, but the $179.95 MSRP made them a tough sell. Now that they're 45 percent off, we think they're definitely worth the money. Just make sure you get them now since the deal is only good Monday!
Kitchen
Everyone wants KitchenAid stand mixer, but today's deal might help you actually afford one. (Photo: KitchenAid)
Photo & Video
Prime Day is offering a couple different deals in action cams and more. (Photo: Reviewed.com / Kyle Looney)
Laptops, Tablets, & Accessories
Laptops are a major deal focus for back-to-school, but you can get an early jump on Prime Day. (Photo: Reviewed.com / Kyle Looney)
Home Theater & Gaming
We lab-tested these TVs to find the very best. (Photo: Reviewed.com / Kyle Looney)
Vacuums
Vacuums are a big deal on Amazon Prime day. (Photo: Reviewed.com / Jon Chan)
LG Hom-Bot Square Robotic Vacuum ($549.00, 27% off)
Bissell Symphony All-in-One Vacuum and Steam Mop ($129.99, 41% off)
Dyson V6 Absolute Cord-Free Vacuum ($349.99, 41% off) The price on this cordless vac has been changing all day, but if you spot it for at least 25% off, we'd say that's a good deal. If you love the Dyson brand, but not the Dyson price, now's your chance. Not sure which stick vac to buy? Good thing we have a full roundup of cordless stick vacuums .
The price on this cordless vac has been changing all day, but if you spot it for at least 25% off, we'd say that's a good deal. If you love the Dyson brand, but not the Dyson price, now's your chance. Not sure which stick vac to buy? Good thing we have a . iRobot Roomba 614 Vacuum Cleaning Robot ($249.99, 34% off) Robot vacuums are the best way to keep your house tidy with as little work as possible. This entry level model from iRobot isn't as robust as its big brother, which we reviewed earlier this year, but at $130, it's well within reach of mere mortals—something you can't say about most robot vacuums.
Dyson Cinetic Big Ball Animal + Allergy Vacuum - Certified Refurbished ($249.99, 58% off) If you ever wanted to own a Dyson, today might be your lucky day. We reviewed the Dyson Cinetic Big Ball and found it to be a powerful upright vacuum with tons of handy attachments. And now you can own it for half the price!
Bissell 9595A Vacuum with OnePass ($62.99, 20% off) This one is already more than 70% claimed! Get it now while you still can.
Home & Outdoors
Portable grills are just one of the outdoor items on sale today. (Photo: Reviewed.com / Kyle Looney)
We’ve scoured the web to find you the best deals on good products. While Reviewed.com may receive a small share of the revenue from your purchase, editorial opinions are independent from any business sales.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/29wvaYE ||||| Most recent update: 9:11 p.m. ET
Amazon Prime Day is here. This year, Amazon’s big savings event for Prime members is bigger than ever, with more than 100,000 deals — which will come as frequently as every five minutes.
So what are the best deals for Prime Day? Mashable has gathered together all the best picks, and we'll be updating throughout Prime Day.
Be sure to check back frequently to see where you should spend your coin.
Alexa Exclusive Deals
If you’ve got an Alexa-powered device (like the Echo, Echo Dot or Echo Tap), you can save even more money by ordering certain items through them on Amazon.
Your first purchase with Alexa will take $10 off your total of $20 or more. But there are big deals, too.
We’ve sadly missed out on the $50 discount on the Amazon Tap, but Amazon is posting a ton of other Alexa deals on its website.
Right now you can get a Dromida Kodo UAV quadcopter for $15 or a Cuisinart Griddler for $30.
On Tuesday, you'll be able to buy a Fire HD 10 for $129, plus three accesories that, conveniently enough, work with Alexa: a TP-Link smart plug for $15, a TrackR Bravo and a Philips Hue starter kit for just $125.
Other Alexa deals include:
Major deals on TVs
Amazon is having a MAJOR sale on TVs on Tuesday. The company says it will have twice as many TVs on sale as Black Friday and Cyber Monday combined.
Deals include:
2016 Samsung UN55KU6600 Premium Curved 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV for $649.99 (This is an Amazon Exclusive)
2016 Samsung UN55KU6300 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV for $549.99
43-inch Hisense 43H7C2 4K LED TV for $299.99
32-inch 720p TV with Roku for $119.99
40-inch 1080p LED TV for $139.99
32-inch 720p LED TV for $99.99
Deals on Amazon products
Amazon products will be on sale on Prime Day too.
Deals to watch for include:
$50 off an Amazon Echo — $129.99 (normally: $179.99)
$30 off an Amazon Tap — $99.99 (normally: $129.99)
$30 off an Amazon Fire TV — $69.99 (normally: $99.99)
$30 off an Amazon Fire TV Gaming Edition — $109.99 (normally: $139.99)
$15 off an Amazon Fire TV Stick — $24.99 (normally: $39.99)
$15 off an Amazon Fire TV Stick wtih Voice Remote — $34.99 (normally: $49.99)
$80 off Fire HD 10 tablet — $149.99 (normally: $229.99)
$30 off a Kindle Paperwhite — $89.99 (normally: $119.99)
$50 off a Kindle Voyage — $149.99 (normally: $199.99)
$30 off a Kindle — $49.99 (normally: $79.99)
Amazon Dash buttons
You can already take advantage of this deal, which slashes the price of Amazon’s dash buttons to 99 cents. Even better, when you buy a Dash button, you still get a $4.99 credit towards your first order with the button.
Amazon users can use the buttons to order anything from condoms to Play-Doh to Goldfish crackers.
30% off a Segway miniPRO
Image: brittany herbert/mashable
Mashable’s Lance Ulanoff loves Segway’s new miniPRO ridable.
As one of the Amazon Sellers participating in Prime Day, Segway is offering 30% off the Segway miniPRO on Prime Day for $699.99 (normally $999.99 on Amazon and $1,299.99 elsewhere).
If you’re not over the hoverboard fad, this could be a great time to pick one up.
Moto X Pure Edition Smartphone (Unlocked)
Image: motorola
If you're in the market for a good Android smartphone, the unlocked version of the Moto X (the Pure Edition - so it has very little Android skinning - it's basically a Nexus) is available at a great price.
The 32GB version is $249 (normally $349). A 64GB is $387.99 (normally $499), but since it has a microSD card slot, you might just want to get the 32GB version and a bigger card.
Up to 50% off LSTN Headphones and Speakers
Image: LSTN
Another Amazon Seller, LSTN is offering up to 50% off its headphones and speakers.
Nvidia Shield
The 16GB Nvidia Shield media streaming device is on sale for just $149.99. Not only is this $50 off, it also includes an extra controller.
The 500GB Shield Pro is also $50 off — so it's just $249.99 — and it also includes a second controller.
Once this deal is gone, it's gone. so grab now.
Xbox One Console bundles
If size isn't a thing, you can skip the upcoming slimmer Xbox One S, and nab an Xbox One with 500GB of storage and two games (Halo 5: Guardians Limited Edition and Forza Horizon 2), an extra Special Edition Dusk shadow wireless controller and a $50 gift card all for only $279. This bundle is normally $455.22.
Not into those two games? There's also an Xbox One 500GB bundle with Gears of War: Ultimate Edition and Fallout 4 and Forza Horizon 2 (that's one extra game!), the extra wireless controller and a $50 Amazon gift card for the same $279 (regular: $428.98).
The top-tier 1TB Xbox One bundle comes with a copy of The Division, Rainbow Six Siege, Forza 2, the extra wireless controller an e $50 Amazon gift card for $299 (regular: $468.98).
Blue Microphones Yeti USB Mic
Image: blue microphones
Whether you’re an aspiring singer or just an upcoming podcaster looking to up your audio game, you can’t go wrong with the Blue Microphones Yeti USB Mic. In addition to being one of the best reviewed USB mics on the market, it’s also extremely portable while delivering rich audio.
It usually sells for $129, but today you can snag one for just $89, a solid 31% discount. Hear that? That’s the sound of an awesome USB mic deal slowly fading away — get it while you can.
Esky Ultra HD Car DVR Dual Dashcam
The news has shown us just how vital a good dashcam can be in the event of a traffic accident, but you may have been holding off due to some of the high prices out there. Well, you no longer have any excuses, because today you can pick up the Esky Ultra HD Car DVR Dual Dashcam with GPS Logger for just $191.99. That’s a huge 62% savings over the device’s normal $499.99 price tag.
Featuring a 2.7-inch color LCD screen, the dashcam begins automatically recording if there’s a collision, and the footage can only be erased manually. Yep, this is the digital guardian angel your car has been looking for, so grab it while it’s discounted.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO Telephoto lens for Canon cameras
Image: sigma
This Sigma lens is $899 (normally $1149). There was a Nikon variant too — but it's sold out.
Reviews on the lens are solid and it scored a 79% rating from the Amazon-owned camera enthusiast site DPReview.
The lens claims 4 stops and has image stabilization.
GoPro Hero 4 Session Bundle
The smallest GoPro ever is being offered in a heavily discounted bundle with SanDisk 32GB microSD card, a Wi-Fi remote control and Amazon Basics carrying case. Normally $342.46, the bundle is now $199. With summer here, there's no better time to get an action camera to record your extreme sporting events.
Polaroid Zip Mobile Printer
What better way to print out your smartphone photos than on 2x3 stickers? With a smartphone app, you can even add borders, filters and doodles on your pics before printing them out. Originally $159.99, Amazon's got it for $88.98. (The ink-less ZINK paper is sold separately.)
You can read Mashable's review of the printer here.
SanDisk microSD memory cards
It really is incredible how large and cheap memory cards are nowadays. If you've got a smartphone or tablet or camera with a microSD card slot and you want to expand its internal storage, today's the day to pick up cheap cards.
Amazon's got SanDisk's 64GB Class 10 microSDXC memory card for $14.99 and 128GB for $32.99. The microSD cards come with full-sized SD card adapters for use in digital cameras and computers with the SD card slot.
New Furby
Amazon's got Hasbro’s new Furby for the normal $99.99 retail price, but you get a $30 Amazon gift card when you buy it, so it's sort of costing $70.
Aukey car charger
The Aukey USB-A/USB-C car charger will be just $10.99 on Prime Day. That’s nearly 50% off its normal Amazon price of $19.99.
This car charger can charge your normal USB devices and it also comes with a USB-C attachment.
iRobot Roomba 614
iRobot's Roomba 614 can be had for $249.99 on Prime Day, a full $130 off the regular price.
Image: iRobot
It's not iRobot's top of the line vacuuming robot, but it does have the company's Adapt Navigation as well as a 3-Stage cleaning system which "agitates, brushes and suctions floors."
Google Nexus 6P and Huawei Honor 5X
The Huawei-made Google Nexus 6P — one of the best Android phones out there in our opinion — has also been significantly discounted for Prime Day.
Google Nexus 6P Image: Lili Sams, Mashable
The 64GB variant (available in silver, gold and graphite colors) costs $403.75, nearly $150 less than its regular, $549.99 price. The 128GB variant, available in the same colors, can be had for $478.75 — a $170 discount.
If you're looking for something cheaper, Huawei's Honor 5X phones are also discounted, with the 16GB version (available in grey, gold and silver) going for $119.99 (down from $199.99).
Bose headphones
For an excellent balance of sound quality and comfort, you can't really go wrong with Bose headphones. Amazon's knocked down the Bose SoundTrue around-ear headphones II down from $179.95 to $99.95. Only the charcoal black model for Apple devices (iPod, iPhone and iPad) is discounted.
Not into over-ears and prefer in-ears? Bose has you covered, too. The SoundSport in-ear headphones in charcoal color are 50% off, down from $99 to $49.95. The earbuds come with three different ear tip sizes and are great for use when working out since they're sweat and weather-resistant.
RIF6 2-inch Cube Projector
Want to bring a 120-inch display with you wherever you go? This 2-inch cube projector from RIF6 might do the trick. Normally $299 and now $189.99, the mobile projector is capable of projecting a 120-inch display at 854 x 480 resolution with a 20,000-hour LED light. It's got an HDMI port for connecting mobile devices, media players and game consoles, a microSD card slot for storage and comes with a rechargeable battery that's good for up to 90 minutes of usage.
TiVo BOLT
Believe it or not, but TiVo is still around and the BOLT, a 4K UHD compatible DVR and streaming media player with 500GB of storage is on sale for $143.99 (originally: $179.99).
It's certified refurbished, so not quite brand new, but still a good deal. Also, keep in mind: a TiVO subscription is required, starting at $14.99/month.
Doom - PlayStation 4
For the gamer in you. Doom is full of "relentless demons, impossibly destructive guns, and fast, fluid movement provide the foundation for intense, first-person combat."
On Prime Day, you can pick it up for $29.99 - 50% off it's normal list price of $60.
Universal Waterproof Case for iPhone, Galaxy, Note, LG, HTC etc.. by Voxkin
Protect your phone while taking amazing pictures! It protects from water, dust, and snow, and comes with an armband and a lanyard.
Get this $50 case for $7.99 today.
Invicta 17912 Stainless Steel Pro Diver Link Watch
This watch is water resistant to 165 feet, but does not sacrifice fashion for utility. Save 83% if you buy today - $64.99 instead of $375.
Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. SUBSCRIBE
Amazon predicts Amazon Prime Day deals will deliver "record breaking sales," but shoppers and sellers will be watching to see whether the online retailer can deliver on its promise to improve the quantity and quality of deals for consumers who were disappointed last year by middling savings and items that sold out in seconds.
According to sellers, everyone involved is more willing to take bigger bets this year and increase their stocks after seeing numbers on par with Black Friday.
Here's how to get the best deals out of the day (and here's a list of the best deals themselves):
Click fast, think slow
The deals will go fast, so you if think you see something you like, click "buy" to put in your cart and reserve it for 15 minutes. Then Google it and use a 3rd-party price tracking service like Camel Camel Camel to see what the historical prices on the item are to make sure it's really a good deal, or even that unique. "Check out retailers like Wal-Mart for branded items, especially toys, Newegg for electronics or eBay for unbranded products," said Helen Fang, general manager of e-commerce for Coupons.com.
Read More: Wal-Mart Takes on Amazon's Prime Day, Rolls Out Free Shipping
After all, "Just because you're seeing a deal on Prime Day doesn't mean it's the best deal," said Sara Skirboll, spokeswoman for the RetailMeNot coupon site.
For instance, a speaker that normally sells for $300 might be on sale for $250 on Prime Day, but using a price tracking service you can see that it might drop to $250 at several points during the year anyway.
"It might not be something you want to jump on," said Jacqui Cheng, editor-in-chief of deal review sites The Wirecutter and The Sweethome. Last year the sites highlighted only about 35 deals out of the 3,200 pre-researched products they were tracking.
See the deals before they go live
Instead of hitting refresh all day, you can download the Amazon smartphone app and see "Lightning Deals" before they go live, posted up to 24 hours in advance. Mark the categories or specific deals you're interested and you'll get push alerts just before they go on the site.
Extra Ways to Save
Leverage the free trial membership
The big thing about Prime Day is that deals are only open to members of Amazon Prime's $99 per year special membership club. You can sign up for a free trial membership just for the sale and then cancel before your first month is up. Amazon is banking that many people will, and then either love the features so much or forget to cancel. You might not want to, though, a recent analysis from J.P. Morgan Chase found that a Prime Membership actually has an over $500 value when you consider the free shipping and streaming media.
Order through Alexa
Save an extra $10 when you order through an Amazon Alexa-enabled device. Just don't be silly and buy one just to get that smidgen of savings.
Save with Prime Now
Save yet $10 more on your first "Prime Now" order of $20 or more. These are products that Amazon promises to deliver within just an hour in select (mostly urban) geographies. You'll also get another $10 coupon to use later in the month.
What to Watch Out For
Counterfeits
With the deal frenzy going on, there will also be some situations to watch out for. Chinese counterfeiters selling on Amazon.com have exploded this year, CNBC reports, so you need to watch out for prices that seem too good from sellers you've never heard of.
"Derivatives"
Sometimes during these deal holidays, an amazing high-def TV will go on sale for an incredible price. But scope the spec sheet and you'll see certain things are missing, like ports or features. These are known as "derivative" products. One year a "4K" TV advertised as a deal on Black Friday turned out to only be "4K" when the picture was stationary.
Emotional buying
"It's a big sale day and their goal is to flood you with as much information and make you act impulsively," said Cheng.
A lot of items may be on sale for a good price, but you might also be able to get that product at another point in the year, perhaps after some more planning and saving up. Don't feel the pressure to buy, "Unless you want it for next weekend," Cheng said.
Don't shop hungry
If you go grocery shopping when you're hungry and without a list, your cart just ends up full of Fruit Roll Ups and Lunchables. Same thing on Amazon Prime Day. Use the site's "wishlist" feature to bookmark items you've researched that you need, said Dealnews features editor Benjamin Glaser. Then, on Prime Day, sort it by discount. Anything with a good price drop is worth thinking about picking up.
What if Your Item Sells Out?
Last Prime Day, social media and media coverage focused on would-be shoppers who complained about items that sold out mere moments after being posted. If that happens on Tuesday, hop on over to Wal-Mart, Macy's or Best Buy. Just like last year, other retailers are trying to grab the coattails of Prime Day by launching competing sales days, including pricematching certain deals. | It's Prime Day, Amazon's version of Black Friday for its Prime subscribers. Last year's inaugural sale kind of fizzled, with consumers largely unimpressed by what was on offer, notes AP. Amazon is promising better things this year. Related coverage: US News has a primer on what's happening, including so-called "lightning deals," fleeting promotions that will surface during the day. Forbes says some of the best deals are on Amazon's own products, including $30 off the $100 Amazon Fire TV, and Amazon Fire tablets starting at $33.33. NBC News has tips for shoppers, including this one: You can click on a deal quickly, reserve the item in your cart for 15 minutes, then check it out via a third-party price-tracking source and bail if it's not really such a great deal. Other advice is here. PCWorld assesses the tech and entertainment offers and likes the Samsung 4K UHD TV for $550, which is "practically a steal." The deals look "solid" so far, observes CNBC. The site collecting its own list of deals here that will be updated. Included is $500 off an HP 15.6-inch Business Notebook ($399). Mashable also has a rundown of its favorite deals so far. USA Today suggests people don't overlook the discounted Amazon Dash Buttons. (Here are 6 items you should never buy on Amazon.) |
The U.S. currency, reportedly the most widely held in the world, is susceptible to counterfeiting. High foreign inflation rates and the relative stability of the dollar have contributed to the increasing use of U.S. currency outside the United States. Of the $380 billion of U.S. currency in circulation, the Federal Reserve estimates that over 60 percent may be held outside the United States. The widespread use of U.S. currency abroad, together with the outdated security features of the currency, makes it a vulnerable target for international counterfeiting. Excluding two changes introduced in 1990, the overt security features of the currency have not substantially changed since 1929. This situation has resulted in the U.S. dollar’s becoming increasingly vulnerable to counterfeiting. Widespread counterfeiting of U.S. currency could undermine confidence in the currency and, if done on a large enough scale, could even have a negative effect on the U.S. economy. The United States benefits from the international use of its currency. When U.S. currency remains in circulation, it essentially represents an interest-free loan to the U.S. government. The Federal Reserve has estimated that the existence of U.S. currency held abroad reduces the need of the government to borrow by approximately $10 billion a year. The Treasury, including the Secret Service and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the Federal Reserve have primary responsibilities for addressing the counterfeiting of U.S. currency. The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for issuing and protecting U.S. currency. The Secret Service conducts investigations of counterfeiting activities and provides counterfeit-detection training. The Secret Service is also the U.S. agency responsible for anticounterfeiting efforts abroad. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing designs and prints U.S. currency and incorporates security features into the currency. The Federal Reserve’s role is to distribute and ensure the physical integrity, including the authenticity, of U.S. currency. A diverse group of perpetrators uses a variety of methods to counterfeit U.S. currency. And, although counterfeiting is carried out primarily for economic gain, it is sometimes linked with other more nefarious criminal endeavors, such as drug trafficking, arms dealing, and alleged terrorist activities. According to law enforcement officials, counterfeiters run the gamut from office workers to organized crime and terrorist groups, and the equipment used for counterfeiting U.S. currency ranges from photocopiers to sophisticated offset presses. Moreover, the quality of counterfeit notes varies significantly. Even those notes made using the same method vary according to the sophistication of the perpetrator and the type of equipment used. Of increasing concern is the fact that certain foreign counterfeiters are becoming extremely sophisticated and are now producing very high-quality counterfeit notes that are more difficult to detect than any previous counterfeits. The highest-quality family of counterfeits known today is commonly referred to as the Superdollar. While many allegations have been made about the Superdollar, little evidence in support of these allegations has been made public. In the Middle East, a group, allegedly a foreign government, is said to be sponsoring production of the Superdollar. According to reports by the House Republican Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the Superdollar is printed in the Middle East on “high-tech state-owned presses with paper only acquired by governments.” Also according to the task force, the Superdollar is “designed for direct infiltration into the U.S. banking system and has become a major instrument in facilitating the flow of militarily useful nuclear materials and equipment and various weapons systems.” A few of the foreign law enforcement and financial institution officials we spoke with believed the Superdollar was being circulated through various terrorist organizations around the world. This belief was primarily based on reports of detections involving individuals with links to terrorist organizations. However, according to the Secret Service, the task force has provided almost no evidence to support its allegations. According to the Treasury, no evidence exists to show that the Superdollar is printed with paper acquired only by governments and that it is designed for direct infiltration into the U.S. banking system. The Treasury also maintained that support for the remaining allegations concerning the Superdollar was inconclusive. Furthermore, although the task force reported that between $100 million and billions of Superdollars are in circulation, the report provided no evidence to support these allegations. Since the Superdollar’s initial detection in fiscal year 1990, Superdollar detections have represented a small portion of total counterfeit currency detections, according to the Treasury and Secret Service. While high-quality counterfeit notes, such as the Superdollar, have received the most attention from the media, Treasury officials told us that their biggest concern was the rapid advances in photographic and printing devices. According to a 1993 National Research Council report requested by the Treasury, the counterfeiting problem will increase as these technologies improve and are made more accessible to the public. The Treasury has planned to combat such counterfeiting through changes to the U.S. currency design, expected to be introduced in March 1996. The criminal nature of the activity precludes determination of the actual extent to which U.S. currency is being counterfeited abroad. The best data available to reflect actual counterfeiting are Secret Service counterfeit-detection data. Using these data, Treasury officials concluded that counterfeiting of U.S. currency was economically insignificant. Secret Service officials told us that they supplemented the counterfeit-detection data that they gathered with intelligence information and field experience and that these data demonstrated an increase in counterfeiting activity abroad. However, our analysis of the same counterfeit-detection data proved inconclusive. Secret Service data have limitations and thus provide only a limited measure of the extent of counterfeiting activities. Foreign officials’ views about the seriousness of the problem of counterfeit U.S. currency were mixed. On the basis of the number of Secret Service counterfeit detections, Treasury officials concluded that counterfeiting of U.S. currency was economically insignificant and thus did not pose a threat to the U.S. monetary system. According to Secret Service and Treasury officials, detected counterfeits represented a minuscule portion of U.S. currency in circulation. Secret Service and Federal Reserve data showed that, in fiscal year 1994, of the $380 billion in circulation, $208.7 million had been detected as counterfeit notes. This figure represented less than one one-thousandth of the currency in circulation. However, while Treasury and Secret Service officials agreed that, overall, counterfeiting was not economically significant, they considered any counterfeiting to be a serious problem. The Secret Service used counterfeit-detection data, supplemented with intelligence information and field experience, to report that counterfeiting of U.S. currency abroad was increasing. In one analysis, it reported that the amount of counterfeit currency detected abroad increased 300 percent, from $30 million in fiscal year 1992 to $121 million in fiscal year 1993, thereby surpassing domestic detections in the same period. The Secret Service has also reported that, in recent years, a larger dollar amount of the notes detected in circulation domestically has been produced outside the United States. Since 1991, the dollar amount of counterfeit U.S. notes detected while in circulation and produced abroad has exceeded the dollar amount of those produced domestically. In fiscal year 1994, these foreign-produced notes represented approximately 66 percent of total counterfeits detected in circulation domestically. The true dimensions of the problem of counterfeiting of U.S. currency abroad could not be determined. The Treasury and the Secret Service use Secret Service counterfeit-detection data to reflect the actual extent of counterfeiting. However, although these data are the best available, they have limitations. Specifically, they are incomplete and present only a partial picture of counterfeiting. If these limitations are not disclosed, the result may be misleading conclusions. First of all, the actual extent of counterfeiting could not be measured, primarily because of the criminal nature of this activity. Secret Service data record only those detections that are reported to the Secret Service; they do not measure actual counterfeiting. As a result, the data provide no information about the number of counterfeiters operating in any given year or the size and scope of their operations. More importantly, these data could not be used to estimate the volume of counterfeit currency in circulation at any point in time. In the case of counterfeit currency appearing abroad, reasons for this include the following: (1) the data do not distinguish between how much counterfeit currency was seized and how much was passed into circulation; (2) the data could not provide information about how long passed counterfeits remained in circulation before detection; and (3) most critically, the data provide no indication of how much counterfeit currency was passed into circulation and not detected. Second, counterfeit detection data may in part only reflect where the Secret Service focuses its efforts. Use of these data thus may not identify all countries with major counterfeiting activity, but simply countries where agents focused their data collection efforts. For example, in fiscal year 1994, almost 50 percent of detections abroad occurred in the six countries where the Secret Service was permanently located. In other countries, counterfeit-detection statistics tend to be more inconsistent. Third, detection data for high-quality notes may be underreported. The Secret Service has said that, because so few Superdollars have been detected, this indicates that there are not many in circulation. However, according to the House Republican Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare reports, the majority of Superdollars are circulating outside the formal banking system and therefore would not be reported to the Treasury if detected. Also, as we discovered on our overseas visits, many foreign law enforcement and financial organization officials had inconsistent and incomplete information on how to detect the Superdollar. Thus, financial institutions abroad may be recirculating the Superdollars. Fourth, reported increases in counterfeiting abroad, as supported by Secret Service detection data, may be based on a number of factors other than increased counterfeiting activity. For example, in 1993, the Secret Service changed its reporting practices abroad to be more proactive in collecting counterfeit-detection data. Instead of relying solely on reports from foreign officials, agents abroad began to follow up on Interpol reports and intelligence information in order to collect additional data. Also, according to Treasury officials, foreign law enforcement officials have improved their ability to detect counterfeit U.S. currency and report it to the Secret Service. Furthermore, the increase in domestic detections of counterfeits produced abroad is also subject to interpretation. For example, rather than foreign-produced notes increasing, it is possible that the Secret Service’s ability to determine the source of counterfeit currency has simply improved over time. Fifth and finally, counterfeit-detection data fluctuate over time, and one large seizure can skew the data, particularly for detections abroad. For example, according to the Secret Service, several large seizures accounted for the jump from $14 million in counterfeit detections abroad in fiscal year 1988 to $88 million in fiscal year 1989. The following year, the data indicated a significant drop in detections. For detections outside the United States, the Secret Service has relied heavily on information provided by foreign law enforcement organizations, and has obtained little information from financial organizations. According to Secret Service officials, they supplemented their counterfeiting detection data with knowledge their agents gained through field experience and the sharing of intelligence information. Some of this information was not available or was considered too sensitive for an unclassified report. Our work did yield some information on the unclassified activities. For example, the Secret Service told us that it was conducting vault inspections during its joint international study team visits with Treasury and Federal Reserve officials. According to a Secret Service agent who performs the vault inspections, they include the checking of all U.S. currency in the vault for counterfeits. According to Federal Reserve and Secret Service officials, vault inspections had been conducted in only one of the six locations the Secret Service visited during the time of our review. Secret Service officials told us that the inspections had been conducted only in Argentina and were discontinued because of the limited results obtained there. The officials told us that the inspections might be reinstituted in other countries if it was decided that the effort was warranted. Overseas law enforcement and financial organization officials’ views on the extent of the problem of counterfeit U.S. currency varied. Foreign law enforcement officials tended to be more concerned about counterfeit U.S. currency than foreign financial organization officials. Financial organization officials we met with said that they had experienced minimal chargebacks, and most expressed confidence in the ability of their tellers to detect counterfeits. Furthermore, we heard few reports from foreign financial organization and foreign law enforcement officials about U.S. currency not being accepted overseas because of concerns about counterfeiting. Most foreign law enforcement officials we spoke with believed that the counterfeiting of U.S. currency was a problem, but their opinions on the severity of the problem differed. Swiss, Italian, and Hungarian law enforcement officials said that it was a very serious problem. French and English law enforcement officials said that the problem fluctuated in seriousness over time. And German, French, and Polish officials said that the counterfeiting of U.S. currency was not as serious a problem as the counterfeiting of their own currencies. Some of these law enforcement officials expressed concern over increases in counterfeiting in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Some also expressed particular worry about their ability, and the ability of financial organizations in their countries, to detect the Superdollar. Conversely, most foreign financial organization officials we spoke with were not concerned about the counterfeiting of U.S. currency. Of the 34 organizations we visited in 7 countries, officials from 1 Swiss and 1 French banking association and 2 Hungarian banks viewed the counterfeiting of U.S. currency as a current or increasing problem. According to other foreign financial organization officials, they were not concerned about U.S. counterfeiting activity because it did not have a negative impact on their business. For example, none of the 16 financial organization officials with whom we discussed chargebacks told us that they had received substantial chargebacks due to counterfeit notes that they had failed to detect. In addition, some of these officials cited other types of financial fraud and the counterfeiting of their own currency as more significant concerns. For example, officials from one French banking association were more concerned with credit card fraud, and officials from two financial organizations in Germany and one financial organization in France said counterfeiting of their country’s currency was a greater problem. Furthermore, foreign financial organization officials we spoke with were confident about their tellers’ ability to detect counterfeits and, in some countries, tellers were held personally accountable for not detecting counterfeits. In most of the countries we visited, detection of counterfeit U.S. currency relied on the touch and sight of tellers, some of whom were aided by magnifying glasses or other simple detection devices, such as counterfeit detection pens. Other counterfeit-detection devices used abroad, like ultraviolet lights, did not work effectively on U.S. currency. While foreign financial organizations appeared confident of their tellers’ ability to detect counterfeits, some of these organizations had incomplete information on how to detect counterfeit U.S. currency, particularly the Superdollar. Finally, foreign financial organization and law enforcement officials provided a few isolated cases in which U.S. currency was not accepted abroad. For example, when it first learned about the Superdollar, one U.S. financial organization in Switzerland initially stopped accepting U.S. $100 notes, although it later resumed accepting the U.S. notes from its regular customers. Also, Swiss police and Hungarian central bank and French clearing house officials reported that some exchange houses and other banks were not accepting $100 notes. We were unable to confirm these reports. However, a State Department official commented that, because drug transactions tended to involve $100 notes, some foreigners were reluctant to accept this denomination, not because of counterfeiting concerns, but rather because of the notes’ potential link to money laundering. The U.S. government, primarily through the Treasury Department and its Secret Service and the Federal Reserve, has been increasing its counterfeiting deterrence efforts. These efforts include redesigning U.S. currency; increasing exchanges of information abroad; attempting to increase the Secret Service presence abroad; and attempting to stop production and distribution of counterfeit currency, including the Superdollar. To combat counterfeiting both domestically and abroad, the Treasury is redesigning U.S. currency to incorporate more security features intended to combat rapid advances in reprographic technology. This change, the most significant in over 50 years, is long overdue, according to some U.S. and foreign officials. The redesigned currency is planned for introduction in 1996 starting with changes to the $100 note, with lower denominations to follow at 9- to 12-month intervals. According to Treasury officials, the currency redesign will be an ongoing process, because no security features are counterfeit-proof over time. These officials also said that the old currency would not be recalled and would retain its full value. Moreover, the Treasury is leading a worldwide publicity campaign to facilitate introduction of the redesigned currency, ensure awareness and use of the overt security features, and assure the public that the old currency will still be accepted in full. Through this campaign, the Federal Reserve hopes to encourage the public to turn in old currency for the redesigned notes. In addition, the Secret Service, through its team visits abroad in company with Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials, has gathered further information on counterfeiting and provided counterfeit-detection training. As of May 1995, the team had met with law enforcement and financial organization officials in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Minsk, Belarus; London, England; Zurich, Switzerland; Hong Kong; and Singapore. According to Secret Service officials, their visits were successful because they were able to develop better contacts, obtain further information about foreign financial institutions’ practices, learn more about tellers’ ability to detect counterfeits, and provide counterfeit-detection training seminars for both law enforcement and financial organization officials. Since May 1995, the team has taken initial trips to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novgorod (Russia); Ankara and Istanbul, Turkey; Cairo, Egypt; Bahrain; Abu Dhabi; Dubai; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Further, the Secret Service has been attempting to increase its presence abroad, although it has encountered difficulties in obtaining approval. The Secret Service has over 2,000 agents stationed in the United States, but it has fewer than 20 permanent positions abroad. The Secret Service first requested additional staff in February 1994 for permanent posting abroad beginning in fiscal year 1996. However, due to uncertainties about the funding of the positions and to other priorities within the Treasury Department, as of June 21, 1995, the Secret Service had secured approval for only 6 of 28 requested positions abroad. After our discussions with the Secret Service, the Treasury, and State, on July 21, 1995, the Treasury approved the remainder of the positions and sent them to the State Department for approval. As of November 30, 1995, the respective State Department chiefs of mission had approved only 13 of the 28 positions, and only 1 agent had reported to his post abroad. The U.S. government has undertaken special efforts to eradicate the highest-quality counterfeit note—the Superdollar. These efforts include an interagency task force led by the Secret Service, an overseas Secret Service task force, and diplomatic efforts between senior policy level officials of the involved countries. Due to the sensitivity and ongoing nature of this investigation, we were made generally aware of these efforts but were not given specific information. In a February 1994 Secret Service request to the Treasury for funding under the 1994 Crime bill, the Secret Service stated that, for the past 4 years, it had spearheaded a multiagency effort to suppress the most technically sophisticated note detected in the history of that agency. According to the request, this initiative has prompted an unprecedented forensic effort, utilizing the resources of the Secret Service, other government offices, and several national laboratories. The efforts of senior policy level officials in the U.S. government involve ongoing diplomatic contacts concerning the Superdollar with Middle Eastern government officials, according to a State Department official. This official said that, in May 1995, our government asked these foreign governments to provide a show of good faith in improving relations by locating the printing plants and perpetrators involved in producing the Superdollar. He added that these efforts did not specifically implicate these governments in the production of the Superdollar, but that, at a minimum, they were believed to be tolerating this illegal activity within their borders. U.S. and Interpol officials we interviewed stated that final resolution of cases similar to that of the Superdollar, should such cases occur, were beyond the purview of law enforcement and would require diplomatic solutions. According to U.S. and Interpol officials, jurisdictional constraints may prevent law enforcement agencies from dealing effectively with cases of foreign-condoned or -sponsored counterfeiting of U.S. currency. In such cases, the Secret Service would only be able to identify and assist in suppressing the distribution of the counterfeit notes. In countries where the United States has no diplomatic relations, U.S. law enforcement has no leverage to help deter counterfeiting. U.S. and Interpol officials agreed that the decision on how to suppress a foreign government-condoned or government-sponsored counterfeiting plant would need to be made at a senior U.S. government level. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the Subcommittee may have. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 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 U.S. efforts to combat international counterfeiting of U.S. currency. GAO noted that: (1) U.S. currency is vulnerable to international counterfeiting because it is widely used abroad and lacks updated security features; (2) counterfeiters range from office workers to organized crime and terrorist groups using equipment ranging from simple photocopiers to sophisticated offset presses; (3) the U.S. government is particularly concerned about a high-quality counterfeit note known as the "Superdollar" and rapid advances in photographic and printing devices; (4) U.S. agencies' and foreign governments' views on the extent and significance of counterfeit U.S. notes vary, and U.S. counterfeit-detection activities are limited and inconclusive; and (5) to deter international counterfeiting, the Department of the Treasury is redesigning U.S. currency to incorporate more security features, the Secret Service has gathered additional information on counterfeiting and provided counterfeit-detection training, and the U.S. government is using international and interagency task forces and diplomatic efforts to eradicate the Superdollar. |
Image copyright Silviu Petrovan/Mihai Leu Image caption A mallard duck closes in on a fledgling black redstart
Wild mallard ducks have been observed attacking and eating migratory birds.
This has never been documented before and is probably a new behaviour, say scientists.
Zoologists at the University of Cambridge filmed a group of mallard ducks hunting other birds on a reservoir in Romania.
Two fledglings - a grey wagtail and a black redstart - were chased and swallowed when they landed in the water.
Mallards are one of the most abundant types of wild duck, and a common sight in parks and on lakes.
The duck normally snacks on seeds, acorns, berries, plants and insects.
It has, on occasions, been seen to eat small fish, but bigger vertebrates are normally strictly off the menu.
Image copyright Silviu Petrovan/Mihai Leu Image caption The black redstart is captured
Dr Silviu Petrovan noticed the unusual behaviour of a group of mallards while he was out bird watching with friends near a national park in southwest Romania.
He saw the adult female duck grab the grey wagtail in her beak, and repeatedly submerge it in the water, before eventually eating it.
A second bird - a fledgling black redstart - then landed in the water, where it was chased by juvenile mallard ducks.
"The poor bird landed on the water and was screaming and trying to navigate itself out of danger," said Dr Petrovan. "Then it was almost instantaneously attacked by the mallards."
The bird eventually disappeared - assumed to be drowned or consumed.
The scientists could find no record of mallard bird predation in the scientific literature, which suggests such behaviour is both "very rare" and newly-learned.
"The mallard was massively struggling to eat that wagtail, presumably because it couldn't actually tear it to pieces because the bill is flattened - it's not designed for ripping prey apart," said Dr Petrovan.
"Digesting bones and feathers - that's not something that mallards have really evolved to do."
Image copyright Silviu Petrovan/Mihai Leu Image caption The unfortunate grey wagtail is swallowed almost whole
Ducks by nature are seldom aggressive and tend not to enjoy novel food.
However, mallards in California have been seen to enter the sea to feed on sand crabs, perhaps to find new sources of high-energy protein.
The same may be happening at the reservoir, which is largely deep-water.
"Potentially there is quite a lot of pressure for those fast-growing juveniles to get animal protein intake, and therefore they are looking at opportunities to supplement that," said Dr Petrovan.
"But, the fact that these individuals seem to have learnt how to hunt birds is pretty extraordinary."
The findings are published in the journal, Waterbirds.
Follow Helen on Twitter. ||||| The Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) is one of the largest and most abundant and widespread duck species in the world, and also the most hunted waterfowl species in Europe with around 4.5 million birds shot annually ( Hirschfeld and Heyd 2005 ). Mallards are widely adaptable, from sedentary or dispersive to fully migratory, and they inhabit almost every wetland type from natural to man-made, including reservoirs, urban parks and irrigation canals ( Carboneras 1992 ). Due to their importance as a game species and as the wild relative of the domestic duck, Mallard diet has been well described. They are regarded as omnivorous, feeding by dabbling in shallow water under 1 m in depth and by grazing on land ( Snow and Perrins 1998 ). Their diet primarily consists of aquatic and terrestrial plants as well as various terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates ( Dessborn et al. 2011 ), but may occasionally include amphibians or fish ( Carboneras 1992 ; Olsen et al. 2011 ). The digestible protein content of the food, especially animal protein from insect larvae, appears to be a major factor for the survival and growth rate of the ducklings ( Street 1978 ). High-protein food is also required by Mallards during egg-laying, whereas other energy-demanding phases rely on food of plant origin to increase fat deposits ( Pehrsson 1984 ). Experimental work on nutrient-poor lakes in Sweden suggested that food limitation and adverse weather are major factors for high duckling mortality and why some lakes have low abundance or even absence of dabbling ducks ( Gunnarson et al. 2004 ). However, even during periods when the requirement for animal protein is at its highest, Mallards focus on aquatic invertebrates, and information on vertebrate predation is generally rarely reported. We report the first documented cases of hunting and consumption of birds by wild Mallards. Methods The Trei Ape reservoir (45° 12′ N, 22° 08′ E), bordering the Semenic-Caras Gorges National Park (Natura 2000 ROSCI0226 site) in southwest Romania, was visited over 6 days in July 2016. The reservoir, created in 1970, is a large, 53-ha freshwater body at 850-m altitude, with a maximum depth around 30 m and a relatively complex structure following river valleys in three main directions. It has moderate usage for tourism activities including camping, rowing and angling, primarily for European chub ( Squalius cephalus), European perch ( Perca fluviatilis ), brown trout ( Salmo trutta fario ) and Zander ( Sander lucioperca ). The edges of the reservoir are largely covered by woodland, mostly deciduous, with beech ( Fagus sylvatica ) and alder ( Alnus glutinosa ), scrub, and conifers, mainly Norway spruce ( Picea abies ). Sheep ( Ovis aries ) summer pastures cover the higher slopes of the northern shore. Most of the reservoir is deep, open water with little or no aquatic vegetation. However, dense and tall riparian vegetation areas exist where the three main streams feed into the lake, and large populations of amphibians, primarily common frog ( Ranatemporaria ) and common toad ( Bufo bufo ), breed in these sections ( Petrovan et al. 2006 ). Small numbers of Mallards (30–50 pairs), Grey Herons ( Ardea cinerea ) and Moorhen ( Gallinula chloropus ) are typically encountered on the water's edge during March–October, together with more occasional observations of species such as Black Stork ( Ciconia nigra ). During May-September, large numbers of summer migrants, especially Black Redstarts ( Phoenicuros ochruros ), Barn Swallows ( Hirundo rustica ), House Martins ( Delichon urbicum ), and Red-backed Shrikes ( Lanius collurio), as well as other resident passerine birds such as Black-birds ( Turdus merula ), breed and raise their young on the edges of the reservoir. The Mallards are not fed by people and generally maintain a large flight distance. Results A group of Mallards ( n = 11) was observed on 17 July 2016 in the eastern part of the lake, in overcast weather with a temperature of 18 °C, starting at 17:30 hr. The group consisted of one adult female with 10 subadults of consistent size, ~2/3 of the adult size and with incompletely formed plumage. Using binoculars and telephoto lenses, we observed the Mallards for ~15 min during their foraging activities at the water's edge. They were vigorously shaking the riparian and scrub vegetation on the bank. Following this activity, the adult Mallard was observed repeatedly shaking its head laterally and compressing a passerine bird in its bill. The bird was identified from pictures and recording video as a Grey Wagtail fledgling with almost complete plumage ( Fig. 1 ). The adult Mallard was repeatedly mobbed by the vocalizing subadults trying to remove parts of the bird carcass, but the adult defended it. The adult Mallard had obvious difficulties with swallowing the whole bird, partly due to the extended wings of the Grey Wagtail. The female Mallard repeatedly submerged the carcass, repositioned it in its bill and tilted its head backward, a process lasting over 10 min until the Grey Wagtail was eventually entirely consumed. During this time, a second bird was flushed from the bankside vegetation by the activity of the subadults shaking the long undergrowth, and landed on the water surface, some 30 m from the bank and 12 m away from the Mallard group. The bird, identified from pictures as a fledgling Black Redstart ( Fig. 2 ), opened its wings and started thrashing on the water's surface giving out distress calls. The Black Redstart was chased by several subadult Mallards and was repeatedly attacked, grabbed and submerged as the ducks tried to swallow it or remove parts of it. Following continuous attacks by between two to five Mallards positioned in a circle, the Black Redstart disappeared, either drowned and submerged or consumed by one or more of the subadults. During the attack, which lasted less than 3 min, the subadult Mallards continued to vocalize in short, repeated calls while trying to take control of the prey. The entire group of Mallards, including the adult female, then emerged onto a floating tree trunk for basking and preening as the group entered a phase of rest. Figure 1. Figure 2. Discussion Remarkably for such a widespread and well-studied species, these are, to our knowledge, the first observations of avian hunting and predation by Mallards. The completely new behavior exhibited by this group is even more significant considering that vertebrate consumption has rarely been described in this species and almost only on fish ( Carboneras 1992 ; Olsen et al. 2011 ). Even Pekin (domestic) ducks ( A. platyrhynchos domesticus ) do not exhibit a tendency for aggressive and predatory behavior in commercial farming compared to other species such as Muscovy Ducks ( Cairina moschata ) ( Riber and Mensh 2008 ). Also, comparing wild and domesticated Mallards in an experimental setting demonstrated that wild Mallards show significant avoidance and reticence toward novel food ( Desforges and Wood-Gush 1975 ), possibly as an indication of either dietary conservatism or neophobia. This fits the wider literature observations of avian predators often avoiding novel insect prey ( Coppinger 1969 ) or reduced predation rates by birds of prey of songbird species with conspicuous plumage ( Götmark 1994 ). However, Mallards have recently been shown to learn to exploit new food sources, such as entering the sea to predate Pacific sand crabs ( Emerita analoga ) in multiple locations in California ( Lafferty et al. 2013 ). The fact that one predation event was conducted solely by the subadults, with great speed and with no hesitation, suggests they were experienced enough in such bird attacks to overcome any dietary conservatism. Yet, it seems unlikely that Mallards would have much success at capturing birds outside of the bird breeding season when fledglings are abundant, both on land and at the water's edge. Innovation during foraging can result in the development of new behaviors or the modification of existing ones to take advantage of new opportunities in the environment, such as the exploitation of new food sources ( Overington et al. 2011 ). If Mallards were limited by the lack of animal protein, for instance due to intense competition for insect larvae by fish introduced for angling ( Hill et al. 1987 ), it is possible that the inclusion of a new, energy-rich food source would offer a significant advantage at a critical time of the year. However, behavior innovation can increase risks, and predation of birds by Mallards could increase transmission of pathogens such as parasites or Salmonella, which has been found to be associated with raptors that predate other bird species ( Tizard 2004 ). Literature Cited Carboneras, C. 1992. Family Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans). Pages 536–628 in Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks ( J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and J. Sargatal, Eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Google Scholar Coppinger, R. P. 1969. The effect of experience and novelty on avian feeding behavior with reference to the evolution of warning coloration in butterflies part I: reactions of wild-caught adult blue jays to novel insects. Behaviour 35: 45–59. Google Scholar Desforges, M. F. and D. G. M. Wood-Gush. 1975. A behavioural comparison of domestic and mallard ducks. Habituation and flight reactions. Animal Behaviour 23: 692–697. Google Scholar Dessborn, L., A. L. Brochet, J. Elmberg, P. Legagneux, M. Gauthier-Clerc and M. Guillemain. 2011. Geographical and temporal patterns in the diet of pintail Anas acuta, wigeon Anas penelope, mallard Anas platyrhynchos and teal Anas crecca in the Western Palearctic. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57: 1119–1129. Google Scholar Götmark, F. 1994. Does a novel bright colour patch increase or decrease predation? Red wings reduce predation risk in European blackbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 256: 83–87. Google Scholar Gunnarsson, G., J. Elmberg, K. Sjöberg, H. Pöysä and P. Nummi. 2004. Why are there so many empty lakes? Food limits survival of mallard ducklings. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 1698–1703. Google Scholar Hill, D., R. Wright and M. Street. 1987. Survival of mallard ducklings Anas platyrhynchos and competition with fish for invertebrates on a flooded gravel quarry in England. Ibis 129: 159–167. Google Scholar Hirschfeld, A. and A. Heyd. 2005. Mortality of migratory birds caused by hunting in Europe: bag statistics and proposals for the conservation of birds and animal welfare. Berichte zum Vogelschutz 42: 47–74. (In German with English Abstract). Google Scholar Lafferty, K. D., J. P. McLaughlin and J. E. Dugan. 2013. Novel foraging in the swash zone on Pacific sand crabs ( Emerita analoga, Hippidae) by Mallards. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125: 423–426. Google Scholar Olsen, R. E., R. R. Cox, A. D. Afton and C. D. Ankney. 2011. Diet and gut morphology of male Mallards during winter in North Dakota. Waterbirds. 34: 59– 69. Google Scholar Overington, S. E., L. Cauchard, K. A. Côté and L. Lefebvre. 2011. Innovative foraging behaviour in birds: what characterizes an innovator? Behavioural Processes 87: 274–285. Google Scholar Pehrsson, O. 1984. Relationships of food to spatial and temporal breeding strategies of Mallards in Sweden. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 322–339. Google Scholar Petrovan, S. O., V. D. Popescu and C. Tetelea. 2006. Monitoring the amphibian fauna in Semenic-Caras Gorges National Park, Romania. Unpublished report prepared for the Rufford Foundation, Societas Herpetologica RomaniaResita, , Romania. Google Scholar Riber, A. B. and J. A. Mench. 2008. Effects of feed- and water-based enrichment on activity and cannibalism in Muscovy ducklings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114: 429–440. Google Scholar Snow, D. W. and C. M. Perrins (Eds.). 1998. The birds of the Western Palearctic (concise edition), vol. 1: nonpasserines. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. Google Scholar Street, M. 1978. The role of insects in the diet of Mallard ducklings - an experimental approach. Wildfowl 29: 93–100. Google Scholar Tizard, I. 2004. Salmonellosis in wild birds. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine 13: 50–66. Google Scholar | You probably thought ducks were cute waddlers who liked to eat your stale bread. Poof, your bubble has been burst. The BBC reports wild mallard ducks have been spotted eating other birds, swallowing one nearly whole, an "extraordinary" behavior that has never been observed before. Zoologist Silviu Petrovan of the University of Cambridge was birdwatching at a reservoir in Romania when he spotted a flock of mallards hunting a fledgling that had landed on the water. A female duck grabbed the grey wagtail in her beak, dunked it several times beneath the water, then ate it, Petrovan says. A black redstart landed soon after and "was almost instantaneously attacked" by 10 juveniles, per the study in the journal Waterbirds. Though mallards in California have been sighted munching on sand crabs, the ducks usually eat plants, insects, and the occasional small fish. As far as scientists can tell, such predatory behavior not involving fish or amphibians has never been seen before. It's not only "very rare" but also likely a new phenomenon, says Petrovan, noting mallards have "not ... really evolved" to digest bones and feathers. "The mallard was massively struggling to eat that wagtail, presumably because it couldn't actually tear it to pieces" due to the design of its bill. So why would a duck eat a bird at all? Petrovan suggests "pressure for those fast-growing juveniles to get animal protein intake." (These birds are probably safe.) |
Gary Brooks Faulkner, the Greeley man detained at the Pakistani-Afghan border Sunday night, has but one mission in his life: to kill Osama bin Laden, Faulkner's brother said Tuesday.
"He's not insane; he's not psychotic; he's as normal as you and I," Dr. Scott Faulkner said Tuesday afternoon. "But his passion is to track down Osama bin Laden and to kill him."
Gary Faulkner, 50, was detained in the mountains of Pakistan late Sunday after Pakistani authorities found him carrying a pistol, a 40-inch sword, a dagger and night-vision goggles.
He reportedly was attempting to cross the border from the Chitral region into the nearby Afghan province of Nuristan because he had "heard bin Laden was living there," according to Mumtaz Ahmad Khan, the top police officer in the Chitral region.
On May 30, Scott Faulkner dropped his brother off at Denver International Airport for his sixth trip to Pakistan. Gary Faulkner's purpose for this trip was the same as the five before: Kill bin Laden, or at least bring him to justice.
He was due back Monday.
This trip was especially important because Gary Faulkner's kidneys are failing, his brother said. He has been receiving kidney-dialysis treatment at North Colorado Medical Center in Greeley, where he has lived and worked for the past three months.
Gary Faulkner arrived June 3 in the town of Bumburate and stayed in a hotel there. He was assigned a police guard, which is common for foreigners visiting remote parts of Pakistan.
Advertisement
When he checked out without informing police, officers began looking for him, Khan told The Associated Press.
Faulkner was picked up in a forest in the Chitral region late Sunday.
"We initially laughed when he told us that he wanted to kill Osama bin Laden," Khan told the Associated Press. But Khan said that when officers seized the pistol, the sword, a dagger and night-vision equipment, "our suspicion grew."
Not laughing now
Chitral and Nuristan are among several rumored hiding places for bin Laden along the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment generally deny the possibility that the al-Qaeda leader is hiding somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, as Western intelligence agencies believe.
Faulkner was questioned Tuesday by intelligence officials in Peshawar, Pakistan's main northwestern city. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
Scott Faulkner, Gary Faulkner's younger brother and an internist in Fort Morgan, said his brother has been obsessed with capturing or killing bin Laden since the 9/11 attacks. Before each trip to Pakistan — he had a valid visa each time — he would work out in the gym, hike and prepare himself for the rugged terrain, Scott Faulkner said.
A devout Christian, Gary Faulkner was bent on tracking down the mastermind of the most deadly terrorist attack on the United States.
"This was a direct attack on U.S. soil, where 3,000 Americans were killed, and there is a bounty on his head," Scott Faulkner said. "If Osama showed himself in Denver, (Gary Faulkner) would be happy to get him here."
Gary Faulkner paid for his trips by working construction jobs. He sold his construction equipment to finance his latest trip and was able to get dialysis in southern Pakistan before he began tracking bin Laden, Scott Faulkner said.
With his long, bushy beard and passable language skills, Faulkner was able to get weapons and move around the countryside with relative ease, his brother said. It's not surprising that he purchased a sword.
"It's Pakistan," Scott Faulkner said. "Many people there have swords."
"God has got his back"
Gary Faulkner was born in California, and his family moved to Fort Collins in 1968. He spent several years in Central and South America, building schools and churches. He traveled with a Bible and a devout belief that he needed to exact revenge for 9/11.
"My brother never lived in fear," Scott Faulkner said. "My brother understood God has got his back."
Faulkner — who never has served in the military — has been arrested several times in Colorado over the years, according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records. He served prison sentences in Cañon City at least twice, in 1981 and 1986, on burglary and larceny convictions, according to CBI records.
In 1996, Faulkner was sentenced to one year in the Denver County Jail for a domestic-violence assault conviction, according to Denver court records.
More recently, Faulkner was arrested in Greeley in 2006 on a misdemeanor "failure to appear" warrant from another jurisdiction, according to records.
Marching, yelling
Hugo Corral owns Hugo's barbershop near Faulkner's home in Greeley.
He said he had seen Faulkner marching around in a black T-shirt and camouflage clothes yelling and swearing. He would march, stop, salute, then march some more, Corral said.
Stacey Stienmetz, who lives across the courtyard from Faulkner in a downtown Greeley apartment complex, described his neighbor as a nice guy — talkative but not at all radical.
"If anything," said Stienmetz, "I would have thought he would be in the hospital" because of the dialysis.
Property records show Faulkner's apartment building is partly owned by his younger brother. Stienmetz said Faulkner lived there for about two years working on renovation projects, then disappeared for a while and returned about three months ago.
When he left in May, he told people he was going to Pakistan to climb a mountain.
Scott Faulkner said his brother needs dialysis three times a week, but otherwise could live for another 20 years. In the meantime, he is on a donor list for a new kidney, Scott Faulkner said.
When asked why he thought that he had a chance of tracking down bin Laden, Gary Faulkner told investigators, "God is with me, and I am confident I will be successful in killing him," Khan said.
"I think Osama is responsible for bloodshed in the world, and I want to kill him," Khan quoted Faulkner as saying.
Staff writer Kieran Nicholson and The Associated Press contributed to this report. ||||| [Updated at 11:30 a.m.] The 52-year-old American who was detained in Pakistan, where he said he was looking for Osama Bin Laden, is a Colorado man who works as an independent contractor.
"My brother is not crazy. He is highly intelligent and loves his country and he has not forgotten what Osama has done to this country," Scott Faulkner, brother of Gary Brooks Faulkner, told CNN.
[Posted at 8:53 a.m.] A 52-year-old American citizen who said he was searching for Osama bin Laden was detained in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan this week, Pakistani police said Tuesday.
The Californian named Gary Brooks Faulkner was carrying a pistol, a sword, night-vision equipment and Christian religious books, said Mumtaz Ahmed, a police chief in the area.
Faulkner was detained as he was walking from Pakistan toward the border into Nuristan province in Afghanistan, Ahmed said. He told police that he had been looking for bin Laden since 9/11 and had traveled to the area several times before, Ahmed said.
U.S. Embassy Spokesman Richard Snelsire did not confirm that Faulkner had been detained but said that the consulate in Peshawar did receive notification of the detention of an American citizen. Snelsire said they were trying to get more details.
"We're hoping to get consular access to the individual," Snelsire said.
Faulkner told police that he had no intention of killing bin Laden, Ahmed said. But police believed he was trying to kill bin Laden because of the weapons he was carrying, according to Ahmed.
– CNN's Reza Sayah and Samson Desta contributed to this report. ||||| An American construction worker has been detained in the mountains of Pakistan after authorities there found him carrying a sword, pistol and night-vision goggles on a solo mission to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden.
Catching bin Laden was Gary Brooks Faulkner's "passion," his brother said, noting that the 50-year-old has been to Afghanistan at least six times, learned some of the local language and even grew a long beard to blend in. Relatives and acquaintances said Faulkner is a devout, good-humored Christian who requires dialysis and did time in prison years ago.
"A lot of kids grow up and say, `I want to be Rambo,' you know? Well, he is," said Faulkner's brother, Scott Faulkner, 43.
Gary Faulkner arrived June 3 in the town of Bumburate and stayed in a hotel there. The Greeley, Colorado, man was assigned a police guard, as is common for foreigners visiting remote parts of Pakistan.
When he checked out without informing police, officers began looking for him, according to the top police officer in the Chitral region, Mumtaz Ahmad Khan. Faulkner was found late Sunday in a forest.
"We initially laughed when he told us that he wanted to kill Osama bin Laden," Khan said. But when officers seized the weapons and night-vision equipment, "our suspicion grew." He said the American was trying to cross into the nearby Afghan region of Nuristan.
Chitral and Nuristan are among several rumored hiding places for bin Laden along the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment generally deny the possibility that bin Laden is hiding somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghan border, as Western intelligence agencies believe.
On Tuesday, Faulkner was being questioned by intelligence officials in Peshawar, Pakistan's main northwestern city. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
Scott Faulkner dropped his brother off at Denver's airport May 30, and the two discussed the possibility Faulkner would not return alive from his search of bin Laden.
"He talked about why he was so passionate" to find bin Laden, Scott Faulkner recalled, adding that his brother retained vivid memories of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. "He has not forgotten."
But Scott Faulkner insisted his brother was on a rational mission.
"He's as normal as you and I," Scott Faulkner said. "He's just very passionate, and, as a Christian, he felt, when Osama mocked this country after 9/11, and it didn't feel like the military was doing enough, it became his passion, his mission, to track down Osama, and kill him, or bring him back alive."
Scott Faulkner said his brother sold all his tools to finance his trip and was prepared to die in Pakistan. He also said his brother took no weapons and had a valid visa for Pakistan. Scott Faulkner hoped his brother wouldn't be charged with a crime.
Faulkner's sister, Deanna M. Faulkner of Grand Junction, Colorado, said her brother suffers from kidney disease that has left him with only 9 percent kidney function. But she told The Associated Press that she did not think his illness was his motivation to go to Pakistan.
"I don't believe this was, 'I'm dying, and I'm going to do a hurrah thing,'" she said.
Khan said Faulkner told investigators he was angry after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I think Osama is responsible for bloodshed in the world, and I want to kill him," Khan quoted him as saying.
Asked why he thought he had a chance of tracing bin Laden, Faulkner replied, "God is with me, and I am confident I will be successful in killing him," Khan said.
He said police confiscated a small amount of hashish, enough for a single joint, from Faulkner.
"I'm worried about him," Deanna Faulkner said. "I'm worried that in Pakistan, they won't give him his dialysis. And if he doesn't get it, he's in serious trouble."
Bin Laden, who is also reported to have kidney problems, has evaded a massive manhunt since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, which he is accused of masterminding along with other attacks. The federal government has offered a bounty of $25 million for information leading to his capture.
Hugo Corral, who owns a barber shop in Greeley, recalled cutting Faulkner's hair a few months ago. He said Faulkner was quiet and wouldn't answer his questions. After the haircut, Corral said, he saw Faulkner acting strangely outside his shop.
"He would walk, then stop, then do something like he was saluting something. It was kind of weird," Corral said. Through the glass of his shop, he said he could hear Faulkner cursing at no one in particular.
Stacey Stienmetz, who lived in Faulkner's apartment building in Greeley, described him as adventurous. Two years ago, he recalls Faulkner planning a hang gliding trip. More recently, he said Faulkner spoke about going to Pakistan to climb a mountain.
Gary Faulkner was in and out of Colorado state prisons between 1981 and 1993, serving a total of about seven years in five separate stints for burglary, larceny and parole violations, state officials said.
The Larimer County sheriff released a mug shot from a 2006 arrest on charges of failing to have car insurance. It shows Faulkner with shoulder-length gray hair parted in the middle with bangs that reach the sides of his wire-rim glasses.
He also has a shaggy, black beard with traces of gray hair in it, and he appears to be wearing a camouflage-patterned shirt.
A family photo of him leaving Denver's airport for Pakistan on May 30 shows him with a beard.
Faulkner told Pakistani police he visited Pakistan seven times, and this was his third trip to Chitral, a mountainous region that attracts adventurous Western tourists and hikers. Unlike much of northwestern Pakistan, it is considered relatively safe for foreigners.
Deanna Faulkner said her brother had been "all over the world many times" but declined to give details of past trips.
U.S. Embassy spokesman Richard Snelsire said the embassy had received notification from Pakistani officials that an American citizen had been arrested. He said embassy officials were trying to meet the man and confirm his identity.
Deanna Faulkner said her brother usually gets dialysis every three days but can go up to two weeks without it.
"We contacted the State Department to let them know of his medical condition and that his family is here and we love him," she said.
___
Chris Brummit reported from Islamabad. Associated Press Writers Kristen Wyatt and P. Solomon Banda in Denver, Catherine Tsai in Greeley, Colorado, and AP researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York also contributed to this report. ||||| Exclusive
Gary Brooks Faulkner is 'dying' and likely wanted to kill Osama bin Laden 'for his country': sister
AP A Colorado man was detained in Pakistan after telling police there he was on a mission to kill Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.
Related News Articles
Colorado man was on mission to 'kill Osama bin Laden': police
The Rocky Mountain Rambo who was caught in Pakistan hunting for Osama Bin Laden has one thing in common with his prey - bad kidneys.
Gary Brooks Faulkner "is dying," his sister, Deanna Faulkner said Tuesday.
"He only has 9% kidney function, and the only thing that can cure him is a transplant," she told the Daily News. "He needs dialysis three times a week. I'm guessing that he wanted to do one last thing for his country before he died."
Faulkner, 50, was born in California but moved decades ago to Colorado, where he worked construction.
His sister said he was no bounty hunter and not after the $50 million reward the U.S. has offered for Bin Laden's capture or killing.
"My brother is extremely religious since his troubled youth," his 47-year-old sister said. "He's not crazy."
"He is highly intelligent and loves his country and he has not forgotten what Osama has done to this country," Faulkner's brother, Scott, 44, told CNN.
Intelligence officials have long suspected that Bin Laden, the monster behind the 9/11 attacks, has kidney troubles and relies on dialysis.
Armed with a sword and pistol and some Christians texts, Faulkner was stopped by suspicious Pakistani authorities before he could complete his quest.
"We initially laughed when he told us he wanted to kill Osama bin Laden," said one official, Mumtaz Ahmad Khan, according to the Associated Press.
Khan also said Faulkner had a small amount of hashish in his possession, as well as a handgun and night vision goggles.
Faulkner, of Greeley, Colo., was detained as he trudged through Pakistan toward the border of the Taliban-ridden Nuristan province in Afghanistan, Khan said.
He reportedly told police he had been hunting Bin Laden since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and intended to lop off his head with the 40-inch sword.
When asked if he thought he actually had a chance of finding Bin Laden, Faulkner told authorities, "God is with me, and I am confident I will be successful in killing him," Khan said.
Faulker entered Pakistan on a tourist visa, and police had been assigned to watch him, which is not uncommon for foreigners, according to authorities. When he disappeared without informing anyone, they began searching for him.
Deanna Faulkner said her brother had been to Pakistan at least three times but doesn't have any military experience. "He does come from a family of hunters," she said.
[email protected] | It's still not entirely clear what made 50-year-old Gary Brooks Faulkner of Colorado think he could go to Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden by himself, but friends and family says he's sane. "My brother is not crazy," his brother Scott tells CNN. "He is highly intelligent and loves his country and he has not forgotten what Osama has done to this country." To AP, he adds, "A lot of kids grow up and say, `I want to be Rambo,' you know? Well, he is." Faulkner has serious kidney problems and requires dialysis. "I'm guessing that he wanted to do one last thing for his country before he died," his sister tells the Daily News. The construction worker had been arrested several times in recent years on burglary, larceny, and domestic violence charges, reports the Denver Post. But a friend tells the newspaper this is a surprise. "He's not crazy at all like the media says he is. He's a smart guy, a really smart guy." |
Having nearly 28,000 potentially contaminated sites, the Department of Defense manages one of the world’s largest environmental cleanup programs. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, contractors and other private parties may share liability for the cleanup costs at these sites. Two major types of sites that may involve such liability are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities (whose operators may be liable) and formerly used Defense sites (whose current and past owners and operators may be liable). The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to the Congress is the primary reporting vehicle for the status of cleanup at the many sites for which DOD is either solely or partly responsible for the contamination. The report contains information on the status of cleanup at the sites, such as the amounts spent to date; future costs; and the stage of completion, among other data. In 1992, 1994, and 1997, we reported that the Department had inconsistent policies and practices for cleanup cost reimbursements to and/or recovery of cleanup costs from non-DOD parties responsible for contamination. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense provide guidance to resolve the inconsistencies. The guidance issued by the Department requires the components to pursue the recovery of cleanup costs of $50,000 or more and to include in the annual report to the Congress each site’s name and location, the recovery status, the amount recovered, and the cost of pursuing the recovery. Under the guidance, if a component determines that it is not in the best interests of the government to pursue a cost recovery, it must inform the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security (now, the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment), who is responsible for compiling the annual report to Congress. The guidance does not define “cost recovery” or “cost sharing,” and does not address (1) how the costs of pursuing recovery should be determined; (2) whether data on cost recoveries should be reported by fiscal year, cumulatively, or both; and (3) what the procedures are for ensuring that the data are accurate, consistent, and complete. Because the Department’s management guidance is silent or unclear on key aspects of reporting necessary to collect, verify, and report data on cleanup cost recoveries, its report to Congress for fiscal year 1999 does not provide accurate, consistent, or complete data. Sound management practices require that organizations have clear and specific guidance regarding what data are to be collected and how they are to be reported, and the controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the reports. The reports should be useful to managers for controlling operations and to auditors and others for analyzing operations. While we note that the data reported in fiscal year 1999 were more extensive than those reported in 1998, the guidance issued by DOD does not provide sufficient detail to ensure the effective collection, verification, and reporting of data on cost recoveries. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 1999, DOD reported that cost recoveries increased from $125.3 million to $421.5 million. (See table 1.) The reported increase in recoveries is incorrect because $250.4 million, over half of the $421.5 million reported as cost recoveries in 1999, was not the amount DOD recovered but the amount it spent on environmental cleanups conducted by other parties. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that at Weldon Spring, Missouri, it had recovered $180.6 million. Supporting records, however, show the amount as the Corps’ share of costs for cleanup the Department of Energy is performing at the site. Corps officials told us they reported only the Corps’ share of cleanup costs at these sites because the guidance did not define “cost sharing.” In addition, these officials said they did not know what others spend on cleanup at the sites. (This is further discussed in the section on the data’s completeness.) The Corps of Engineers also incorrectly reported recoveries totaling about $70 million at other sites that were also its share of cleanup costs rather than recovered amounts. Additionally, there were other reporting inaccuracies. For example, two sites with ongoing recoveries—the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and the Massachusetts Military Reservation—that should have been reported by the Army in the fiscal year 1998 report were not reported until the following year. The reported recoveries at these two sites were $17.3 million and $28.2 million, respectively, and were not reported because the Army did not report cost sharing arrangements in fiscal year 1998. DOD’s guidance did not specify how to calculate the costs of pursuing recovery or whether components should report fiscal year data, cumulative data, or both. Consequently, the components’ reported data for both cost recoveries and the costs of pursuing recoveries were not consistent. Calculating the costs of pursuing recoveries has been particularly problematic. For example, although some costs, such as certain legal costs, are obviously related to efforts to recover costs, other legal costs, such as those incurred in defense against charges brought by states or counties, are not. Reported costs to pursue recovery for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 were $6.2 million and $37.3 million, respectively. In the absence of sufficient guidance, Defense components have varied in their reporting of cost recoveries and the costs to pursue recoveries: The Air Force estimated the costs of pursuing recoveries at one site and applied these same costs to other sites. It was also the only component that reported cost sharing arrangements with other federal agencies. The Navy said it did not keep records to allow it to capture the costs of pursuing recoveries in fiscal year 1998 and reported “unknown” or “to be determined” in fiscal year 1999. The Defense Logistics Agency reported $3.6 million in costs to pursue recoveries and $1.1 million in recovered amounts. Officials later determined that some of the reported costs, such as contract costs for investigating and cleaning up the site, should not have been included. Reporting entities have also been inconsistent in reporting data by fiscal year and cumulatively. For example, in the 1998 report, the Army used fiscal year data for cost recoveries and cumulative data for costs to pursue recoveries. The following year, it used fiscal year data for both. The Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency used cumulative data for recoveries and costs to pursue recoveries. The Navy used cumulative data for recoveries. Each of the methods for presenting data—cumulatively or by fiscal year— has certain drawbacks. Showing data cumulatively shows the long term progress that DOD has made in recovering costs, but it can also obscure instances in which no recoveries occurred in a given fiscal year. Conversely, data for the fiscal year do not show total recoveries at a given site. The environmental cleanup cost recovery data reported to Congress for fiscal year 1999 were more extensive than that reported in the previous fiscal year’s report primarily because the Corps of Engineers reported on cost sharing arrangements at 86 sites that it did not report in fiscal year 1998. The Army also reported on two additional sites in the report for fiscal year 1999. The Navy reported on one additional site, and the Air Force added one site but eliminated another. Despite the improvement, the Department still did not report all cost recoveries in the cost recovery appendix. In the absence of sufficient guidance, the Defense components have not reported all cost recoveries or costs to pursue recoveries: The body of the Department’s report includes a field for additional program information pertaining to each site. This field includes information such as progress in conducting investigations and contracts awarded for cleanup. Comments in the additional information field and other sections of the report indicated that cost recovery activities were occurring at sites that were not included in the cost recovery appendix. We identified 138 sites where cleanup costs exceeded the Department’s threshold for pursuing recoveries, and where there were indications that either cost recovery was being considered or that non-DOD parties were involved in cleanup. None of these sites were reported in the cost recovery appendix. Fifty-five of these sites were from the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 reports. For example, the groundwater cleanup at Bethpage Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, New York, involved Northrop/Grumman and the Occidental Chemical Company. Also, comments listed under the Army Tarheel Missile Plant, North Carolina, indicated that cost recovery would be requested from Lucent Technologies, a caretaker contractor at the installation. Neither, however, was included in the report’s cost recovery appendix. Failure to include these and other sites at which components may be recovering costs requires decisionmakers and others to search through over 800 pages of reported cleanup data to obtain a complete picture of cost recovery activities. The Defense components are required to report both the costs shared with non-DOD parties at the time of cleanup and the costs that they recovered from non-DOD parties after cleanup. However, the components did not report the amounts for some recoveries because they did not know how much money the non-DOD parties had contributed to cleanups resulting from cost sharing arrangements. The Department’s guidance does not include directions for obtaining, calculating, or estimating these amounts; and the components do not have adequate procedures to gather this information. As a result, for 88 sites listed in the fiscal year 1999 report, the amounts spent by non- DOD parties under cost sharing arrangements were not shown. (See table 1.) Although it is required, none of the DOD components provided the reasons for deciding not to pursue cost recoveries. According to DOD officials, some reasons for not pursuing recoveries include circumstances where there is insufficient evidence that non-DOD parties caused the problems at the site, where the other responsible party is no longer in business, or where pursuit of the recovery would cost more than the expected amounts recovered. The pursuit of recovery actions is a complex and lengthy process, and decisions to pursue cost recovery at some locations may take a long time. The cost recovery data in the Department’s annual environmental cleanup report for fiscal year 1999 are not useful to the Congress or the Department for management or oversight because they are inaccurate, inconsistent, and incomplete. The lack of sufficient guidance resulted in the Department’s overstating reported cost recoveries by $250 million, inconsistent reporting among the Defense components, and the failure to include all recoveries in the cost recovery appendix of the report. These problems limit the ability of the Congress and the Department to determine the extent to which recoveries may offset environmental cleanup costs. To ensure that the Congress and the Department of Defense have accurate, consistent, and complete information on cost recovery efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to modify existing guidance in areas where it is silent or unclear and provide specific guidance for (1) defining the types of cost sharing arrangements that should be reported, (2) calculating the costs of pursuing recovery, (3) reporting both cumulative and fiscal year data, and (4) capturing and reporting amounts spent by non-DOD parties under cost sharing arrangements. The guidance should include control procedures for ensuring that the data reported by the Department’s components are accurate, consistent, and complete; identify all responsible parties; and include reasons for not pursuing recoveries. In official oral comments on a draft of this report from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), the Department concurred with our recommendations and plans to develop more accurate, consistent, and complete information on cost recovery data. In September 2001, after our report was submitted to the Department for comments, DOD issued revised management guidance that cited a number of actions that address our recommendations. If effectively implemented, the guidance should improve overall reporting of cost recovery data. The Department also noted that it was unable to verify the numbers in our report because we had obtained data that were not included in the fiscal year 1999 annual report. As noted in our report, we visited or obtained data directly from selected sites in order to validate the annual report data and found the data to be inaccurate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Accordingly, the noted discrepancies are part of the basis for our recommendations. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-4412 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. To determine whether the Department of Defense’s reporting of cost sharing and recovery data was accurate, consistent, and complete, we examined the relevant sections of the Department’s annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 1998 (Appendix F) and 1999 (Appendix E) and documentation on the Department’s and components’ reporting criteria and other policies. We compared reported data with data from other sources, including, for example, comments in other sections of DOD’s annual reports, supporting documents from selected locations, and our previous reports. We selectively reviewed supporting information for 100 of the 130 sites listed in DOD’s cost recovery report for fiscal year 1999. We selected the sites because reported recoveries exceeded $1 million, because we had identified cost recovery at those sites during earlier work and/or because our prior work revealed potential problems with data for these sites. We discussed the data with headquarters officials at the Departments of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force and with the Defense Logistics Agency. In addition, we visited and/or obtained information directly from the following 12 cleanup sites: Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado. Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Arden Hills, Minnesota. Former Weldon Spring Ordnance Works, Weldon Spring, Missouri. Former Fort Devens, Massachusetts. Air Force Materiel Command and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington. Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Poulsbo, Washington. Defense Supply Centers, Richmond, Virginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, and Omaha, Nebraska, Districts. To identify indications of possible responsible parties or cost recovery agreements, we reviewed the “additional program information” columns in printed annual reports for several fiscal years, including fiscal years 1998 and 1999. We used the latest available cost data from these reports to determine which sites had past and/or estimated costs of $50,000, the threshold level for DOD’s cost recovery requirements, and determined whether they had been reported in the cost recovery appendixes in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. There were 55 comments in other parts of the reports for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 that indicated the presence of potential responsible parties or that cost recovery was being considered or pursued. We conducted our review from August 2000 to August 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to those above, Robert Ackley, Arturo Holguin, and Tony Padilla made key contributions to this report. | The cleanup of contaminated Department of Defense (DOD) sites could cost billions of dollars. Private contractors or lessees that may have contributed to such contamination may also be responsible for cleanup costs. DOD and other responsible parties either agree to a cost sharing arrangement with the responsible parties conducting the cleanup or DOD conducts the cleanup and attempts to recover the other parties' share after the cleanup. On the basis of a GAO study, DOD issued guidance requiring its components to identify, investigate, and pursue cost recoveries and to report on them in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress. The data on cost recoveries from non-Defense parties included in the Department's report for fiscal year 1999 were inaccurate, inconsistent, and incomplete. As a result, neither Congress nor DOD can determine the extent of progress made in recovering costs or the extent to which cost recoveries may offset cleanup costs. Data on cost recoveries included throughout the annual report were also missing from the appendix. Thus, DOD may not know whether all potential cost recoveries have been actively pursued and reported. |
Conserving the nation’s natural and cultural resources and ensuring visitor enjoyment of these resources has been the primary mission of the National Park Service since its inception in 1916. The Park Service has long provided facilities for visitor use, but over time, the way that the Park Service has provided services has changed. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Park Service—building on the legacy of the railroad companies, who had built the great lodges in western natural parks such as Yellowstone in Wyoming, Glacier in Montana, and the Grand Canyon in Arizona—built basic infrastructure such as roads, wayside stops, administrative offices, campgrounds, and other basic visitor facilities, which were located in different buildings typically arranged as a village. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the Park Service centralized visitor services and adopted modern architecture with large, open spaces that allowed the increasing numbers of visitors to circulate more easily. The Park Service built many visitor centers in preparation for its 50th anniversary in 1966 and built another set of visitor centers in preparation for 1976, the nation’s bicentennial year. The centers built during this time are referred to either as Mission 66 buildings or Bicentennial buildings. Figures 1 and 2 show examples of each. The building commonly thought of as a “visitor center” was created by the Park Service in the mid-1950s. Through a program called Mission 66, the Park Service invested over $600 million in park infrastructure in an effort to handle increasing numbers of visitors. In addition to roads, bridges, and offices, the program resulted in the construction of 111 visitor centers. These visitor centers, for the first time, grouped park interpretive presentations, auditoriums, administrative offices, restrooms, and various other services into a single building. According to the Park Service, the visitor center quickly became one of the most important facilities for helping the public see and enjoy a park, and continues today to be the center of park planning and building. In fiscal year 2001, the Park Service received about $160 million for its construction program to renovate and build new facilities, including visitor centers. Other types of facilities included in the construction program are maintenance buildings, warehouses, utilities, and seawalls and other retaining walls. To construct a major project, such as a visitor center, about 5 to 6 years before construction begins, a park generally identifies the project scope, or needs, and a cost estimate. If the project is to receive appropriated funds, the project is ranked, along with other projects, by a service-wide assessment team and is placed on a 5-year construction program list, which serves as the basis for the Park Service’s annual budget proposals that are reviewed by the Congress. If the project is not to be funded through the annual appropriations process, it receives funds according to the program under which it is being built. For example, projects built with fee demonstration funds will receive funds from regional fee demonstration accounts. Design (including pre-design activities) for all construction projects generally begins 3 years prior to construction and includes the development of increasingly detailed designs and increasingly specific cost estimates for the project. The process includes analysis of different alternatives for the project and the “life-cycle” cost of the alternatives, or the costs of each alternative over its useful life. The Park Service generally contracts with an architecture and engineering firm to complete construction documents for a project, and when these documents are complete, the Park Service contracts for construction with qualified private construction companies. During construction, the Park Service typically contracts for a firm to inspect the construction site and the construction progress. For the 10-year period from fiscal years 1996 through 2005, the Park Service estimates that it has 80 projects that involve construction, renovation, or remodeling of visitor centers. Of these 80 projects, 16 have already been completed, 15 are under construction, and 49 are being planned. The projects under construction and planned may be delayed or cancelled because of funding and scheduling uncertainties. Park officials gave several reasons for the 80 visitor center projects, including the need to replace obsolete or deficient facilities or exhibits, increase space, and address increasing visitation. Of the 80 projects, 43 involve the construction of a new visitor center building, while 37 others require the renovation of an existing building. The Park Service identified 53 priority construction projects, and the Congress identified an additional 27 projects as priority projects. The Park Service has completed or started over one-third of the 80 visitor center projects, and the remaining two-thirds are being planned and construction is expected to be completed in the next 4 years. Figure 3 shows the status of the 80 visitor center projects. Of the 80 visitor center projects, 16 have been completed and 15 are still under construction. The remaining 49 visitor center projects, which were being planned as of April 2001, are expected to be completed by fiscal year 2005. Park projects that are being planned are in various stages of planning, ranging from those that are being conceptualized to those for which construction documents are being developed. For example, the concept for the visitor center project at Denali National Park in Alaska has been selected and the project is in the process of being designed. On the other hand, Badlands National Park in South Dakota has construction documents for its visitor center project and is awaiting a construction contract. Of the 49 projects being planned, some are further along in the planning process than others, and thus have more precise cost estimates. The Park Service develops project designs and cost estimates at three points in the planning process. Twenty-eight of the 49 planned projects have a Class C estimate, which is the least exact design and cost estimate produced. It is based on the costs of similar buildings already constructed and is produced by the park when a project is first considered and requested. Thirteen of the 49 projects have a class B estimate, which is developed after a period of conceptual planning and development of a more detailed plan of the building. The remaining eight planned projects have a class A estimate, which is the final, most precise planning cost estimate that has been developed from construction documents. Parks identified several reasons why a visitor center project was needed. The major reasons given by park officials for building visitor center projects were to replace obsolete facilities or exhibits, to increase space, to handle increased visitation, to build a park’s first visitor center, or to replace a visitor center that was not at an accessible location. One major reason that parks said they needed a new or renovated visitor center is that either existing facilities were obsolete, their exhibits were outdated, or both. According to Park Service staff, visitor centers and other facilities are expected to last 40 to 50 years without major renovation or replacement. Before that time, however, certain functions in the building such as restrooms may need to be updated, and as the building ages, the maintenance and operation costs can become more expensive. The Park Service renovates buildings to prolong their lifespan, but at some point, analyzes whether to remodel and continue using the same building or to build a new one. Several parks, including Bryce Canyon in Utah, Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts, Zion National Park in Utah, and Grand Canyon National Park, have buildings that have aged and need either extensive renovation or replacement. While buildings may last decades, park exhibits contain information that can become outdated, such as scientific information about natural or cultural resources, or contain items that need special protection, such as artifacts or historical documents. With increasing knowledge and technology, park exhibits can be improved to enhance the visitor experience. For example, both Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia and Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park in Georgia have renovated their visitor centers in part to upgrade their exhibits. Each of the park’s Civil War era artifacts are now housed in temperature-controlled cases with controlled lighting, both of which required upgraded utilities and connections. Figure 4 shows the addition to the Kennesaw Mountain visitor center. The parks also identified the need for increased space as another major reason for requesting a new visitor center. Park officials stated that the size of a park’s staff and the number of visitors have increased since many of the visitor centers were built, requiring additional space to accommodate increased numbers of people. In addition, park officials identified the need to increase the space used to store collections or provide exhibits. Existing visitor centers ranged in size from 181 square feet to more than 79,000 square feet. The visitor center at Pinnacles National Monument in California—the visitor center with 181 square feet—shares space with another facility and has no room for exhibits. The new planned visitor center will be 1,500 square feet. In contrast, the current visitor center at Gettysburg has an area of 79,274 square feet, including a building that houses the famous “Cyclorama” painting (a circular painting). According to the park’s superintendent, the current visitor center has no room to house the park’s collection of Civil War items, nor the space to store them under appropriate climatic conditions. The new Gettysburg visitor center being planned will be 118,100 square feet. A third major reason that parks gave for needing a new or renovated visitor center is increased visitation. For many parks, visitation has increased greatly since the visitor center first opened. Park officials project that visitation to their visitor centers will continue to increase for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the visitor center will be new, that the park is well-located, or that the long-term trend in visitation has been increasing. Of 53 parks that provided complete data, 51 expected visitation at their visitor centers to increase an average of about 25 percent by 2005, with three-quarters of the parks reporting an increase of about 10 to almost 100 percent. For example, Everglades National Park in Florida expects visitation at its new center to increase from 194,000 in 2000 to 243,000 visitors in 2005. Finally, several parks requested a new visitor center because they either had no visitor center or the existing center location was determined to have a negative effect on natural or cultural resources or was situated in a location that was not accessible to visitors. For example, Grand Portage National Monument in Minnesota—which was created in 1951—has never had a visitor center and instead has offered visitor services out of its administrative building. On the other hand, the visitor center for Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site in Texas is currently located in leased facilities eight miles from the park. According to the park’s superintendent, the center is difficult to find and is closed on weekends— because of the hours of the building in which it leases space—the time when most visitors come to the park. The new visitor center, which will be located near the park entrance, will be more accessible and convenient for the park visitors. Of the 80 visitor center projects to be completed by fiscal year 2005, 43 (54 percent) involve construction of a new building and 37 (46 percent) require the renovation of an existing visitor center or building. Individual parks reach the decision to construct a new building or to renovate an existing building during the initial development of the scope of the visitor center project. As park officials plan a visitor center project, they analyze the value of each alternative—a process called a value analysis—before making the decision whether to renovate an existing visitor center or other building or construct a new building. Park officials consider factors, such as the existing building’s age and condition, visitation, maintenance costs over the life of the alternative buildings, and historic significance. The parks also consider whether the visitor center needs to be moved away from a flood plain or the key natural or historic features of the park to prevent damage. For example, the project at Ulysses S. Grant Historical Site in Missouri will build a new permanent visitor center to replace the temporary facilities that are already located in a historic barn in a flood plain. On the other hand, Bryce Canyon decided to renovate its existing visitor center building because there was no other location in the park where a visitor center could be built without further endangering its protected prairie dog population—a valued resource. Figure 5 shows the renovation of the Bryce Canyon National Park visitor center in December 2000, as it was under construction. In special cases, when a building has historic significance, the Park Service—because of its conservation mission and mandate not to impair park resources—must consider not only whether the building should be kept and maintained, but also how to rehabilitate and restore it. For example, the visitor center at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, and one of three visitor centers at Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado, have both been designated National Historic Landmarks because of their architectural significance and association with the Mission 66 period. These visitor centers will be renovated to restore and maintain the buildings’ original conditions, as well as to improve their usefulness as visitor centers. In addition to projects that the Park Service identifies, the Congress can also identify—through legislation or through the appropriations process— projects for construction. Of the 80 visitor center projects, the Park Service requested 53 projects, or 66 percent, while the Congress concurred with these projects and requested an additional 27 projects, or 34 percent. In its annual budget request, the Park Service provides the Congress with a list of proposed construction projects for the upcoming fiscal year. As part of its review of the budget, the Congress may make revisions or additions to this list on the basis of its priorities. Congressional committees, and in some cases individual members, identify projects for construction that are not listed in the annual budget request. In some cases, projects identified by Congress are on the Park Service’s 5-year list of projects to build, but they may not have been included in a particular fiscal year budget request. Park Service officials said that they work with congressional committees and members when the projects are added to the budget to get them ready for planning and construction. For example, in 1996, the Congress passed legislation authorizing the construction of a visitor center to interpret the battle of Corinth in Tennessee and other regional Civil War actions; since that time the Park Service has been planning the facility. The National Park Service estimates that a total of $542 million will be needed for the 80 visitor center projects. The cost of the individual visitor center projects varies widely, ranging from $500,000 to $39 million. In general, a new building with an increased number of functions and additional square footage costs more than a renovated building with fewer functions and less area. For example, the visitor center project at Great Smoky Mountains National Park cost $500,000 and involved the renovation of the existing visitor center building and the addition of an auditorium, which increased the total size of the building by 3,500 square feet to a total of 13,000 square feet. In contrast, the new 118,100 square foot visitor center building planned for Gettysburg National Military Park will contain the five basic functions and many others for an estimated cost of $39 million. The additional functions being planned for this private-park partnership project include a museum, an area for the historic cyclorama painting, restoration of the painting, the removal of the existing visitor center, and rehabilitation of the land where the existing visitor center stands. The number and type of functions and the size of the buildings varies widely because the functions and size of visitor center projects not only depend on the needs of the individual parks, but also the Park Service has no guidelines for what each visitor center project should include. Recognizing the need for such guidelines, the Park Service has contracted with two architecture and engineering firms to develop functions and square footage guidelines for key facilities including visitor centers. The Park Service plans to use these in its development and review of visitor center projects. As of April 2001, the average cost to build a visitor center project was $6.7 million, with the costs ranging from $500,000 to $39 million. Table 1 shows the range of costs of the 80 visitor center projects, the number and percentage of visitor center projects by cost range, and the share of total costs represented by each cost range. When complete, 28 visitor center projects, or about 35 percent of the total projects, will likely cost less than $3 million each. For example, the visitor center at Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas, which is estimated to cost $1.4 million to build, includes the five basic functions and offers an auditorium, ticket and permit area, and a parking lot. Combined, these 28 projects are expected to cost an estimated $53 million, or about 10 percent of the estimated costs for all 80 projects. On the other hand, 15 visitor center projects, which represent about 19 percent of the total projects, are estimated to cost $266 million, or 49 percent of the estimated costs for all 80 visitor center projects. Each of these projects is estimated to cost more than $10 million. They include projects such as the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site in New York, which will rehabilitate part of the library and build a conference center and a Park Service visitor center in cooperation with the National Archives for an estimated cost of $18 million, and Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Kansas, which will build a new visitor center for an estimated $11.5 million. Other planned projects are estimated to cost more than $20 million each, including Gettysburg and Independence. Some projects that have already been completed or almost completed for more than $10 million include the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Fort Sumter National Monument, which is in South Carolina. Appendix III lists the total project costs for each project with a visitor center. Visitor center project costs vary depending on whether the projects require new construction or renovation of existing visitor centers, the number and type of functions included in the visitor center building, and the size of the building. Almost half of the 80 visitor center projects involve renovation while the remainder involve the construction of new visitor center buildings, which are generally more expensive. Table 2 compares the average costs of renovation and new construction and the cost ranges for each. On average, projects that involve new construction cost twice as much as projects that involve renovation. According to Park Service officials, construction of new buildings involves more work, including preparing the building site and foundation, hooking up utilities, and construction. Renovations may not involve as much work and are generally less expensive. Some renovations can be costly, however, particularly if they involve historical rehabilitation of a building or if they involve a large building with multiple functions. Of the 80 projects, at least 6 involve rehabilitation of historic buildings or adaptation of buildings for use as visitor centers. For example, the visitor center at Dinosaur National Monument has been designated a National Historic Landmark for its architectural significance and association with the Mission 66 period. The project, which will cost an estimated $7.7 million, will correct foundation weaknesses to protect the visitor center from collapsing and will create a larger area inside when the museum collections are moved to a new curatorial building. Another project, which involves restoration of the Kelso Depot at Mojave National Preserve in California, will cost $6 million to preserve one of two remaining train stations built in the 1920s for use as a visitor center. The cost of a visitor center project also varies according to the number and type of functions each includes. The number and types of functions a visitor center project has depends on the individual needs of a park, and can include parking lots, transportation facilities, landscaping, headquarters space, maintenance space, and rehabilitation of areas where existing visitor centers are demolished. With few exceptions, the 80 visitor center projects included the five basic functions of a visitor center— information, exhibits, publication sales, restrooms, and administrative space for center personnel. In addition, several parks identified a number of additional functions, such as auditoriums, curatorial areas, and transportation facilities, to be included in visitor center projects that had a direct bearing on the cost of the projects. Table 3 shows the average number of functions for the 80 visitor center projects by cost range. The five basic functions are not included, as nearly all visitor center projects contain them. The 14 visitor center projects with cost projections below $2 million have an average of 2 additional functions over the 5 basic functions, whereas the 15 visitor center projects with cost projections above $10 million average 6 additional functions or triple the number of additional functions included in the projects costing less than $2 million. The type of function included in the project also affects a project’s costs. Several parks have included transportation facilities in their projects, which can be costly. For example, the Grand Canyon and Zion national parks each have a form of bus service with shuttle stops, buses, and related maintenance buildings. At Zion National Park, the new visitor center project cost about $24 million, and includes the construction of the visitor center, a bus maintenance center, shuttle stops, and the purchase of over 30 buses for the park’s new shuttle system. Figure 6 shows several different parts of the new visitor center project, including a large outdoor exhibit area that can accommodate large number of visitors during peak season. Fort Sumter National Monument, which is located on an island, required the construction of a unique transportation system—a boat dock from which visitors will travel to the site. The visitor center is currently being built on a dock that will provide boat rides to the site. Figure 7 shows the frame of the visitor center in November 2000, as well as the dock, all of which are expected be completed in August 2001. Depending on a park’s needs, parks have also added other functions, including headquarters space; space for the concessioners operating services in the parks, such as hotels, guided tours, gift shops, or restaurants; curatorial space; and museum space. For example, the Gettysburg project will house its Civil War collection in a new visitor center museum. Appendix II presents detail information on the 80 visitor center projects and the functions included in them. Finally, the size of the visitor center, measured by the square feet contained in the visitor center building, influences the total cost of the visitor center project. Table 4 shows the average square footage of the visitor center buildings by the cost ranges of the projects. On average, the visitor center projects in the higher cost ranges have much larger buildings. The 15 most costly projects have buildings with an average area of 28,228 square feet, while the 14 least costly projects average 6,747 square feet. The variation in visitor center project functions and size is partially due to the fact that the Park Service has not developed specific guidelines for what should be included in a visitor center project. Under the current Park Service policy on park facilities, visitor center projects may be constructed when necessary to provide visitor information and interpretive services. The policy generally describes what may be included in a visitor center, such as information services, sale of educational materials, museums, museum collections storage, exhibits, and other programs and spaces to create a quality visitor experience. The determination of the functions and size for a particular visitor center project is made initially by the park superintendent and is then subsequently reviewed and analyzed by the appropriate regional office and the construction program. Since 1996, the Park Service has also relied on an advisory board called the Development Advisory Board to review all construction projects over $500,000. Of the 80 projects, the Board has reviewed 37 and needs to review 30 projects. The remaining 13 projects predated the review process. The board reviews proposed project plans and cost estimates for projects, hears presentations from the park’s employees, and either forwards the project for Director approval or requests additional analyses. Projects that require additional analyses are sent back to the parks for revisions and additional work before returning to the board for review. To provide specific guidelines for the Development Advisory Board and the parks, the Park Service contracted with two architectural and engineering firms to develop construction planning criteria and preliminary cost guidance for Park Service facilities, including functions, square footage, and cost. One of the contractors is expected to provide guidelines for maintenance facilities to the Park Service in August 2001 and will continue working on guidelines for the other facilities, including visitor centers, in the upcoming year. When the guidelines are complete, the Park Service plans to have park staff use them to develop the scope of projects and the initial cost estimates, and plans to provide the guidelines to the Development Advisory Board for use in its future review of projects. The Park Service receives appropriations for planning, construction, and repair and rehabilitation, all of which can be used in the construction or renovation of visitor center projects. In addition, the Park Service has successfully generated supplemental funding from other sources, such as private partnerships, fee demonstration funds, federal highway funds, various other government entities, and others. Figure 8 shows the total funding for the 80 visitor center projects that has been or will be provided by source. Park Service funds represent the largest funding source for the 80 visitor center projects, contributing an estimated $322 million of the total estimated cost of $542 million. Private partnerships are the second largest source of funding for the visitor center projects, providing $97 million for visitor center projects. The Park Service can receive donations—including buildings—from private individuals or groups. Many parks have “Friends” groups or natural history associations that are interested in supporting the park by raising funds and developing important projects. After private partnerships, the third largest source of funds for visitor center projects is estimated to be fee demonstration funds, which are raised through additional or new fees charged by individual parks. For example, a park can adjust its entrance fees based on use or charge additional fees during peak seasons. Of the funds collected, the park can keep 80 percent, and the remaining 20 percent is put into a pool for which other parks can compete. Some parks received authority to raise fee demonstration funds in fiscal year 1996 and can spend these funds through 2005. The Park Service estimates that $48 million, or 9 percent, of the total funding for the 80 visitor center projects will be fee demonstration funds. Additional funding for visitor center projects comes from a number of different sources. Road construction funds from the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal Lands Highway Program provide an estimated $35 million, or 6 percent, of the total project funding. The highway program provides discretionary funding that can be used for, among other things, visitor center projects located on major roads. For example, funding for the visitor center project at Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, which will cost $2.1 million, was provided from highway funds. Finally, funding for visitor center projects also comes from other federal agencies, state governments, concession owners, and Indian tribes. In total, other funding sources provide an estimated $40 million, or 7 percent, of funding for the 80 projects. For example, the largest single source of funding for the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt project—$8.2 million—will come from the National Archives for the library portion of the project. Alternative sources of funding—such as private partnership funds, fee demonstration funds, or highway funds—can significantly benefit some projects, allowing them to be constructed perhaps several years before they would have received Park Service construction appropriations. Some projects receive small amounts of these alternative sources of funding, while other projects receive almost their entire funding from alternative sources. For example, Kennesaw Mountain received $520,000 for its renovation from its Friends group and the Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association, which represented about 25 percent of its total costs. On the other hand, the new visitor center project at the Grand Canyon used over $16 million, or 68 percent of its total construction costs, in fee demonstration funds raised by the park. The Park Service is experiencing increased activity in building projects that include visitor centers, and faces the challenge of constructing buildings that simultaneously serve the purposes of the individual parks and are built efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. The National Park Service has made efforts—through the establishment of the Development Advisory Board and the development of facility guidelines—to move the agency toward achieving these goals. The variation in the costs, size, and functions of projects that include visitor centers supports the Park Service’s efforts. We provided the Department of the Interior with a copy of our draft report for review and comment. Overall, Interior said that the report provides useful information that will be beneficial to the Park Service in planning, programming, design and construction of visitor centers and associated facilities. Interior said the report presents information in a “non-interpreted” way, but asserts that some of our data is incorrect and that some relevant information has not been included in the report. First, Interior believes that some of the data gathered with our survey and used in portions of the report are incorrect. We disagree. Our objectives were to provide information on the cost, functions, and funding for visitor center projects. Because Interior does not maintain a database with this information, it was necessary for us to first identify visitor center projects and then to gather specific information using a questionnaire to answer the study’s specific objectives. As we pointed out in our scope and methodology, we designed our questionnaire with the Park Service’s input and we discussed the questionnaire in detail with officials from 11 parks. To address potential inconsistencies or misinterpretations in responses from the parks, we followed up, as is our normal practice, with all parks that provided data that appeared to be inconsistent or misinterpreted. As a further check on the validity of the data, we corroborated the project cost and funding data with regional budget staff. We believe the data upon which the report is based are accurate. Other data which we gathered as part of the questionnaire and to which Interior is referring—data on the visitor center building costs—were not used in the report. We attempted to gather this data because Interior did not maintain the data. However, in discussing visitor center building costs with the parks and with Interior construction staff, we found that the data were subject to different interpretations and assumptions about what specific costs should be included. For example, parks used different interpretations on whether or not to include site development costs, which in its comments Interior points out can be a major cost in the overall visitor center project costs. Given that collecting specific data on visitor center building costs was not part of our overall objectives, and that the data are subject to different interpretations and assumptions, the data need to be clarified and studied in more detail as part of a separate review. Interior also believes that providing costs per square foot of the individual visitor center buildings is more meaningful than providing the overall costs of visitor center projects. We strongly disagree that information on visitor center building costs is more meaningful than the cost of the projects. As stated above, our purpose was to discuss the cost, functions, and funding sources for visitor center projects and not just visitor center buildings. The requesters asked that we gather data on overall visitor center projects because the total project costs reflect all costs related to developing and constructing a visitor center, which represent the cost to the taxpayer. Also, only in this way can the full range of visitor center project functions, including transportation facilities, be addressed. Although Interior states that cost-per-square-foot data is more meaningful than project costs, the Park Service has not developed a database containing this information. Furthermore, Interior asserts that the data could have been easily developed from data already accumulated. We disagree. We gathered, as part of our study, data that could be used to calculate the cost per square foot of individual visitor centers. However, because of various interpretations and the assumptions used in calculating the square foot costs of visitor center buildings, we ultimately decided not to report these data. We agree that cost-per-square-foot data on visitor center buildings are important and question why the Park Service has not yet developed the data. Interior notes that trends in visitor center costs and costs per square foot can be identified and that our report could have identified trends but did not do so. We disagree that trends can be identified. The trends that Interior says that it has identified are not trends, but are comparisons of average costs at two points in time. We attempted to develop trends by plotting total and average project costs by the year projects were completed, and as we stated in the report, were unable to discern a trend in costs because of the wide variation in projects. Finally, Interior asserts that parts of our discussion of its planning, design and construction processes are incomplete or incorrect. We believe that for the purpose of this study, general background information is needed to interpret the data and that we have provided complete information for this purpose. We did make technical changes, as appropriate, to address Interior’s specific comments on incorrect information related to these processes. Interior’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix V. We conducted our review from November 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with generally acceptable government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; the Director of the National Park Service; and other interested parties. This report will be available on GAO’s home page 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 were Fran Featherston, Cliff Fowler, Susan Iott, Chet Janik, and Bill Temmler. Our study included all National Park Service visitor center projects that had either been completed, were under construction, or were planned to be completed between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2005 (as identified by January 2001). We selected fiscal year 1996 as a starting point because changes in the Park Service’s accounting and regional organization prior to 1996 made data difficult to obtain. We used fiscal year 2005 as our cutoff because projects that the Park Service is planning to complete beyond that year are less certain than projects that will be completed prior to that year as the projects have not been reviewed or prioritized by the agency. The Park Service’s 5-year construction plan, which extended through fiscal year 2005 at the time we were gathering information, includes the agency’s prioritized construction projects. First, to answer all three objectives—the number, reasons, costs, functions and sources of funding for the identified projects—we developed a questionnaire. To gather background data and to develop and pretest the questionnaire for our study, we visited or talked to officials at 11 national parks in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. We chose parks that had visitor center projects in various stages of construction and that had a variety of functions. A copy of the questionnaire is included in appendix IV. Second, to determine the number of visitor centers built, renovated, and planned from fiscal year 1996, we worked with National Park Service officials to develop a current definition of a visitor center project. This was necessary because the Park Service did not have a specific definition of a visitor center project, but rather, has general guidance on what constituted a visitor center. We agreed with the Park Service that a visitor center project (1) must have a staffed facility that provides general information on the park, (2) must include administrative space for visitor center personnel plus four of the basic functions included in the guidance—an information desk, exhibits, publication sales, and restrooms, and (3) can include a number of other functions, including an auditorium, ticket sales and permits, transportation facilities, and other specialized uses, depending on the needs of the individual park. In addition, it was agreed that visitor contact stations that are not staffed by personnel or specialized facilities such as education centers or beach houses, would not be counted as visitor center projects. Third, using this definition, we reviewed Park Service budget and planning documents and interviewed Park Service construction officials to identify an initial set of visitor center projects. We then sent to each Park Service regional office a list of projects at parks in the respective regions for review. Through this process we identified 106 visitor center projects that were either completed, under construction, or planned to be completed during the period of fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2005. Fourth, we mailed questionnaires—one for each of 106 visitor center projects—to the 94 parks that had visitor center projects built or planned during our time frames. Some parks had more than one project built or planned. To corroborate that the visitor center projects met our specifications, we requested documentation for each project. One park identified a second project that fell within the study’s time frames and completed a questionnaire for that project, bringing the total number of identified projects to 107. However, 27 of the 107 projects were subsequently dropped from the study because the parks stated these projects did not fit into our universe for several different reasons, including the fact that the bulk of the visitor center project had been completed prior to 1996, the project had been redesigned and the visitor center portion eliminated, or the project would not be completed by 2005. This left 80 projects in the survey. We mailed the questionnaires on January 10, 2001 and obtained completed questionnaire responses for all 80 projects by March 16, 2001. Finally, to corroborate that we had received consistent funding and cost information for each project, we asked the budget staff from each of the Park Service’s seven regions to ensure that the parks in the region had reported costs and funding data in the same way. Specifically, we asked the regions to ensure that the funds included contingency and supervision costs and that the cost and fund data were in constant fiscal year 2000 dollars. We received corrections for our data through April 2001. Finally, we coordinated our work with the architecture and engineering contractor that the Park Service had hired to develop square footage and function standards for key park facilities, including visitor centers. We conducted our work from November 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following figure shows the functions, in addition to the five basic functions, that are included in the 80 visitor center projects that the Park Service has either completed, has under construction, or is planning to complete between fiscal years 1996 and 2005. The projects are grouped by whether or not they involve new construction or renovation of an existing building, and by the status of the project construction. The following table provides details on the funding sources for the 80 visitor center projects that the Park Service has completed, has under construction, or is planning. The projects are grouped by new construction or renovation of an existing building, and by the status of the project construction. We worked with the regional office budget staff to corroborate the funding data provided in the questionnaires and to ensure that funds were reported in constant fiscal year 2000 funds. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s letter dated July 10, 2001. 1. We disagree. Our objectives were to provide information on the cost, functions, and funding for visitor center projects. Because the Park Service does not maintain a database with this information, it was necessary for us first to identify visitor center projects and then to gather specific information using a questionnaire to answer the study’s specific objectives. As we pointed out in our scope and methodology, we developed the questionnaire with input from the Park Service and discussed the questionnaire in detail with officials from 11 parks. To address potential inconsistencies or misinterpretations in responses from the parks, we followed up, as is our normal practice, with all parks that had provided data that appeared to be inconsistent or subject to misinterpretation. As a further check on the validity of the data, we corroborated the project cost and funding data with regional budget staff. Based on this, we believe that the data upon which the report is based are accurate. Visitor center building cost data, which we gathered as part of the questionnaire and to which Interior makes reference, were not used in the report. We gathered this data because the Park Service did not have them available. However, in discussing visitor center building cost data with the parks and with the Park Service construction staff, we found that the data are subject to different interpretations and assumptions about what specific costs should be included. For example, parks used different interpretations on whether or not to include site development costs, which Interior points out in its comments can be a major cost in the overall visitor center project costs. Given that the visitor center building cost information did not pertain to our overall objectives, and that the data are subject to different interpretations and assumptions, we decided that this data would need to be studied in more detail and included as part of a separate review. 2. We strongly disagree that information on visitor center building costs is more meaningful than the total cost of the projects. As stated above, our objectives were to discuss the cost, functions, and funding sources for visitor center projects, not buildings. Our purpose was not to provide data to allow comparisons with other agencies’ or organizations’ facilities, as Interior asserts would be possible if cost-per-square-foot data were available. The requesters asked that we gather data on overall visitor center projects because the total project costs reflect all costs related to developing and constructing a visitor center, and represent the cost to the taxpayer. In addition, in reviewing visitor center projects, the requesters are concerned that visitor center projects have an increasing number of functions. Although Interior states that the cost-per-square-foot data are more meaningful than project costs, it has not developed a database containing this information. Furthermore, Interior asserts that the data could have been easily developed from data already accumulated. We disagree because, as we pointed out above, the data are subject to interpretation and need to be clarified and studied in a separate review. 3. We believe that trends in visitor center project costs cannot be identified. Our attempt to develop trends by plotting total and average project costs by the year projects were completed, left us unable to discern a trend because of the wide variation in projects. Our comments regarding the trends that the Park Service says that it identified can be found in comment 18. 4. We disagree. We believe that for the purpose of this study, general background information is needed to interpret the data and that we have provided complete information for this purpose. We did make technical changes, as appropriate, to address Interior’s specific comments on incorrect information related to these processes. 5. We recognize that the Park Service’s planning criteria and preliminary cost guidance initiatives have a direct bearing on our report and as such, our draft report to Interior included a discussion of these initiatives. 6. We disagree. Our objectives were to discuss overall project costs and functions. The Park Service told us that costs could not be broken out by functions, such as transportation facilities, and therefore we could not provide costs by individual function. We decided that the selective reporting on one type of cost, such as site development cost was not warranted. 7. As part of our study, we attempted to include cost-per-square-foot data for visitor center buildings early on and were told that the Park Service does not maintain this data. We then attempted to collect data as part of our questionnaire that could be used to calculate the cost per square foot of individual visitor centers. However, because of various interpretations and the assumptions used in calculating square foot costs, we did not use the data that we developed. We agree that cost-per-square-foot data is important information and question why the Park Service has not yet developed the data. 8. See comment 7. 9. We coordinated with the Park Service in the development of our questionnaire and incorporated its changes where appropriate. Further testing also resulted in modifications to the questionnaire that provided as much consistency and clarity as possible to the terms used in the questionnaire. 10. We disagree that the Park Service was not kept informed of the development of our questionnaire. Based on our discussions with the Park Service, we were told that much of the data that we needed was available from the parks or the regions, as the park superintendents and regions are ultimately responsible for the completion and development of projects. As we point out in our scope and methodology description in appendix I, we discussed the questionnaire with officials at 11 parks, not a few parks as Interior indicates. We used our professional judgment and input from our professional survey design staff to make changes that were necessary to improve the questionnaire’s clarity. We do not typically share the respondents’ reactions while we are developing the questionnaire. 11. We agree that a full set of responses has never been shared with anyone in the Park Service. It is our policy not to share questionnaire responses and data with agencies until after we have completed our analysis and final report. In the questionnaire itself, we deliberately provide space for explanations of any unique circumstances and for any other information the respondents felt it necessary to convey. As a matter of practice, we follow up on questionnaire responses when we determine that it is necessary to clarify data. It is not unusual for respondents to provide handwritten comments on a questionnaire, even when they understand the questions, because respondents may want to further explain their answers. 12. While the Park Service says this information is the most significant data on visitor centers, it has not developed a database with this information. The Park Service was only able to calculate the data contained in its comments after we identified the 80 visitor center projects. Until the Park Service develops such a database, it will be unable to compare and benchmark its costs against those of other agencies and organizations. As previously stated, our objectives were not to provide data for comparisons and benchmarks with projects of other agencies and organizations. 13. The data to which Interior is referring are not GAO’s data and we cannot comment on their validity or make assertions about them because they were not available to us during the 8-month period of our review. 14. We disagree with the assertion that the data obtained have problems because they were gathered through a questionnaire. The data to which Interior is referring are data on visitor center building costs. We gathered data on visitor center building costs through a questionnaire to individual parks because the Park Service does not maintain a database of these costs. We noted that the calculation of these costs depends on certain assumptions, such as how much site development cost to include and whether to include management and contingency costs. Because of the inherent difficulties and the need for these assumptions to be clarified, we ultimately decided not to report these data. 15. As previously mentioned, the Park Service only developed the data in this section after we had completed our audit work. In our discussions with the Park Service about the cost-per-square-foot data included in the comments, the Park Service made certain assumptions about what costs to include or not to include. For example, the costs related to management, contingencies, or site development costs were not included in the calculations. The inclusion or exclusion of these costs can have a major impact on the cost per square foot of the facilities. As previously stated, because of these interpretations and assumptions, we believe that further study of this data is warranted. 16. We disagree. We have provided this perspective in other areas of the report, including a discussion of the park’s decision to renovate or replace a visitor center building. We used the term “old” to describe general conditions that could lead to the construction of a new building, including a new building to replace an existing building. We added, in response to the comments, a footnote with this technical definition. 17. We reported on the projects for which new buildings were being built. We did not make specific reference to projects for which a visitor center was the first in the park or in an area within a park. The construction of a new building is significantly different—and poses different challenges in the construction process—than the renovation of an existing building. We added a footnote to the report and to the table in appendix III that identifies the projects that are replacing existing visitor centers as opposed to providing a new building for a park. 18. We disagree. We do not find the Park Service’s comparison of the average cost of Mission 66 visitor centers with the average we estimated for the 80 visitor center projects in our report to be an acceptable trend analysis. An appropriate trend analysis would involve a time series—that is, data over a number of years—of comparable data. We do not believe that a comparison of two points, each an average of approximately 10 years of data, accurately demonstrates a trend. Also, we do not believe that data from Mission 66 visitor centers and our data on visitor center projects are comparable because our data consists of projects that include both construction of new buildings and renovation of existing buildings, while the Mission 66 visitor centers were all newly constructed. We attempted to develop trend information using the cost data for the projects for the 10-year period of this study, but as stated in the report, because of the variation in the projects, we were unable to discern a trend. Interior also asserts that we had a second and third opportunity to identify trends by comparing the size of visitor center on a functional basis and costs per square foot. As pointed out in the report, the Park Service has recently contracted for specifically this type of analysis and we did not want to duplicate these efforts. 19. We disagree. As shown in the report, the cost of a project to renovate a building is on average $4,392,000 while the cost of a project to construct a new building is on average $8,826,000. We also show in appendix II of the report that projects with renovations generally do not have as many functions as projects with new buildings. We do point out in the report that renovations are not always less expensive than projects with new construction, and we have highlighted instances when a visitor center renovation may be more costly than the construction of a new building. 20. Interior has misinterpreted what we wrote. We do not state that projects added by the Congress are ready for construction. Our point is that when the Congress identifies a project for construction, the Park Service works with the Congress to get the project ready for planning and construction. To avoid confusion, we clarified this language. 21. We believe that our discussion of these two initiatives is sufficient for the purposes of this report. Because we were not asked to review the process that the Park Service has in place to construct its facilities, nor the improvements that it is planning, we did not discuss these in detail. We do discuss the Park Service’s policy on park facilities, the responsibilities of the Development Advisory Board, and the initiatives underway by the Park Service to develop construction planning criteria and preliminary cost guidance for facilities, including visitor centers. As we point out in our observations, we believe that the initiatives the Park Service is undertaking, if implemented efficiently, are a step in the right direction. 22. We disagree that this is an incorrect conclusion. The variation in visitor center projects occurs in part because many of the projects are still in the stages of initial development and the Park Service relies on review of the projects after their development to correct scoping problems. The Department states that a lack of guidelines for parks does not result in inappropriately scoped projects because the Park Service has processes in place to ensure that the scope and size of visitor centers are appropriate. While it may be true that processes are in place to review visitor center projects and their scopes, without guidelines on the type and size of functions that can be included, projects can be overscoped or underscoped. If the Park Service had guidelines for what should be included in a visitor center project, there could be limits on the scope of the initial projects proposed by parks. 23. We agree and have changed the language of the report. 24. We agree and have added language to clarify that the parks identify a general project scope, meaning that they consider what functions they need and develop an estimate of their square footage needs. 25. We agree. We were referring to the predesign process and changed the text to reflect this. 26. We did not intend to say that the Park Service and the Congress identified completely separate groups of projects. We changed the language of the report to say that the Congress concurred with the Park Service’s projects and added its own projects. 27. We noted that the Park Service buildings are expected to have a long lifespan because the Park Service policy is to renovate and reuse buildings before they are replaced. We agree that elements may need to be renovated and that maintenance costs may become more expensive as the buildings age. We clarified the text to indicate that before 40 or 50 years elapse, maintenance and operation costs could become expensive and elements of the building may need to be updated. 28. We agree and clarified this section of the report to more clearly reflect the different stages of the planning and design process and to reflect the time at which the park makes this decision. | Visitor centers at the national parks are among the most important facilities run by the National Park Service. As existing visitor centers age and new parks are created, renovated or new facilities are needed. This report discusses (1) the number, the status, and the reasons for Park Service visitor center projects; (2) whether the projects involve new construction or the renovation of existing buildings; (3) whether these projects were designated priorities by the Park Service or by Congress; (4) the costs and functions of the projects; and (5) the funding sources for the projects. GAO found that from 1996 through 2005, the Park Service has completed or planned 80 projects to renovate or build new visitor centers. The renovations and new construction are intended to replace aging facilities and exhibits, to provide more space, and to handle rising numbers of visitors. Of the 80 projects, 53 were a priority of the Park Service and 27 were a priority of Congress. The Park Service estimates that the total cost of the 80 projects will be $542 million. The visitor center projects are funded primarily by the Park Service's appropriated funds. Other funding sources include private partnerships and fee demonstrations. |
Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story
WARREN, Mich. — A sweeping internal investigation of General Motors released on Thursday condemned the company for its decade-long failure to fix a deadly safety defect, one that led to “devastating consequences,” including at least 13 deaths.
The report, written by the former United States attorney Anton R. Valukas, set off the dismissal of 15 G.M. employees, including a vice president for regulatory affairs and a senior lawyer responsible for product liability cases, and forced broad changes in how the company handles vehicle safety.
The report illustrates in unsparing detail how employees across departments neglected for years to repair a defect and issue a recall, despite a mountain of evidence that lives were at risk.
“Although everyone had responsibility to fix the problem, nobody took responsibility,” Mr. Valukas wrote.
A chastened Mary T. Barra, G.M.’s chief executive, described the report as “deeply troubling” in a meeting with more than 1,000 employees at the company’s sprawling technical center in the Detroit suburb of Warren.
“For those of us who have dedicated our lives to this company, it is enormously painful to have our shortcomings laid out so vividly,” said Ms. Barra, who has worked at G.M. for more than 30 years. “I was deeply saddened and disturbed as I read the report.”
Yet the report cleared Ms. Barra and her top lieutenants, like Michael Millikin, the general counsel, of any wrongdoing in the long-delayed recall. And there was no evidence of a deliberate cover-up of the switch problems, according to Mr. Valukas.
“It seems like the best report money can buy,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who had been highly critical of Ms. Barra at a hearing in April. “It absolves upper management, denies deliberate wrongdoing and dismisses corporate culpability.”
Mr. Valukas’s three-month investigation included a review of millions of documents and interviews with at least 230 people, many of whom were employees directly involved in G.M.’s failure to fix a faulty ignition switch that could cause vehicles to lose power and deactivate air bags.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Since February, G.M. has recalled 2.6 million Chevrolet Cobalts and other small cars to fix the defect, which the company so far links to 13 deaths and 54 accidents.
But Ms. Barra admitted that the tally of deaths, injuries and crashes could grow in the weeks ahead, as the compensation expert Kenneth R. Feinberg prepares a report on how G.M. will make restitution to accident victims and their families.
Ms. Barra said the company had dismissed 15 employees as a result of the report, and disciplined five others — highly unusual in an industry where such purges have been rare. She declined to provide details about the actions, but said that more than half of those who left the company held senior-level positions.
Among them were Michael J. Robinson, a vice president for global regulatory affairs, and William Kemp, a top lawyer who oversaw product-related litigation, according to a person briefed on the moves.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Those dismissed also included two safety executives, Gay Kent and Carmen Benavides, as well as two midlevel engineers, Raymond DeGiorgio and Gary Altman, both of whom had previously been suspended for neglecting to address the switch problem in its early stages.
“I never want to put this behind us,” Ms. Barra told employees. “I want to keep this painful experience in our collective memories.”
Continue reading the main story Video
The report offered an extraordinary window into a company where employees avoided responsibility with a “G.M. salute” — arms crossed and pointing fingers at others — and the “G.M. nod,” which Ms. Barra described in the report as “the nod as an empty gesture.” The report also lays bare a bureaucracy that appeared to stun Mr. Valukas. “The Cobalt ignition switch passed through an astonishing number of committees,” he wrote. “But determining the identity of any actual decision-maker was impenetrable.”
The investigation also documents how G.M. kept many internal discussions secret because of legal ramifications. “A number of G.M. employees reported they did not take notes at all at critical safety meetings because they believed G.M. lawyers did not want notes taken,” the report said.
The defective switch — a tiny part hidden inside the steering column of the recalled vehicles — has already taken an immense toll on the company’s finances and reputation.
Since the switch recall, G.M. has issued dozens of additional recalls to fix various problems on vehicles throughout its product lineup. The company has set aside $1.7 billion to pay for the repairs, appointed a new executive to supervise vehicle safety and begun a wide-ranging shake-up of its engineering department.
Still, G.M.’s most delicate task lies ahead — arriving at the exact number of fatalities and injuries caused by the faulty switch, and compensating the victims.
Those decisions, Ms. Barra and another senior executive, Daniel Ammann, told reporters, would be left up to Mr. Feinberg, as well as the amount of money that G.M. would pay for individual deaths and injuries.
Mr. Feinberg said Thursday that he hoped to complete his recommendations for the compensation program within a few weeks, and to be prepared to receive claims from victims and their families in August.
“I have already drafted some preliminary compensation ideas and plan to share them in confidence over the next few weeks with lawyers, public interest groups, G.M. and others interested in the compensation program,” he said.
G.M. has not released the names of any accident victims, citing a desire to protect their privacy. But some family members of victims, as well as people injured in crashes, have spoken out.
Candice Anderson was driving a Saturn Ion equipped with a defective switch in 2004 when it crashed in Texas, killing her boyfriend, Gene Erickson.
Continue reading the main story The Fault in the Cobalt Ignition Switch At the heart of the G.M. recall of 2.6 million Chevy Cobalts and other models was a tiny metal pin called the detent plunger, which would normally serve to hold the ignition in the “run” position. Plastic DisC DETENTS How the Detent Plunger Works When the ignition key is turned, it rotates a plastic disc inside the ignition switch. A small metal part, called the detent plunger, slides into notches, or “detents,” in the plastic disc. This is what should hold the switch in either the “run” or the “accessory” position. Detent plunger Chevrolet Cobalt Ignition Switch SHAFT CIRCUIT BOARD IGNITION SWITCH SHAFT HOUSING KEY CYLINDER Problem 1 Early model detent plungers were slightly too short, so the plastic disc could slip out of “run” and back into the “accessory” position, causing the car to stall. Problem 2 The problem was made worse by a key that had a wide slot. A heavy key ring swaying in this slot, or jostled by a knee, could pull the key out of run, into the “accessory” position. The Result If the ignition were switched off while the car was in motion, as could happen in the faulty Chevy Cobalts, the main computer controlling the airbags would stop working after one or two seconds. If the car crashed after that period, then the airbags would not deploy. Detent plunger 5.9 mm. 2005 MODEL YEAR FORCE 7.0 mm. 2007 AND LATER MODELS Spring longer and tighter WEIGHT OF KEY RING Detent plunger longer Plastic DisC DETENTS How the Detent Plunger Works When the ignition key is turned, it rotates a plastic disc inside the ignition switch. A small metal part, called the detent plunger, slides into notches, or “detents,” in the plastic disc. This is what should hold the switch in either the “run” or the “accessory” position. Detent plunger Chevrolet Cobalt Ignition Switch SHAFT CIRCUIT BOARD IGNITION SWITCH SHAFT HOUSING KEY CYLINDER Problem 1 Early model detent plungers were slightly too short, so the plastic disc could slip out of “run” and back into the “accessory” position, causing the car to stall. Problem 2 The problem was made worse by a key that had a wide slot. A heavy key ring swaying in this slot, or jostled by a knee, could pull the key out of run, into the “accessory” position. The Result If the ignition were switched off while the car was in motion, as could happen in the faulty Chevy Cobalts, the main computer controlling the airbags would stop working after one or two seconds. If the car crashed after that period, then the airbags would not deploy. Detent plunger 5.9 mm. 2005 MODEL YEAR FORCE 7.0 mm. 2007 AND LATER MODELS Spring longer and tighter WEIGHT OF KEY RING Detent plunger longer How the Detent Plunger Works When the ignition key is turned, it rotates a plastic disc inside the ignition switch. A small metal part, called the detent plunger, slides into notches, or “detents,” in the plastic disc. This is what should hold the switch in either the “run” or the “accessory” position. DETENTS Plastic DisC Detent plunger Chevrolet Cobalt Ignition Switch SHAFT CIRCUIT BOARD IGNITION SWITCH SHAFT HOUSING KEY CYLINDER Problem 1 Early model detent plungers were slightly too short, so the plastic disc could slip out of “run” and back into the “accessory” position, causing the car to stall. Detent plunger 5.9 mm. 2005 MODEL YEAR 7.0 mm. 2007 AND LATER Spring longer and tighter Detent plunger longer Problem 2 The problem was made worse by a key that had a wide slot. A heavy key ring swaying in this slot, or jostled by a knee, could pull the key out of run, into the “accessory” position. FORCE WEIGHT OF KEY RING The Result If the ignition were switched off while the car was in motion, as could happen in the faulty Chevy Cobalts, the main computer controlling the airbags would stop working after one or two seconds. If the car crashed after that period, then the airbags would not deploy.
Ms. Anderson took a day off work on Thursday to watch Ms. Barra’s remarks on television. “I’m glad they’re taking responsibility,” she said. “They’re saying it was their fault.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
But despite the depth and breadth of Mr. Valukas’s critique of the company, some of G.M.’s critics were not satisfied with the report, or with Ms. Barra’s apologies.
“I’m not sure I can trust G.M. to do a thorough internal investigation of itself,” said Laura Christian, birth mother of Amber Marie Rose, who died in a Cobalt in 2005. “I hope the Department of Justice is able to uncover the entire truth.”
G.M. still faces investigations by the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and a group of state attorneys general.
Mr. Blumenthal and other lawmakers are expected to grill Ms. Barra and Mr. Valukas soon at another round of congressional hearings. At two contentious hearings in April, Ms. Barra declined to answer many questions because the internal investigation was still in progress.
“Without question, she should be back in the witness chair,” Mr. Blumenthal said.
Even after receiving the report, Ms. Barra was hard-pressed to explain why so many employees failed to resolve a safety issue for so many years.
While she attributed the delay to a “pattern of incompetence and neglect,” Mr. Valukas went even further.
“Throughout the entire 11-year odyssey, there was no demonstrated sense of urgency, right to the very end,” he wrote.
The report is yet another humbling experience for G.M., which five years ago had to file for bankruptcy and receive a $49.5 billion government bailout.
Now the carmaker, once the pride of industrial America, has admitted that it built unsafe cars that killed people — and did nothing for years to prevent it.
“We failed these customers,” Ms. Barra said. “We must face up to it and learn from it.” ||||| WARREN, Mich. (AP) — GM CEO Mary Barra says 15 employees have been fired over the company's recent ignition switch recalls.
(Click Prev or Next to continue viewing images.)
ADVERTISEMENT (Click Prev or Next to continue viewing images.)
FILE - This Friday, May 16 2014 file photo shows the General Motors logo at the company's world headquarters in Detroit. General Motors plans to release the results of an outside attorney's investigation... (Associated Press)
Barra made the announcement Thursday as she released an internal investigation into the recall of 2.6 million older small cars for defective ignition switches.
Barra called the internal investigation into its recent ignition switch recall is "brutally tough and deeply troubling." It took GM more than a decade to report the switch failures, which it blames for 13 deaths.
In a town hall meeting at GM's suburban Detroit technical center, Barra says attorney Anton Valukas interviewed 230 employees and reviewed 41 million documents to produce the report, which makes recommendations to avoid future safety problems.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. ||||| General Motors CEO Mary Barra appears onstage during a launch event for new Chevrolet cars before the New York Auto Show in New York April 15, 2014.
WARREN Mich. (Reuters) - General Motors Co on Thursday issued a report detailing how for 11 years it turned a blind eye to an ignition-switch problem linked to at least 13 deaths but largely pinned the blame on what the report described as incompetent lower-level employees, leaving top brass untouched.
The report, which will be the subject of upcoming congressional hearings, describes shortcomings of GM engineers, including a failure to understand "how the car was built." Meanwhile, according to the 325-page report, the highest levels of the company were not made aware.
Providing a rare peek into the operations of one of the world's biggest automotive companies, the internal investigation said GM had a long-running corporate culture in which nobody took responsibility for problems.
The "GM nod" was how CEO Mary Barra described that culture, "when everyone nods in agreement to a proposed plan of action, but then leaves the room and does nothing," the document said.
In February, GM finally began recalling vehicles for repairs. So far, 2.6 million vehicles have been identified. This recall, coupled with others announced by GM this year, has cost the company about $1.7 billion so far.
By 2011, three years before the recalls began, outside lawyers were warning GM's in-house counsel that they needed to act, the report said.
Barra said 15 employees found to have "acted inappropriately" have been fired. She did not name all the individuals, but said more than half of them had been in senior or executive roles.
During April congressional hearings, Barra was unable to answer many questions, saying the internal investigation would find answers.
But at Thursday's news conference, she still left some questions unanswered, including why GM redesigned the flawed ignition switch but failed to follow normal procedures of assigning a new part number. That has led some critics to believe someone was covering up the change.
Barra, who has served as CEO for about five months, said disciplinary action was taken against five others.
Democratic Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who is pushing legislation to clamp down on automaker defects, said of the GM report: "We need more than an accounting of past mistakes" and "an internal investigation alone is not nearly enough to ensure that a decade-long tragedy like this never happens again."
Since early this year, the Detroit automaker has been enveloped in a scandal over why it took more than a decade to begin recalling low-cost Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other cars with ignition-switch problems that were causing them to stall during operation.
Because of the engine stalls, air bags failed to deploy during crashes - some of them fatal - and drivers had difficulty operating their vehicles because power steering and brake systems also malfunctioned.
"As years passed and fatalities mounted, engineers investigating the non-deployments and attempting to understand their cause were neither diligent nor incisive," the GM report said.
Also infused through the document is the notion that GM engineers misdiagnosed the safety problem by failing to connect dots that would have linked the cars' system failures.
But at the same time, GM "heard over and over from various quarters, including customers, dealers, the press and their own employees that the car's ignition switch led to moving stalls" but employees "failed to take action or acted too slowly."
RISING CRASH COUNT
Some new details also emerged about fatalities related to GM's cars.
The report said GM had identified 54 frontal-impact crashes, involving the deaths of more than a dozen people, in which air bags did not deploy as a possible result of the faulty ignition switch.
Only last week, GM raised the count to 47, from 35, and has now raised it again, leading to questions about whether the 13 deaths linked to the defect will grow, as consumer advocates have predicted.
As expected, Barra also confirmed that GM will soon set up a fund to compensate victims of crashes linked to the faulty ignition switches.
GM officials told reporters that the number of fatalities related to the part defect may rise but added that Kenneth Feinberg, who is looking into victim compensation, will determine that number.
Reuters reported on Monday that at least 74 people have died in crashes similar to those GM has linked to the faulty switches, based on an analysis of government data.
Central to the GM investigation, as well as probes by the U.S. Congress, Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies, is why the automaker did not announce vehicle recalls to fix the problem until this past February.
GM said its investigation, conducted over 70 days, reviewed 41 million documents and more than 230 people were interviewed.
CONSUMERS NOT PUNISHING GM
The move to spare the highest executives from blame drew some sharp criticism.
“How do you truly fix a culture of carelessness and cover-up without cutting the head off the snake?” said Robert Hilliard, a lawyer for a plaintiff in a lawsuit against GM related to the ignition-switch defect.
Barra previewed the report at the company's technical center in Warren, Michigan, where she received a standing ovation from an estimated crowd of more than 1,000 employees. She emphasized that GM already has taken steps to beef up its internal safety operations.
Her remarks were broadcast to GM's 220,000 workers globally.
Despite all the negative publicity in recent months, GM sales have been robust.
The Detroit automaker reported this week that U.S. sales in May were up 13 percent compared with a year ago, making for the best total sales since August 2008.
While Barra noted a pattern of "incompetence and neglect" that she blamed on individuals who failed to "disclose critical pieces of information," she added that there was "no conspiracy by the corporation to cover up facts."
Furthermore, Barra said the internal investigation "found no evidence that any employee made a trade-off between safety and cost" in failing to deal with the safety problem.
The full report was made public on Thursday.
'DEEPLY DISTURBING' REPORT
With the submission of GM's internal investigation, Congress is expected to announce a new round of hearings soon. Further details on a compensation fund for victims and their families are expected by early August.
U.S. Representative Fred Upton, who chairs the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee, said the findings of GM's investigation were "deeply disturbing."
Upton, of Michigan, added that his committee will continue its investigation with an eye on "what legislative remedies may be necessary.”
Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said the GM report "seems like the best report money can buy. It absolves upper management, denies deliberate wrongdoing and dismisses corporate culpability."
The internal report concluded that Barra, executives who reported directly to her, the board of directors and former CEO Dan Akerson did not know about the defective switches before December.
It also found that GM's general counsel, Michael Millikin, was not responsible for the mishandling of defects and the recall delay. Millikin, who led the internal probe with former U.S. prosecutor Anton Valukas, is still employed by GM, Barra said.
More than one lawyer in GM’s legal department was fired as part of the 15 employees let go, including senior safety lawyer William Kemp, according to a source familiar with the matter who asked not to be named. A company spokesman declined to identify anyone fired beyond former engineers Ray DeGiorgio, who in 2002 dubbed the flawed part "the switch from hell," and Gary Altman.
GM's use of Valukas came under withering attack because his law firm, Jenner & Block, has had ties to the company since 2002.
Blumenthal, a former prosecutor, said those ties "undermine the credibility of this report" and underscored the need for federal investigations to press ahead.
On May 16, GM was slapped with a $35 million fine for its delayed response to the defect, which is the maximum that can be imposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been leveling a $7,000-per-day fine on GM for missing an April 3 deadline for fully responding to the agency's request for information about the ignition switch problem.
These fines could be dwarfed, however, by potential actions the Justice Department could take. Earlier this year, Toyota Motor Corp was fined $1.2 billion for concealing problems related to sudden acceleration of some of its vehicles.
The NHTSA said GM's probe appeared to support the agency's findings that company practices "stood in the way of safety at a time when airbags were failing to work properly in millions of GM products."
(Additional reporting by Paul Lienert in Detroit and Marilyn Thompson, Susan Heavey and Karey Van Hall in Washington; Writing by Richard Cowan; editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Matthew Lewis) ||||| General Motors Co. (GM) blamed bureaucratic delays and a culture of incompetence for the botched handling of auto-safety complaints, and Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra ousted 15 employees for their roles in mishandling the recall of millions of fatally flawed vehicles.
Barra announced the dismissals after the company released the results of an internal investigation into why it took GM more than a decade to identify problems with a defective ignition switch linked to 13 deaths. The probe, led by lawyer Anton Valukas, blamed a lack of urgency in the engineering and legal departments but didn’t reveal any conspiracy to cover up facts. Barra herself was held blameless.
“This should have never happened,” Barra told about 1,000 employees at GM’s technical center in suburban Detroit. “It is simply unacceptable.”
The report marks a pivotal moment in Barra’s efforts to change the automaker’s culture after the biggest legal and public-relations challenge since its government-backed bankruptcy in 2009. Still, Congress and the Justice Department continue to investigate GM, and some critics asked whether the Valukas report -- commissioned and paid for by the company -- is sufficiently impartial because it spared the top leadership.
Source: General Motors, Steve Fecht General Motors Co. Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra speaks during an employee town hall meeting to reveal the findings of the company’s internal investigation into delays around the recall of 2.59 million small cars linked to at least 13 deaths is being telecast to all of the company’s operations around the world, including factories. Close General Motors Co. Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra speaks during an employee town... Read More Close Open Source: General Motors, Steve Fecht General Motors Co. Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra speaks during an employee town hall meeting to reveal the findings of the company’s internal investigation into delays around the recall of 2.59 million small cars linked to at least 13 deaths is being telecast to all of the company’s operations around the world, including factories.
“I won’t be letting GM leadership, or federal regulators, escape accountability for these tragedies,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, who presided over an April 2 hearing in which Barra declined to answer many specific questions about what happened because the Valukas report wasn’t complete. “The families of those affected deserve no less.”
More Hearings
A follow-up hearing will address unanswered questions later this summer, the Missouri Democrat said.
“I’m going to reserve judgment until I can take a closer look at the report -- which I expect to find comprehensive and thorough -- and I’m looking forward to getting a full briefing from Mr. Valukas,” she said.
Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said he plans to hold another hearing, too.
GM’s crisis erupted in February with the recall of some vehicles no longer sold, including the Chevrolet Cobalt, that have a defective ignition switch that could be jarred into the “accessory” position, disabling power steering and preventing air bags from deploying.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has already fined GM $35 million, the maximum allowed, after finding systemic problems throughout the organization dealing with the recall. GM has already agreed with NHTSA to wide-ranging changes to how it reviews safety issues and decides on recalls.
Photographer: Mark Wilson/Getty Images General Motors Company CEO Mary Barra speaks to the media after testifying during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, on April 1, 2014 in Washington, DC. Close General Motors Company CEO Mary Barra speaks to the media after testifying during a... Read More Close Open Photographer: Mark Wilson/Getty Images General Motors Company CEO Mary Barra speaks to the media after testifying during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, on April 1, 2014 in Washington, DC.
Barra Cleared
GM’s investigation confirmed Barra’s previous claims that she was previously unaware of the flawed switch. It also cleared GM’s top lawyer, Michael Millikin. Ray DeGiorgio, the engineer in charge of the flawed part, and Gary Altman, a program engineering manager, were ousted, said a person familiar with the matter. Bill Kemp, GM’s top lawyer on recalls, was also dismissed, said another person.
Barra also announced a compensation program for victims and their families to be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, who ran similar funds for victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the 2010 BP oil spill. GM expects the program to cover the almost 2.6 million vehicles recalled with a potentially defective ignition switch. The program will begin accepting claims on Aug. 1, the company said.
A quick resolution will allow Barra and her team to capitalize on rebounding profits and the strongest industrywide sales since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. GM slipped 0.7 percent to $36.27 at the close in New York. The shares slid 11 percent this year.
‘Deeply Troubling’
Valukas’ team interviewed more than 230 witnesses and collected more than 41 million documents. The volume of data was estimated at 23 terabytes, the report said.
The report found that GM selected a switch that was below the company’s specification and that subsequent engineers tasked with fixing the problem didn’t understand the most fundamental consequences of the failure. It also details numerous missed opportunities over the years to address the issue.
“From beginning to end, the story of the Cobalt is one of numerous failures leading to tragic results for many,” the Valukas report said. “Throughout the entire 11-year odyssey, there was no demonstrated sense of urgency, right to the very end. The officials overseeing the potential fixes and investigations did not set timetables, and did not demand action.”
December Delay
The report even noted that in December last year, GM’s recall committee deferred a decision to recall vehicles for another six weeks in order to gather more information “in part because the presentation provided to them failed to alert them to fatalities.”
Outside attorneys warned the automaker as early as 2011 that failing to recall Cobalts could become a large liability, the report said.
Barra said it was “enormously painful to have our shortcomings laid out so vividly” in the Valukas report. Senator Richard Blumenthal, however, called Valukas’s findings “the best report money can buy” and said it “absolves upper management, denies deliberate wrongdoing and dismisses corporate culpability.”
Lance Cooper, a lawyer for crash victims, said the report can help draw out more details in civil cases.
“It was disappointing that the emphasis in the remarks was, this was a case of incompetence and neglect, this was negligence on the part of company employees, but then highlighting the fact that she says there was no evidence of a trade-off in safety and cost.”
Unusual Moves
The Valukas report couldn’t rule out the effect of the company’s cost-cutting in early 2000s as the automaker headed toward eventual bankruptcy. While the investigation found no evidence that any employee made an “explicit trade-off between safety and cost,” the investigators couldn’t conclude that the atmosphere of cost cutting didn’t play a role. “When belts are tightened, most functions are impacted in some way and we cannot assume that safety was immune,” the report said.
DeGiorgio, for example, held a position that was given added responsibilities to decrease engineering headcount, the report said.
“Witnesses stated that the reduction in force created a difficult environment in which people were overworked and the quality of work suffered.”
Barra noted throughout the day that the report didn’t find evidence that employees made a trade-off between cost and safety.
Crisis History
In February, GM recalled 778,562 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 sedans in North America. GM subsequently expanded its recalls to the Saturn Ion and other models, covering 2.59 million small cars, including almost a million that were assembled with a better switch that could’ve been replaced with faulty ones. The company had linked 13 deaths and 47 crashes to the issue as recently as May 24. The Valukas report increased the crash total to 54.
The recalls came less than a year after GM settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the family of 29-year-old Brooke Melton, who died in 2010 when her 2005 Chevy Cobalt lost power in a crash linked to the defective switch. The lawsuit revealed that the faulty part had been changed at some point without the part number being changed.
Records released in April by the House panel investigating GM show that DeGiorgio signed off on changing the ignition switch in 2006 and didn’t change its part number, effectively hiding the change and making it harder for future engineers to pinpoint the problem.
Defending Car
The Valukas investigation found that GM lawyer Kemp had worked to blunt a report of an upcoming Cleveland Plain Dealer story in 2005 about the Chevrolet Cobalt stalling, suggesting they give the columnist a videotape demonstrating the remoteness of the risk of it occurring. Another lawyer responded that she wasn’t optimistic they could come up with something compelling.
“We can’t stand hearing, after the article is published, that we didn’t do enough to defend a brand new launch,” Kemp wrote in an e-mail timed 5:18 a.m. on June 23, 2005.
The investigation also found that former CEO Rick Wagoner may have viewed a presentation that included a description of stalling issues with the Cobalt about three weeks before he was ousted by President Barack Obama’s automotive task force. The slide Wagoner may have seen focused exclusively on warranty costs and didn’t characterize the matter as a safety issue, the report said.
GM, which has already announced about $1.7 billion in charges this year tied to recalls, today said it may see further related costs this quarter. The charges, which could be material, will be “unknown until we have completed our work,” according to slides posted on the automaker’s website.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, expressed admiration that Barra fired 15 people.
“Not just one or two people, but 15,” he said. “She had to reach down into it.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Tim Higgins in Warren, Michigan, at [email protected]; Jeff Green in Southfield, Michigan, at [email protected]; Jeff Plungis in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jamie Butters at [email protected] Niamh Ring | General Motors is firing 15 people in connection with its deadly ignition switch scandal, but none of the heads rolling are those of senior executives. CEO Mary Barra today unveiled the results of the company's internal probe, and said that it found no evidence of an intentional cover-up of the defect, or of wrongdoing by the company's senior executives, the New York Times reports. Instead, Barra blamed the failure to report the flaw on bureaucratic issues and individual lower-level employees; she called the report "brutally tough and deeply troubling," notes the AP. Among those being fired are engineer Ray DeGiorgio (more on him here), and program engineering manager Gary Altman, Bloomberg reports. "From start to finish, the Cobalt saga was riddled with tragedy," Barra said. The probe backed up her assertion that she personally was unaware of the flaw until January. Before Barra even spoke some were criticizing the probe for shielding senior executives. "How do you truly fix a culture of carelessness and cover-up without cutting the head off the snake?" one lawyer representing ignition switch victims asked, according to Reuters. |
President Obama and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, failed to resolve on Monday their significant differences over how to bring about an end to Syria’s civil war, as each leader steps up military support for opposite sides in the worsening conflict.
Meeting for two hours on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit, Obama and Putin discussed shared economic interests, the recent Iranian elections and global security issues that have put the leaders at odds in the past.
Syria’s civil war was chief among them. Sitting stiffly in side-by-side chairs, Obama and Putin each indicated that they still disagree over the preferred outcome of the war, including on the future of President Bashar al-Assad and the goals of the armed rebellion.
“Our opinions do not coincide,” Putin said. “But all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria.”
Obama, speaking next, confirmed that “we do have differing perspectives” on the war and how to resolve it through negotiations that have yet to take shape.
Obama has demanded that Assad relinquish power as part of any negotiated peace settlement, a condition Putin rejects. Russia is Assad’s principal weapons supplier, and the Obama administration is about to begin arming rebels on the other side of the civil war that has killed an estimated 93,000 people over the past two years, according to U.N. estimates.
Little is known about some of the groups fighting Assad. There have been reports, supported by video, of atrocities carried out by some rebel factions.
France and the United Kingdom, though, successfully sought to lift an European embargo on arms deliveries to the rebels. Obama, after months of deliberation, has decided to supply light weapons and ammunition to opposition forces.
But Putin warned that the move was dangerous, saying after a meeting Sunday with British Prime Minister David Cameron that arming the rebels “has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.”
Western diplomats had given Obama little chance of changing Putin’s opinion on Syria here. But his inability to do so still posed an early setback for Obama on a three-day swing through Europe, his first to the continent since 2011.
This time he is facing rising skepticism in Europe over his expansion of drone warfare, recent disclosures about the National Security Agency’s vast data-collecting efforts and his delay in more aggressively supporting Syria’s beleaguered rebel forces.
Obama began meeting near this picturesque town Monday with G-8 leaders, hoping to mend fences and achieve a broader international consensus on how to improve the lagging global economy.
Hours before the summit, Obama and European leaders announced the start of negotiations to forge a new trade agreement between the United States and the 27-nation European bloc.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would create what Cameron called “the biggest bilateral trade deal in history,” although talks are expected to be complicated despite urgency on both sides of the Atlantic to boost economic growth. The first round of negotiations will be held next month in Washington.
“There are going to be sensitivities on both sides, there are going to be politics on both sides,” Obama said. “But I’m confident we can get it done.”
Shadowing the summit’s start Monday were new revelations that British and U.S. spy agencies monitored the e-mails and phone calls of foreign dignitaries at two international summits in London in 2009.
The Guardian newspaper, citing documents it received from former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden, revealed the spying as the G-8 leaders gathered at the Lough Erne resort for a day and half of meetings.
The disclosure follows recent reports in The Washington Post and the Guardian , also based on documents provided by Snowden, that disclosed widespread U.S. surveillance of phone and Internet use by ordinary citizens to detect patterns that could indicate terrorist activity.
The latest revelations by the Guardian focused on two London summits in 2009 hosted by then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown. British intelligence agents, the newspaper said, went as far as setting up fake Internet cafés and tapping into cellular networks of diplomats and foreign officials.
On Monday, Cameron told Britain’s Sky News that “we never comment on security or intelligence issues and I am not about to start now.” White House officials also declined to comment.
Obama began the day in Belfast, a city once defined by conflict and now living in uneasy peace.
There he urged Northern Ireland’s youngest generations to reject the temptation of violence as, he said, technology and citizen activism are breaking down barriers in much of the world.
History colored Obama’s remarks, which he delivered along the city’s thriving waterfront 15 years after a peace agreement ended decades of sectarian conflict between Catholic Republicans seeking alliance with their southern neighbor and Protestants loyal to the United Kingdom.
Under a drizzling sky, teenagers in school blazers and ties lined up hours before the event outside Waterfront Hall for a chance to see Obama on his first visit to Northern Ireland. Obama told them to defend their fragile peace and to count on the United States when the Good Friday Agreement, brokered by former U.S. senator George Mitchell (D-Maine), is tested as it has been this year.
“The terms of peace may be negotiated by leaders, but the fate of peace is up to you,” Obama told the audience.
Anthony Faiola in London contributed to this report. ||||| Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, left, waves as he walks with US President Barack Obama during arrivals for the G-8 summit at the Lough Erne Golf Resort in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland on Monday,... (Associated Press)
Deep differences over Syria's fierce civil war clouded a summit of world leaders Monday, with Russian President Vladimir Putin defiantly rejecting calls from the U.S., Britain and France to halt his political and military support for Syrian leader Bashar Assad's regime.
But there were also fissures among the three Western nations, despite their shared belief that Assad must leave power. Britain and France appear unwilling _ at least for now _ to join President Barack Obama in arming the Syrian rebels, a step the U.S. president reluctantly finalized last week.
The debate over the Syria conflict loomed large as the two-day summit of the Group of 8 industrial nations opened Monday at a lakeside resort in Northern Ireland. The lack of consensus even among allies underscored the vexing nature of the two-year conflict in Syria, where at least 93,000 people have been killed as rebels struggle to overtake Assad forces buttressed by support from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.
Obama and Putin, who already have a frosty relationship, did little to hide their differing views on the matter while speaking to reporters following one-on-one talks on the sidelines of the summit Monday evening. The two-hour meeting marked the first time the leaders have met in person since last year.
"We do have different perspectives on the problem," Obama said of their divergent views on Syria.
The Russian leader, speaking through a translator, agreed, saying, "our opinions do not coincide."
But despite their seemingly intractable differences, Obama and Putin did express a shared desire to stop the violence in Syria and convene a political conference in Geneva, Switzerland. U.S. officials said they were still aiming to hold the summit next month, though that prospect was looking increasingly unlikely given the deepening violence.
It's also unclear who would participate in such a meeting or whether the rebels, given their weakened position, would have any leverage if they did.
U.S. officials say Obama's decision to send the rebels weapons and ammunition for the first time was an attempt to increase their military strength in order to bolster their political bargaining power. But the American inventory for the rebels is not yet expected to include the high-powered weaponry sought by the opposition, raising questions about whether the deepening U.S. involvement will be effective in changing the situation on the ground.
The White House also announced Monday an additional $300 million in humanitarian aid for Syria and neighboring countries absorbing refugees escaping the violence. The new money brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance to $800 million, according to the White House.
Obama's decision to arm the rebels coincided with the White House's announcement last week that it had definitive evidence of multiple instances of chemical weapons use by Assad's regime against the opposition. Britain and France have also accused Assad of using the deadly agent sarin, while Russia has publicly questioned the credibility of chemical weapons evidence.
"It's necessary to refrain from unproven claims by either party," Putin adviser Alexei Kvasov told reporters at the summit Monday. "We have no evidence proving it."
Moscow's continued support for Assad is based in part on Russia's deep economic and military ties with his regime. Last month, Russia acknowledged it has agreed to sell Syria advanced S-300 air-defense missiles, which are considered to be the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.
The Russian president's divisions with Western leaders on Syria were also on display in his separate meetings with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande. Both European leaders have previously indicated a willingness to arm vetted Syrian rebels and successfully pushed for the European Union to allow an arms embargo preventing the flow of weapons to expire.
Still, neither country is yet to join Obama in arming the opposition. Following the U.S. decision, there has been growing public concern in both countries over the wisdom of delivering weapons to a country where groups affiliated with al-Qaida are supporting elements of the rebellion.
"I am as worried as anybody else about elements of the Syrian opposition, who are extremists, who support terrorism and who are a great danger to our world," Cameron said Monday.
Hollande, following his own meeting with Putin, did not commit to sending weapons to the rebels. But he did appear to open the door to some form of deeper involvement from Paris.
"How can you allow Russia to continue to send weapons to the regime of Bashar al-Assad while the opposition gets so few weapons?" Hollande asked. "How can we accept the fact that we have proof of the use of chemical weapons without a unanimous condemnation by the international community, and that includes the G8?"
Obama, who has long signaled a preference for deepening U.S. engagement in Syria in conjunction with international partners, was expected to urge his British and French counterparts to join the U.S. in boosting lethal aid to the opposition. Syria was the primary topic among the G-8 leaders at a working dinner Monday night.
Britain, which is hosting the summit, has pressed leaders to ensure the meeting results in a statement on Syria, including the need for greater humanitarian access. The U.K. floated the possibility of releasing a statement even without Russia's approval, but a British official said the dinner resulted in broad consensus among the leaders on key points.
While Putin did not publicly criticize the U.S. decision to arm the opposition during his meeting with Obama, he exhibited far less restraint Sunday following his meeting with Cameron.
"One hardly should back those who kill their enemies and, you know, eat their organs," he said, referencing a gruesome Internet video purportedly showing a rebel commander committing an act of cannibalism.
"Do we want to support these people?" Putin asked. "Do we want to supply arms to these people?"
Among the other options being considered by the U.S. _ though reluctantly is a no-fly zone to stop Assad from using his air power to crush rebel forces of kill civilians. But European nations are so far opposed to that idea, and Obama's own aides have publicly questioned the feasibility, given Assad's air defenses and the significant costs of such a program.
Perhaps signaling another fight to come between the U.S. and Russia, the foreign ministry in Moscow said Russia would veto a motion to set up a no-fly zone if the U.S. sought authorization from the United Nations Security Council.
___
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Shawn Pogatchnik, Vladimir Isachenkov and Cassandra Vinograd in Northern Ireland and Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.
___
Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The meeting between the two leaders at times appeared tense
The US and Russian presidents have acknowledged at the G8 meeting in Northern Ireland they have a widely different stance on Syria, but did agree to push for a summit in Geneva.
After face-to-face talks, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin said they shared a common desire to end the violence.
Both also said they were optimistic on Iran, after its presidential election.
Earlier, the G8 nations discussed the global economy, with the leaders agreeing world prospects remained weak.
Other nations joining the UK, US and Russia for the 39th Summit of the Group of Eight (G8) in Lough Erne, County Fermanagh, are Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.
The G8 leaders headed into a working dinner late in the evening, where Syria was expected to be top of the agenda.
'Common ground'
Mr Putin and Mr Obama met for about two hours on the sidelines of the summit.
Analysis David Cameron's approach is to explore and flesh out those areas where Vladimir Putin and his Western colleagues can agree. Might the G8, for example, rally around such themes as agreement that there should be no use of chemical weapons in Syria or that all "extremists" should be beyond the pale? Might they start to define what the notional "day one" of a transitional government in the country might look like? Could they back the proposition that there should be unfettered access for the Red Cross and Red Crescent to all Syrian territory? Call it a form of "diplomatic lateral thinking", but Mr Cameron clearly believes that this may be the only way around the logjam that - as far as Syria is concerned - threatens to send leaders home from this summit more divided than ever.
Correspondents say that both leaders looked tense as they addressed journalists afterwards, with the Russian president regularly looking at the floor.
Mr Putin said: "Our positions do not fully coincide, but we are united by the common intention to end the violence, to stop the number of victims increasing in Syria, to resolve the problems by peaceful means, including the Geneva talks."
Mr Obama said the two leaders had instructed their teams to press ahead with trying to organise the peace conference in Switzerland.
Neither the rebels nor the Syrian government have yet fully committed to the proposed Geneva talks, which would seek to end more than two years of unrest that has left an estimated 93,000 people dead.
Mr Obama and Mr Putin did say that they had agreed to meet in Moscow in September.
The White House also announced that Mr Obama would tell the other G8 leaders that the US would provide another $300m (£190m) in aid for refugees inside and outside Syria.
Earlier UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who is hosting the summit, had said he hoped to find "common ground" on Syria.
The US said last week it was prepared to arm opposition forces, saying it had evidence that President Bashar al-Assad's forces had used chemical weapons on a "small scale".
Mr Cameron, who backed the recent lifting of EU arms sanctions against the rebels, said on Monday that no decision had yet been made on whether the UK would do the same.
G8: What is on the agenda? Monday: 15:45: Official arrivals
16:45: Global economy
18:15: Bilateral meetings
20:00: Foreign policy Tuesday: 07:00: Bilateral meetings
08:30: Counter-terrorism
10:30: Tax transparency
14:30: Closing talks
15:30: UK PM press conference
15:45: Other leaders' press conferences All timings BST
In an interview in Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Monday, Mr Assad denied that his military had used chemical weapons, and warned that arming the rebels would result in "the direct export of terrorism to Europe".
"Terrorists will return to fight, equipped with extremist ideology," he said.
On Monday, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said of the possibility of a no-fly zone over Syria: "I think we fundamentally would not allow this scenario."
EU-US deal
The formal talks on Monday covered the global economy.
In their statement after the session, the leaders said prospects remained weak but added that action in the US, Japan and eurozone had helped ease the situation.
"Downside risks in the euro area have abated over the past year, but it remains in recession.
"The US recovery is continuing and the deficit is declining rapidly in the context of a continuing need for further progress towards balanced medium-term fiscal sustainability."
Ahead of the first session, the US and EU members of the G8 announced that negotiations were to begin on a wide-ranging free-trade deal.
President Obama's rhetoric may inspire school children, but it is unlikely to melt Mr Putin The two Obamas in Belfast
Mr Cameron, Mr Obama and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso held a press conference on the proposed EU-US deal.
Mr Cameron said a successful agreement would have a greater impact than all other world trade deals put together.
"This is a once-in-a-generation prize and we are determined to seize it," said Mr Cameron.
He said the deal "could add as much as £100bn ($157bn; 117bn euros) to the EU economy, £80bn to the US economy and as much as £85bn to the rest of the world".
Mr Obama said the deal was a priority for the US and he hoped that it would create an economic alliance as strong as the diplomatic and security alliances the two sides enjoyed.
President Obama, on his first visit to Northern Ireland, delivered a public address at the Waterfront Hall centre in Belfast before travelling on to Lough Erne.
Tax evasion
On Tuesday, Mr Cameron will hope to make progress on tax transparency after agreeing a deal on the issue over the weekend with British overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
He has made no secret of his desire to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
Tuesday will also cover counter-terrorism issues.
G8 facts Informal, exclusive body aimed at tackling global challenges
Established in 1975 in Rambouillet, France
Original members: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US
Later members: Canada (joined at 1976 summit, San Juan, Puerto Rico), Russia (joined at 1998 summit, Birmingham, UK) Profile: G8 Can summit live up to ambitious agenda?
As the event started allegations were made in The Guardian newspaper on Monday, that Britain had spied on delegates who attended two G20 meetings in London in 2009.
The newspaper reported that documents, leaked by the ex-CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden, showed that British intelligence monitored the computers of foreign politicians and officials.
British spies are accused of setting up internet cafes to read delegates' email traffic and penetrating the security on officials' BlackBerrys to monitor email messages and phone calls. Targets are alleged to have included the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party.
The Turkish foreign ministry said the allegations, if true, would "constitute a scandal".
Observers say the revelations could cause tensions among delegates attending the G8, but Mr Cameron refused to be drawn, saying he "never comments on security and intelligence issues".
Some 8,000 police officers are being deployed for the summit.
On Monday, up to 1,000 protesters began a march from Enniskillen to the summit site, championing a range of causes from anti-globalisation to gay rights.
The colourful parade set off it festive spirit and organisers said they did not expect any trouble. | Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin had a reportedly tense 2-hour meeting at the G8 summit today. The two leaders butted heads over the conflict in Syria, the Washington Post reports. "Our opinions do not coincide," said Putin. "But all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria." Obama echoed that, saying "we do have differing perspectives on the problem." While the US has agreed to supply rebel forces with weapons, Russia remains Assad's main weapons supplier; the White House also announced today that it will send another $300 million in aid for Syrian refugees, reports the BBC. The AP notes that Syria will continue to be the hot topic among G8 leaders at a working dinner tonight; Obama is expected to push Britain and France to join the US in arming the rebels. But the real standoff between Obama and Putin happened outside of a meeting room, reports the Sun. According to a source: "Both wanted the gym and Obama’s people requested it first. It could have sparked a bitter battle and ended up a laughable sticking point at the talks—but the Russians backed down." So while Obama worked out in air-conditioned comfort, the notoriously tough Putin went swimming in a chilly nearby lake. Another quirky G8 side note: Putin and Obama are neighbors. |
The 1993 Midwest flood, termed “the Great Flood of 1993,” was unprecedented in the United States in terms of the amount of precipitation, the recorded river levels, the duration and extent of the flood, the damage to crops and property, and the economic impact. The intense rainfall that deluged the upper Mississippi River basin in the spring and summer of 1993 caused the largest flow ever measured at St. Louis. Affecting nine midwestern states, the rainfall generated record-high flood levels at 95 measuring stations on the region’s rivers. Because of the catastrophic flooding, 38 people died, millions of acres were inundated, property and agriculture sustained heavy damage, tens of thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, and transportation, business, and water and sewer services were disrupted. President Clinton declared 505 counties to be federal disaster areas, and estimates of the damage have ranged from $12 to $16 billion. The 1993 flood affected most of the upper Mississippi River basin. The basin drains all or part of 13 states and encompasses about 714,000 square miles, or 24 percent of the contiguous United States. The upper basin includes the Mississippi River from its source in Minnesota to its confluence with the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois. Its principal tributary is the Missouri River, which joins the Mississippi at St. Louis, Missouri. Other major tributaries include the Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Des Moines, and Illinois rivers. Figure 1.1 shows the Mississippi River basin and the area of the 1993 flooding, and figure 1.2 compares two satellite images of the St. Louis, Missouri, area at the confluence of the Illinois, Mississippi and Missouri rivers during a severe drought and during the 1993 flood. The conditions that produced the flood began in the summer of 1992. According to the Department of Commerce’s National Weather Service (NWS), July, September, and November 1992 were much wetter than normal in the upper Mississippi River basin. Winter precipitation was near normal, but a wet spring followed. The period from April to June 1993 was the wettest observed in the upper basin in the last 99 years. As a result, soils were saturated, and many streams were flowing well above normal levels when summer rains began. A persistent atmospheric pattern during the summer of 1993 caused excessive rainfall across much of the upper Mississippi River basin. Major flooding resulted primarily from a series of heavy rainfalls from mid-June through late July. A change in the upper air’s circulation pattern created drier conditions in late July and early August, but heavy rainstorms brought more flooding to parts of the upper basin in mid-August. The rainfall over the upper Mississippi River basin from May to August 1993 is unmatched in the historical records of the central United States. Generally, rainfall from the Dakotas to Missouri and Illinois was well above normal. Figure 1.3 locates the heaviest concentrations of rainfall from January through July 1993 in the flood region. Rivers rose above flood levels at about 500 measurement points in the nine-state region, NWS reported. Record flooding occurred at 95 measurement points in the Upper Midwest—44 on the upper Mississippi River system, 49 on the Missouri River system, and 2 on the Red River of the North system. Water flow rates along major parts of the upper Mississippi and lower Missouri rivers equalled or exceeded floods with an annual probability of 1 percent—commonly called a 100-year flood. Figure 1.4 shows where the heaviest flooding occurred. Extreme flooding of major river systems like the Mississippi and Missouri rivers seldom occurs in the summer. During a typical midwestern summer, a few localized heavy rains are scattered throughout the region. In 1993, the rare combination of closely timed and record-level rainfall occurred on both the lower Missouri and upper Mississippi basins, causing a record flood at St. Louis. NWS reported that the extended duration of the flood was also extremely rare. Typically, periods of above-average rainfall during a midwestern summer last from 2 to 5 weeks, sometimes persisting up to 8 weeks. In 1993, major flooding continued throughout the summer along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. For example, as of September 1, 1993, Hannibal, Missouri, had experienced 153 consecutive days, or about 22 weeks, of water above flood level. Flooding continued through the middle of September in many regions along the Mississippi River. The administration established the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee to evaluate the performance of existing floodplain management programs in light of the 1993 flood. Their review of existing damage estimates for the flood found that these estimates ranged from $12 billion to $16 billion. The available estimates are from such federal agencies as NWS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which develop estimates for specific program purposes, such as disaster response and assistance. The Committee estimated that $4 billion to $5 billion in damage was to crops in upland areas outside the floodplain, which were destroyed by the heavy precipitation there. The Committee attributed about $2.5 billion in agricultural damage directly to the flooding. Other significant damage occurred to about 100,000 residences, more than 5,000 businesses, many bridges, hundreds of miles of roads and railroads, and 33 airports. The flood also closed the major rivers to navigation and affected about 200 municipal water systems, 388 wastewater facilities, and other public facilities, such as public buildings and parks. FEMA reported that about 6.6 million acres in the floodplain were flooded in 1993, of which 63.4 percent were agricultural lands and 2.5 percent were urban areas. The remaining acres in the floodplain were normally covered by water, were wetlands, and/or were used for other purposes. The primary federal agency involved in flood control is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). The Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is indirectly involved in flood control when it addresses the effects of flooding in agricultural watersheds. After a series of disastrous floods affected wide areas, the Congress enacted the Flood Control Act of 1936. This act established a nationwide policy that (1) flood control was in the interest of the general public and (2) the federal government would cooperate with the states and local entities to carry out flood control activities. The Corps’ flood control programs are designed to reduce the susceptibility of property to flood damage and to relieve human and financial losses. The Corps has invested over $23 billion in flood control projects nationwide. It has constructed more than 600 projects, including reservoirs and about 10,500 miles of levees and floodwalls. Flood control reservoirs often provide the capacity to store water for multiple uses, including municipal and industrial water supplies, navigation, irrigation, production of hydroelectric power, conservation of fish and wildlife, maintenance of water quality, and recreation. Levees and floodwalls are usually turned over to local sponsors for operations and maintenance. The Corps is also authorized to perform emergency activities, such as fighting floods, repairing and restoring flood control works, and supplying emergency clean water to communities. It also performs emergency assistance work requested and funded by FEMA. Permanent repairs to levees and other flood control facilities are provided under a levee rehabilitation program. Five of the 37 Corps districts performing civil works activities were involved in the 1993 flood: St. Paul, Minnesota; Rock Island, Illinois; St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri; and Omaha, Nebraska. Of the 251 Corps levees located in these districts, 193 were in the flooded area. The Corps operates 98 reservoirs in the upper Mississippi River basin to reduce flood damage. Of these, 22 were constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. While not all of the reservoirs were in the flooded area, most had some impact on the flood because they stored water. For example, Corps headquarters officials said the reservoirs stored more than 20 million acre-feet of floodwater on August 1, 1993, reducing flood levels throughout much of the flood area—for example, lowering the crest of the Mississippi River at St. Louis on that day by 5 feet. In addition to the reservoirs, the Corps has built or improved more than 2,200 miles of levees for the protection of communities and agriculture in the basin. After the 1993 flood, the Congress funded a broad 18-month effort by the Corps to assess floodplain management in the upper Mississippi River and lower Missouri River basins. This effort, which was separate from the work of the interagency committee, describes the existing resources in the floodplain, identifies alternatives for the future use of the floodplain, and suggests policy changes and areas for further study. The assessment was conducted in collaboration with numerous federal, state, and local governments and interested parties. The Corps presented its findings and conclusions in a report published on June 30, 1995. NRCS’ programs are designed to protect and prevent flooding in small watersheds, repair or relocate agricultural levees that are damaged in flooding, and convert cropland to wetland reserves. The Small Watershed Program authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) provides for NRCS to install land conservation measures and flood damage reduction works nationally. NRCS traditionally works on smaller projects affecting watersheds of fewer than 400 square miles; the Corps addresses needs in larger watersheds. In addition, NRCS has authority under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) for a flood prevention program for 11 watersheds. In the nine midwestern states affected by the 1993 flood, NRCS has performed soil and water conservation work on 3 million acres, installed 2,964 reservoirs, and worked on 818 miles of channel. NRCS estimated that its watershed projects prevented $400 million in damage from the 1993 flood. When a disaster strikes, NRCS implements the Emergency Watershed Protection Program under section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334). This program provides assistance—including repairs to damaged levees—to reduce hazards to life and property. Levees are linear earthen embankments whose primary purpose is to prevent high water from reaching the floodplain. They normally extend from high ground along one side of a floodplain and around it to another area of high ground. Levees protect the area between the levee and the high ground. For stability, an earthen levee is normally constructed so that its bottom width is several times its height; hence, a levee requires considerable land area. In urban areas where space is limited, the Corps builds masonry floodwalls. A long levee system may include a combination of several segments of earthen levees and floodwalls. Figure 1.5 represents a cross-sectional view of a typical earthen levee. Levees reduce but do not eliminate flooding in the floodplain because levees may be overtopped by floods larger than those for which they are designed. Generally, the Corps analyzes the risks, costs, and benefits of constructing a levee to various heights; determines, with the participation of a local cost-sharing sponsor, how much protection the levee should provide; and proposes a plan to the Congress. After reviewing the Corps’ analyses, the Congress can authorize and fund the plan. The height of a levee is based on the maximum flow (discharge) of floodwater, measured in cubic feet per second (cfs), associated with flooding of a particular frequency, or average recurrence level, at the levee’s location. For example, the Kaskaskia Island levee in the Mississippi River in Illinois, which is designed to withstand a flood with an average frequency (or recurrence interval) of 50 years, was built to withstand a water level of 45.7 feet and a flow of 1,010,000 cfs. At other locations, floods of the same frequency will be associated with different heights and flows. For example, the Des Moines-Mississippi River levee in Missouri, which also protects against a flood with an average recurrence interval of 50 years, was built to withstand a water level of 24 feet and a flow of 371,000 cfs. Both levees provide the same degree, or level, of protection but have different performance criteria because the river’s channel and flows differ greatly at these levees. Engineers have accounted for uncertainties in the water level and for unknown factors—such as wave action, bridge openings, and the effects of urbanization—by adding 1 to 3 feet to the overall elevation of a levee’s design; this addition is known as freeboard. A levee should withstand floods up to and including the flood for which it was designed. Floods larger than the design flood may overtop or breach the levee—that is, cut a hole through it. The ways that floods can damage levees—by overtopping, piping, saturation, and underseepage—are depicted in figure 1.6. Hydrologists have several ways of describing the size of a flood at a specific location. They may refer to the water’s level and flow, or they may refer to the average interval between occurrences of that particular water level and flow. They also refer to the annual probability that the same water level and flow may occur. Because floods occur randomly, the interval between extreme water levels of the same height are far from uniform—a large flood in one year does not preclude the occurrence of an even larger flood the next year. For example, a flood with an average recurrence interval of 100 years has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded every year. This means that a “100-year” flood may occur several times within a 100-year period, or it may not occur at all. As communities and farms have grown on the floodplains of the upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers since the early to mid-1800s, levees have been constructed by various nonfederal entities, ranging from cities to individuals, to protect floodplains from seasonal flooding. Owners have wanted to protect the floodplain from flooding because it has often contained the most fertile land for farming. While no inventory of nonfederal levees exists, the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee estimated that such levees extend over 5,800 miles in the upper Mississippi River basin. The Corps estimated that about 1,100 of the 1,358 nonfederal levees in the area covered by the five Corps districts involved in the 1993 flood failed to keep the flood out of the areas they were designed to protect or were otherwise damaged. Corps officials told us, however, that this estimate was approximate and incomplete. Corps and nonfederal levees protect nearly all of the floodplain in the upper Mississippi River basin. Above Rock Island, Illinois, the Mississippi River floodplain is narrow and is filled largely with navigation pools. The remaining floodplain contains wildlife refuges, some farmland, and a few levees; scattered towns are protected by urban levees. Below Rock Island, the floodplain widens to as much as 6 miles, and because the extensive floodplain is used for crops, the river is almost continuously lined with Corps agricultural levees to Fort Madison, Iowa, and from Keokuk, Iowa, to Cairo, Illinois. In addition, many cities and towns, including St. Louis, are protected by levees and floodwalls in this section of the river. Missouri River floodplains, used predominantly for agriculture, are protected to varying degrees by levees. Between Omaha and Kansas City, Missouri, the river is heavily lined with Corps agricultural levees. Between Kansas City and St. Louis, the Missouri River has four Corps levees, but the river is heavily lined with nonfederal levees. Developed floodplains with larger urban areas—such as Omaha/Council Bluffs, Kansas City, and St. Louis—are largely protected by Corps urban levees. Near Kansas City and St. Louis, several residential, industrial, and commercial areas are built on floodplains behind levees. The Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Representative William L. Clay of Missouri asked GAO to review the extent to which (1) the Corps’ flood control levees prevented flooding and reduced damage during the event; (2) these federal levees increased the height of the flooding and added to the damage; and (3) federal, state, and local governments exercise control over the design, construction, placement, and maintenance of nonfederal levees. To address these objectives, we obtained information from the Corps and other federal agencies, state agencies, and other public and private organizations. We also interviewed officials and obtained documents from these agencies and organizations, as well as from individuals. Appendix I provides further details on our scope and methodology. We conducted our review between November 1993 and July 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We discussed the facts in our report with responsible officials of the five agencies primarily involved: the Chiefs of the Readiness, Hydraulics and Hydrology, Central Planning Management, and Policy Development branches in the Corps’ Civil Works Directorate; the Director of FEMA’s Program Implementation Division; the Deputy Chief for Natural Resources Conservation Programs and the Acting Director of the Watershed Projects Division at NRCS headquarters; the Chief of the Science and Applications Branch and staff from the Office of Surface Water at USGS headquarters; and the Chief of NWS’ Hydrological Service Branch. Generally, these officials agreed with the basic information provided but offered comments, corrections and suggestions to improve the accuracy and clarity of the report. We made changes to the report where appropriate. According to the Corps, 157 (81 percent) of the 193 Corps levees located in the area affected by the 1993 flood prevented rivers from severely flooding about 1 million acres. However, some of these acres were flooded by smaller streams behind the levees and by seepage under the levees. Nevertheless, the Corps estimated that the 157 levees prevented about $7.4 billion in damage during the flood. Another 32 Corps levees withstood flood flows until the water exceeded their design capacity and overtopped the levees. Three other levees were breached without being overtopped by floodwaters, and an opening in an urban floodwall for railroad tracks was not closed in time to prevent flooding. The Corps estimated that flooding at the 36 levees caused about $450 million in damage. To assess the levees’ performance, we compared information on the levees’ design values for either flows or water levels (design capacity) with the flows and water levels recorded during the 1993 event. Data were not available on either the levees’ design capacity and/or the 1993 flows or water levels for 12 of the 193 levees. Data on the other 181 levees show that 177 withstood the flows and water levels at least as well as designed and 4 did not. The flood eventually overtopped some of the levees. Nevertheless, local flood-fighting efforts at some locations permitted levees to withstand flows and water levels that exceeded the levees’ design capacity. Most levees also withstood saturation far longer than they were designed to do. Corps officials told us that generally three basic design criteria apply to each levee. Two of these are flood level, expressed in feet, and flow, expressed in cfs. The five Corps districts involved in the 1993 flood used data on either flood level or flow or on both criteria to judge the performance of levees. The third design criterion is the extent to which a levee can be saturated and still withstand its design flood. The Corps designs levees to withstand saturation. However, according to Corps district officials, the time required to reach a levee’s maximum saturation point varies by flood. A Corps manual (No. 1110-2-1913, Mar. 31, 1978) provides that levees are expected to be exposed to flood flows for only a few days or weeks per year. Embankments that will be exposed to flows for longer periods must meet more stringent criteria for earthen dams. Water standing against a levee for an extended period may move through or under the levee, leading to problems such as sinkholes or sandboilson the landward side. The higher pressure of the floodwater will eventually overcome the materials within the levee and its foundation, and a breach may occur. To determine whether a levee performed to its design capacity, we attempted to compare its design flow capacity with actual or estimated flows during the flood. If the levee’s flow capacity was not available, we used the levee’s flood level capacity. Corps district officials agreed that these measures were acceptable bases for assessing a levee’s performance. As an additional criterion, we considered the length of time the levee withstood saturation from flooding. We asked the Corps to give us the design capacity of, and the flow rates or water levels at, the 193 levees involved in the flood. District personnel told us that all or some of the data were not readily available for 12 levees. They said that Corps field staff or local officials advised them that the land behind the 12 levees was not flooded. Therefore, they said they can reasonably assume that these 12 levees performed within their design capacity. None of the 12 levees were designated as overtopped on Corps levee repair schedules. Appendix II lists the levees for which insufficient data were available for our comparison. Of the 181 levees for which comparative data were available, 177 clearly performed up to their design capacity and sometimes exceeded it during the 1993 flood. Many levees withstood flows that, in some cases, were greater than those for which the levees had been designed because flood-fighting efforts extended their performance by raising their height. In addition, many levees experienced saturation far longer than they were designed to do. Of the 177 levees that clearly met performance criteria, 145 prevented the river from entering the protected floodplain. The flood eventually exceeded the design capacity of the remaining 32 levees and overtopped them. Only four levees allowed floodwater to enter the protected floodplain before the levees were overtopped. Appendix III lists the 145 Corps levees in the flood area that the Corps said prevented flooding. Figure 2.1 displays the location of the 193 levees in the flooded area and identifies the levees that met design criteria but were overtopped, as well as the levees that were breached or otherwise failed without first being overtopped. Corps officials said that, in some instances, flood-fighting at levees prevented water from entering protected areas when the water reached flow rates or elevations beyond the levees’ design capacity. They said that workers prevented overtopping by piling sandbags and building other makeshift barriers on the top and landward sides of the levees. In these cases, a levee exceeded its design capacity in three ways. First, the added height permitted the levee to continue holding back the flood even when the water rose above the top of the levee. Second, the base of the levee withstood the additional water pressure created by extending the height. Third, because flood-fighting prevented or delayed overtopping, the levee withstood saturation far longer than anticipated. Flood-fighting techniques effectively increased the design capacity of many levees. For other levees, such as those at St. Louis or North Kansas City, the success or failure of flood-fighting determined whether the levees were able to meet their original design capacity. Examples of flood-fighting efforts during the 1993 flood are described in appendix IV. According to the Corps, flooding caused 32 Corps levees to be overtopped. These levees were designed to protect against floods whose average recurrence intervals ranged from 20 to 500 years. Of the 32 levees, 26 were on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers where the flood was greatest. Five of the other six levees were located on the Illinois River, and one was located near the Missouri River. Table 2.1 lists, by Corps district and by river, the 32 levees that the flood overtopped, the design capacity of each levee, and the flood’s estimated flow or water level at each levee. We compared either the design flow capacity of the levee with the flood flow recorded at the gauge nearest the levee, or the design height of the levee with the flood level recorded at the gauge nearest the levee. For 29 of the 32 levees, either the flood flow exceeded the design flow capacity of the levee or the flood level exceeded the design height of the levee. For example, the peak flood flow for the South River levee along the Mississippi River just south of Hannibal, Missouri, was 524,000 cfs, far above the levee’s design flow capacity of 349,000 cfs. The flood overtopped three levees, identified in table 2.1, even when the data indicated that the flood flow did not exceed the design flow capacity of the levees. Corps officials said that these cases may be generally explained by (1) a decline from the levee’s design flow capacity, which they attribute to a change in the relationship between the flood level and the flow rate at the levee that resulted in higher flood levels for the same flow rate; (2) the distance between the levee and the gauge used to measure the flood flow, which resulted in an inaccurate flood flow estimate for the levee location; and (3) the location of the overtopping. For example, the main portion of Missouri River Levee Unit R-520 was not overtopped, just as the data indicate. However, the levee was overtopped at a point along a creek where the levee’s design flow capacity was much lower. The 32 levees whose design capacity was exceeded by the flood were concentrated in six general areas: above St. Louis, below St. Louis, the lower Illinois River, southeast Nebraska/northwest Missouri, north of Kansas City, and central Missouri. With one exception, the levees in these areas were built by the Corps to protect agricultural lands from floods. One levee was built to protect Elwood, Kansas, a community of about 1,000 residents, which lies across the river from St. Joseph, Missouri. Three Corps levees, two on the Mississippi River and one on the Missouri River, were breached without first being overtopped by floodwaters. In addition, a railroad opening in a floodwall along the Raccoon River was not closed to prevent flooding in the city of Des Moines. Table 2.2 lists the design criteria and flood flows for these four levees. Corps officials said that they would not classify the breaches of the Bois Brule and Kaskaskia Island levees as performance failures for two reasons. First, these breaches occurred when the water reached the freeboard area of the levee, which is the safety zone above the levee’s design height. They said that when water rises above a levee’s design height, the levee cannot be expected to continue holding against a flood. Second, because the duration of the 1993 flood far exceeded the design standard for levees, some Corps officials believe that the breaches should not be characterized as performance failures. According to Corps district staff, the breach in the third levee, Missouri River Levee Unit L-550, was caused by the use in the construction of the levee of a material that allowed underseepage. Corps staff told us that the fourth levee failed to prevent flooding because a railroad opening in the floodwall protecting the city of Des Moines was not closed in time. Each of these situations is described in appendix V. In its April 1994 report to the Congress on flood damage for fiscal year 1993, the Corps qualified the accuracy and completeness of estimates of the damage prevented and incurred because of the broad scope of the damage and the rapid compilation of preliminary estimates. Given their methodologies for estimating flood damage, the Corps and NWS said that their estimates of both the damage prevented and the damage incurred, presented in this report, are probably understated. The Corps estimated that its levees prevented the flooding of about 1 million of about 1.4 million acres protected. The overtopping and breaching of levees caused about 400,000 acres to be flooded. However, in areas behind levees that held, some flooding still occurred because of heavy seepage through and under the levees and heavy flows from streams draining areas behind the levees. Corps officials said that they have not estimated the number of acres flooded from these sources. According to the Corps, the levees prevented about $7.4 billion in flood damage during the 1993 flood. To calculate the damage prevented, the Corps uses damage curves that employ the principles of hydrology and economics to graphically depict the estimated costs of the damage that would occur if a Corps levee were not protecting the area. Economists compare curves depicting the estimated damage with and without a levee. The difference is the estimated value of the damage prevented by the project. Corps staff said that the severity and duration of the 1993 flood in the St. Louis district were so great that the existing damage curves could not be used to estimate the damage accurately. As a result, Corps personnel extrapolated damage estimates for the 1993 flood from damage estimates for the large 1973 flood and used their professional judgment. Corps staff pointed out that because the dollar values on the damage curves tend to be outdated, the estimates of flood damage derived from these curves are probably understated. They said that some of the dollar values they developed when they constructed the levee have not been updated to reflect the value of development that has since occurred behind the levee. They also mentioned that obtaining information about urban land values requires extensive fieldwork and research, which are labor-intensive, expensive, and time-consuming. Corps officials said that because their resources are limited, they give priority to updating information on the largest urban centers where the greatest threat of damage exists. The four Corps districts where levees were overtopped and breached estimated that about $450 million in damage was incurred behind the levees. According to the Corps, it did not have sufficient funding to complete on-site field surveys to estimate the damage incurred from the 1993 flood and, as an alternative, used a variety of techniques to estimate the damage. In the Rock Island District, for example, estimates were based on data from county-level sources that, according to Corps district officials, were rough estimates and were specific to only a few sites. The Omaha and St. Louis districts used computer programs and actual river elevations to compute the damage incurred, supplementing these sources with information from surveys of businesses, local and state government officials, and field personnel from the Department of Agriculture. The Kansas City District used water levels and damage curves to estimate the damage incurred. NWS makes the overall estimates of flood damage suffered each year that the Corps reports to the Congress. For fiscal year 1993, NWS estimated that all floods caused more than $16 billion in damage. According to staff from NWS’ Office of Hydrology, loss estimates can be considered only approximate because they are developed as an ancillary function to NWS’ primary mission of forecasting weather and floods. They said the quality of resulting estimates is uneven because of insufficient resources, inconsistent methods and sources, incomplete data collection by field offices, and early reporting deadlines. While data on the design flow capacity of the Corps levees and the actual flows during the 1993 flood are incomplete, the Corps levees in the area affected by the 1993 flood generally performed as designed. In fact, some levees withstood significantly greater flood flows and elevations than they were designed to withstand, especially when the duration of the flood is considered. Where the levees did not prevent water from entering protected areas, the Corps levees were overwhelmed by the size of the Great Flood of 1993. By confining floodwaters within a smaller portion of a floodplain than they would otherwise occupy, levees pressure the waters to rise higher and flow faster than they would do without restraint. Whether levees significantly increase flood levels varies by location. Computer simulations of the 1993 flood estimated that the nearby Corps levees added up to 2.7 feet to the flood crest at St. Louis and up to 7.3 feet to the flood crest at other locations. Corps officials acknowledge that levees increase flood levels and induce some flooding. However, they emphasized that the net effect of levees, reservoirs, and navigation structures in the upper Mississippi River basin is to reduce flood levels and damage. There is no consensus among researchers, however, about the long-term effects of these structures on flood levels. Many factors besides levees help determine the peak level of a flood. These include the amount of water entering a river from precipitation, the size and shape of the river’s channel and floodplain, and other natural factors. Human activities, such as clearing the floodplain for cultivation, have also affected flood levels. Studies show that cumulative changes within the basins have caused higher flood levels for Mississippi and Missouri river flows. In addition, available evidence suggests that precipitation in the upper Mississippi basin may be increasing. If these trends continue upward, rather than cycling downward, more frequent and more extensive flooding will occur and future damage from flooding may increase. Available studies and the experts we spoke with agreed that levees generally contribute to higher flood levels above and within the levied part of a river. They said that the construction of a levee in a floodplain forces the water into an artificial floodway, causing the water to back up, just as the loss of a traffic lane on a busy highway causes heavy traffic to become congested. This restriction raises the level of the water both upstream of the levee and at the levee itself. It also forces the water to flow faster than it would if it were permitted to spread out across the whole floodplain. Figure 3.1 depicts a cross-sectional view of a floodplain and the floodway created by the construction of a levee. According to the results of a 1994 study conducted by a federal interagency team, a levee can increase flood levels from a few inches to several feet. Factors such as the size of the flood, the height of the levee, and the dimensions of the floodway compared with those of the natural floodplain account for much of the variation. The U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, a Corps research facility, identified the impact of some of these factors in a 1991 study requested by FEMA. Using a model developed by NWS, the Corps simulated a range of hypothetical floods and levees for 150 miles along the Missouri River from Jefferson City to Waverly, Missouri. This portion of the river is lined by mostly small private and other nonfederal agricultural levees that do not allow for the floodway recommended by FEMA. These levees are built to varying heights and, as a result, do not provide a consistent level of protection. Overall, these levees prevent only small floods—those with average frequency intervals below 10 years—from entering the protected floodplain. The 1991 study found that the impact of levees on flood levels increases with the size of the flood until the flood is large enough to overtop the levees. It also estimated that raising the height of the existing levees to contain the 100-year flood would further increase flood levels by about 5 inches. Moving the existing levees back to FEMA’s recommended floodway boundary would reduce peak flood levels for the 100-year flood by an average of about 1.2 to 1.5 feet. The study concluded that flood levels are more sensitive to the size of the available floodway than to the height of the levees. The results of three studies show that Corps levees and nonfederal levees contributed to the flood levels experienced during the 1993 flood. These studies used computer modeling to simulate flows and water levels in part of a river during the 1993 flood, with and without levees. Observed differences, therefore, can be attributed directly to the presence of levees. However, the accuracy of a model’s results depends on the accuracy of the information describing the flood and the floodplain. It also depends on how well mathematical equations in the model represent actual hydrologic processes. These studies are the only modeling efforts on the 1993 flood to date and use models created by or accepted by the Corps. Because of the extremely complex nature of hydrologic computer models, we did not review the accuracy of the models or their results. In 1993, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch commissioned an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois to simulate the 1993 flood. According to the researcher, the simulation included the Mississippi River beginning just north of St. Louis and extending 50 miles downstream to Prairie Du Rocher, Illinois. He used a Corps model that, for simplicity, assumes that floodwaters flow at a steady rate rather than at varying actual rates. The simulation estimated that Corps agricultural levees added about 1.0 to 1.5 feet to the flood crest at St. Louis. The flood’s crest passed St. Louis just as two large downstream agricultural levees were being overtopped and the land behind them flooded. The Post-Dispatch simulation indicates that if these levees had not been overtopped or if they had been overtopped at another time, they would have added from 1.4 to 1.8 feet to the crest. This would have brought the crest to within a foot of the design capacity of the St. Louis floodwall. After the 1993 flood, the administration established an interagency Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team to provide data and an analysis of the 1993 flood. At the request of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, the team simulated the flood. The simulation included the Mississippi River and major tributaries from near Hannibal, Missouri, to Cairo, Illinois, and the Missouri River from Hermann, Missouri, to the mouth at St. Louis, Missouri. This area contains Corps urban and agricultural levees and smaller private and other nonfederal levees. The team used a recently developed model capable of simulating the varying rates of flow that occur during a flood. The simulation estimated that Corps agricultural levees added a few inches to 7.3 feet to the flood crests at 14 locations. For St. Louis, it estimated that the levees added a maximum of about 1.5 feet to the flood crest. These results were consistent with the results simulated for the Post-Dispatch. The Corps, as part of its 1995 Floodplain Management Assessment, also ran computer simulations of the 1993 flood. Its analysis, which included the lower Missouri River and the middle and upper Mississippi River basins, was performed on a systemwide basis using the model employed by the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team. One simulation estimated that agricultural levees added up to 7.2 feet to the flood levels recorded at 11 locations in the Corps’ St. Louis District, including about 2.7 feet at St. Louis. Similarly, it estimated that agricultural levees added from a few inches to 4.7 feet to the flood levels along the Missouri River with one exception: Agricultural levees reduced the 1993 flood levels at Hermann, Missouri, by about 1 foot. No evidence is available to show the extent of the damage brought about by the addition to the flood’s height attributable to the levees, but Corps officials acknowledge that damage was caused by the levees. The Corps also points out that its levees provided substantial benefits in 1993 by preventing flooding on about 1 million acres in the developed floodplain. The Corps estimates that its levees in the Kansas City, Omaha, Rock Island, St. Louis, and St. Paul districts prevented about $7.4 billion in flood damage. Although unprotected areas within reach of levee backflows are subject to greater flooding than would occur if no levees existed, Corps officials believe that the damage prevented by levees greatly outweighs that induced by levees. In addition, they said that the capacity of reservoirs to store floodwater compensates for the increases in flood levels caused by levees. For example, the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team found that storing water in flood control reservoirs reduced the peak flood level at St. Louis by 5 feet in 1993. Thus, levees and reservoirs at St. Louis achieved a net reduction in flood levels. Levees are one type of navigation or flood control structure that can affect flood levels. While the impact of levees on a particular event, such as the 1993 flood, has been estimated with sophisticated models, the long-term effects of such structures on flood levels in the Mississippi River basin is less certain. Over the years, researchers have used trend analysis to assert a relationship between long-term increases in flood levels and these structures. However, the value of this analysis is limited by a lack of accurate information about historic flood flow rates, as well as by the conflicting results these studies have yielded. Much of the research is based on flow rates estimated for extreme floods at St. Louis. Some of the flow rates for extreme floods in the historical record are estimates based on observations of water levels recorded at the time of the floods. Other flow rates in the historic record are based on methods or equipment now shown to be inaccurate. In any case, measuring flow rates during extreme floods is very difficult and sometimes impossible. Not only can a flood destroy recording equipment, but it can also prevent access to the best measurement sites. As a result, 7 of the 10 highest flow rates recorded for St. Louis before 1993 are estimates rather than actual measurements. A more accurate and now generally used device for measuring flow, the Price current meter, was not used exclusively at St. Louis until 1931.Before that time, various methods of measuring flow rates were used. Some researchers question the accuracy of these methods for very high flows because of the findings of two studies conducted at the University of Missouri at Rolla. The first study, conducted in 1976, found that estimates of very high flow rates are subject to large errors and that flows above the banks of the river could not be estimated satisfactorily. The second study, conducted in 1979, tested the accuracy of measurement devices used at St. Louis before 1931. Although the author concluded that most of the pre-1931 measurements were valid for use in analyses, he found that 57 percent of the test measurements taken for flows above the banks of the river using double floats exceeded the measurements taken with a Price current meter by more than 10 percent. Double floats were used at St. Louis from October 1881 through December 1930. On the basis of his findings, the author recommended that historical estimates of high flow rates be used only for the relative ranking of floods. In 1985-86, researchers at the Corps’ Waterways Experiment Station found a further indication of errors in pre-1933 flow rate information. Using a physical model of the Mississippi River, the researchers found that they could reproduce the high water marks at St. Louis for the 1844 and 1903 floods using flow rates 33 percent and 23 percent lower than historic flow estimates published by USGS. Three studies performed during the 1970s analyzed the trends in water levels for similar flows at specific locations and produced dissimilar results. In addition, two of the studies used pre-1939 historical data that are of questionable accuracy. Given the data and/or methodological problems associated with these studies, no conclusions can be drawn from them about the long-term impact of navigation structures (such as dikes) or flood control structures (such as levees) on flood levels. The following paragraphs outline the results of each study. In a 1974 study, researchers at Colorado State University addressed the impact of constructing levees and channelizing the river for navigation on water levels and flow rates at St. Louis before and after 1900. Their comparison found that water levels were higher for all flows above 300,000 cfs, but maximum annual water levels and average and maximum annual flow rates remained unchanged. They also found that lower water levels existed after 1900 for all flows below 300,000 cfs. The researchers asserted that the construction of navigation dikes and levees between 1900 and 1940 caused both decreases and increases in the water level’s relationship to the flow rates at St. Louis. Another study, which was published in 1975 by an associate professor of geology at St. Louis University and was widely cited during the 1993 flood, compared the relationship between maximum annual water levels and flow rates at St. Louis in 1973 with the same relationship during a base period from 1861 through 1927. This study found that the 1973 flow rate of about 851,100 cfs produced a flood elevation about 7.9 feet higher than it did during the base period. The researcher attributed the rise in water level per flow rate to a combination of navigation works, levees, and riverbed sedimentation. He has since refined his results and attributes about 4 to 5 feet of the total increase to levees, about 2 to 3 feet to navigation works, and about 1 foot to riverbed sedimentation. The Corps has questioned the results of both studies because the studies used the suspect historical data. In addition, a USGS headquarters hydrologist who specializes in the statistical analysis of hydrologic information told us that modeling is better than trend analysis for identifying the effects of navigation dikes and levees. The USGS hydrologist said that trend analysis can never prove what caused the changes identified. Thus, changes in water levels and flow rates that occur after the construction of navigation dikes and levees may suggest but do not prove that these structures are the source of the changes. In 1975-76, researchers from the University of Missouri at Rolla attempted to study the effects of levees on flood levels. Unlike the authors of the 1974 and 1975 studies, they used only post-1930 data to avoid questions about the accuracy of historical data. As a result, they concluded that the Mississippi River had not experienced enough floods of sufficient size from 1930 through 1976 to evaluate the effect of levees on floods. Their study also examined the effect of navigation dikes on water levels in the middle Mississippi River. They found that changes in water level per flow rate between 1934 and 1974 at three major gauging stations were dissimilar. The University of Missouri researchers concluded that changes in water level per flow rate at the study gauges showed no association with dike construction. The study stated that although the constriction of the channel caused by building an individual dike must have at least a temporary effect on the relationship between the water level and the flow rate, the dissimilar findings at the three gauging stations suggest that the effect may be restricted to the area immediately around the dike. Therefore, they said data on water levels and flow rates cannot be extrapolated from a single point of record to an entire reach of the river. Although floods result from heavy rainfall during a short time or above-normal rainfall over a long time—sometimes in combination with snowmelt—this precipitation interacts with the atmosphere, land topography, vegetation, soils, channel geometry, and human activities to determine the amount of runoff. The chief determinants of a flood’s peak level at a particular location in a river are the amount of water reaching the river as runoff, the size and shape of the river channel, and the size of the floodway. Assessing the impact of a single factor, such as levees, on water level is very difficult because hydrologic models can only approximate the complex processes that move and store water. Variations in flood levels under like conditions are not uncommon. According to the Corps, records of the relationship between high flows and water levels at St. Louis show about a 5-foot variation in water levels for like flows. For example, two floods passed St. Louis within a month in the spring of 1983 with similar flows but with crests whose height differed by 2.7 feet. According to the Corps, no accurate accounting for this variation exists. Over time, some of the factors that help determine a flood’s peak level also shift the range of water levels produced by like flows. Several studies have addressed the factors, both natural and man-made, that affect flood levels. Natural variables that help determine a flood’s peak level include (1) the flood’s duration and whether it is rising or receding, (2) the seasonal level of vegetation in the floodway, (3) the way the flood carries sediment, and (4) the water’s temperature. Long-term changes in the river’s channel from erosion, past floods, and earthquakes, as well as the growth of vegetation in the floodplain, particularly in the floodway, also affect peak flood levels. A 1994 study on the relationship between flow rate and flood level simulated hypothetical floods of 4.5 days, 9 days, and 13.5 days with the same peak flow rate through a channel approximating the Mississippi River at St. Louis. The study found that the speed with which a flood reaches its peak flow and the duration of that peak flow help determine the flood’s peak water level. For instance, in 1993, flow rates of 1,030,000 cfs at St. Louis on 2 consecutive days increased the water level by half a foot on the second day. According to the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team’s study, the vegetation in the floodway affects flood levels because it obstructs and slows the flow of water, causing the water to rise. Consequently, the water level in an area covered with shrubs and trees would be higher than in an area covered with grass. Similarly, the same flood can be higher during the summer than during the late fall, winter, or early spring because of the summer foliage. Researchers have found that swiftly moving floodwater can cause intense erosion and sedimentation. The transport and deposition of sediment during a flood can increase or decrease water levels at various locations. In addition, changes in water temperature affect the amount and shape of sediment in the river. Cold water carries more sediment and enlarges the size of the sediment particles, increasing the friction that, over time, can scour the channel and increase its flood-carrying capacity, reducing all water levels. Floodplains reduce flood levels by providing space for the temporary storage of floodwaters until natural drainage can carry them away. They also reduce flood velocities. In addition to flood control, human activities in the last 175 years in agriculture, navigation, and urban development have altered the floodplains in the upper Mississippi River basin. These activities have altered water flow rates, the width and depth of the river channel, the size of the floodway, the pattern of erosion and sedimentation, the level of vegetation, and the speed with which precipitation flows into streams. Early development in the upper Mississippi River valley was closely tied to the rivers. By the late 1800s, settlers had cleared millions of acres in the floodplain for cultivation. Vegetation in the unaltered floodplain, especially in wetlands, created resistance to flow. Researchers have shown with modeling that removing resistance reduces flood levels and increases flow velocities and erosion. They speculate that clearing the floodplain for agriculture had the same effects. Between 1780 and 1980, an estimated 57 percent of the original wetlands in the nine midwestern states affected by the 1993 flood were converted to other uses, mainly agriculture. Wetlands temporarily store and hold some floodwater for later drainage. According to the 1994 report from the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, the loss of wetlands contributes to higher flood levels for smaller, more frequent floods, like 25-year or smaller floods. Agricultural land management practices affect the processes of erosion, sedimentation, and runoff. For example, the Illinois Natural History Survey found that planting crops in rows and plowing with moldboards (which lift and turn the soil) increased the rate at which Illinois lakes were filling with sediment. Although researchers have observed the influence of agricultural land management practices on small watersheds, the influence of these practices on major rivers is still largely speculative. Travel to and commerce with early settlements along the rivers created a demand for improved navigation on the rivers. The Congress first approved a plan for improving the Mississippi River’s channel in 1881. However, most channel improvements for navigation on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers were made between 1927 and 1944. The improvements generally narrowed the natural channels and shortened the rivers. The Corps has constructed about 3,100 wing dikes to create and maintain navigation channels on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Wing dikes are embankments built in the river perpendicular to the shoreline to increase channel depths by reducing channel widths and increasing flow rates. The dikes help keep sediment from accumulating in the main channel and trap it along the shoreline. The previously cited 1974 Colorado State University study found that, between 1888 and 1968, wing dikes decreased the average width of the middle Mississippi River by 2,100 feet, or by about 40 percent. The report also stated that degradation of the riverbed has occurred along the middle Mississippi River whenever the channel has been narrowed. The Corps also stabilizes and dredges hundreds of miles of river bank and channel, respectively, to maintain open water navigation on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. Stabilizing the banks reduces shoreline erosion, and dredging deepens the channel. In addition, the Corps has built and operated a system of locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River since the 1930s. This system converted the upper river into a series of pools to maintain channel depths at low and normal flows. A 1988 study of the long-term effects of the oldest lock and dam on the upper Mississippi River found that initially the river’s width and volume had increased behind the dam. However, the long-term impact has been to trap sediment. As a result the river has steadily lost both width and volume and returned to near pre-dam water levels and flow. Studies have shown that the growth of urban areas increases the speed of water running off the land into streams. Rain that falls on paved, tiled, or other impervious surfaces and runs into storm drainage systems is delivered to streams more quickly than it could run off porous surfaces. Hence, urban runoff produces higher, sharper flood peaks on small rivers and streams than rural runoff. However, as the water from each small stream joins the water in larger streams, the effects of urbanization on flood levels are diluted. One expert told us that researchers have not been able to measure the impact of urban development on the flooding of the Mississippi or Missouri rivers because the effects of urbanization are too small to isolate. Recent analyses show that water levels for high flows may be increasing for some locations in the upper Mississippi River basin. A continuing Corps study of Missouri River water levels shows that flow rates that once nearly filled the channel have been producing higher flood levels since the late 1920s. Similarly, a 1994 study of flow rates on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers found that flood levels for like flow rates have increased over time. Evidence also suggests that precipitation in the upper Mississippi basin may be increasing. These trends concern the Corps because they increase the frequency and extent of flooding, thereby increasing the damage from flooding. According to the Corps’ Missouri River Division, seven of nine gauges on the Missouri River have slowly and consistently produced higher water levels for the same high flow rates since about 1927. The rising trends are most noticeable at Nebraska City and Omaha, Nebraska, and at St. Joseph, Missouri. Table 3.1 shows the approximate increases in water levels for selected high flow rates. Statistical studies performed in 1994 at the Environmental Management Technical Center at Onalaska, Wisconsin, also examined water levels and flow rates for the period of record at six gauges: St. Louis, Chester, and Thebes on the Mississippi River; and St. Joseph, Waverly, and Hermann on the Missouri River. The studies found that water levels for like flood-level flow rates have been increasing at all six gauges at an average of about 1.2 inches annually. Over the periods of record, which range from 51 years at Chester to 132 years at St. Louis, increases in water levels at the six gauges ranged from about 3 to 9 feet. Table 3.2 shows the approximate increase at each gauge. The studies also found that, except at Thebes, the trend for maximum annual water levels is increasing. The studies found no changes in trends for flow rates. According to the 1994 Natural Disaster Survey Report issued by NWS, the duration and size of the 1993 Midwest flood and the wet conditions leading up to it suggest a significant variation in climate. An air circulation feature, called El Niño/Southern Oscillation, driven by abnormal sea surface temperatures occurred in both 1992 and 1993. Preliminary NWS modeling using the temperatures associated with the El Niño episode produced large-scale atmospheric results resembling the abnormal precipitation and temperature pattern experienced in 1993. However, NWS stated that it requires more in-depth and thorough analyses to understand the role played by El Niño in the extreme precipitation. According to a 1993 report on the Midwest flood by the Illinois State Water Survey, increases in the volume of water flowing down the Mississippi River are most closely related to the overall climate and precipitation. The report states that climate and resulting precipitation exert such a strong impact on streamflow that it masks changes from other sources, such as physical changes to the basin. The Illinois State Water Survey reports that, for most locations along the Mississippi River, average streamflows for the 28-year period since 1965 have been the highest on record. On the basis of an 11-year moving average, the Survey calculated that average flow rates at Clinton and Keokuk, Iowa, and St. Louis, Missouri, have increased by about 25 to 33 percent over the long-term average since the mid-1960s. An 11-year moving average is used to describe the trend because it smooths out natural fluctuations in the data. Also, average streamflows at Keokuk and St. Louis between 1965 and 1992 are about 17 and 13 percent, respectively, above the long-term average streamflows based on over 100 years of record. Average streamflows for the same period for the tributaries between Clinton and Keokuk, Iowa, for the Des Moines River, and for the Illinois River are even further above their long-term average streamflows. According to officials of the Survey, these deviations are significant because, historically, average streamflow has remained remarkably consistent with long-term average streamflow. USGS headquarters officials cautioned that because weather is cyclical and variable, any trends in climate are difficult to distinguish from normal weather cycles of higher precipitation and drought. For the 10-year period from 1983 through 1992, NWS estimates that damage to the United States from flooding totaled about $20.5 billion, or an average of about $2.1 billion annually, unadjusted for inflation. With the inclusion of data for 1993, the total estimated flood damage became $36.9 billion, or about $3.4 billion annually over the 11-year period. According to the Corps, upward trends in water levels are of concern, whether they are caused by increased streamflow or by higher water levels for the same flow rates, because they increase the frequency of flooding and the area subjected to flooding. For instance, between 1928 and 1959, flows of 100,000 cfs at St. Joseph, Missouri, never exceeded water levels of 17 feet, the official level at which flooding begins. Since 1959, flows of 100,000 cfs have exceeded flood level 16 times. If changes in the climate of the upper Mississippi River basin increase precipitation in the future and if water levels for like flow rates continue to rise, then the damage from flooding will rise unless the ability of flooding to cause damage is mitigated. The administration’s Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee was formed to identify the major causes and consequences of the 1993 Midwest flood, evaluate the performance of existing floodplain management programs, and recommend changes that make the programs more effective. Among the Committee’s findings and recommendations are many related to flood control activities, particularly levees. See appendix VI for a summary. That levees increase flood levels is subject to little disagreement. Whether this increase is significant varies from location to location, but whether unprotected lands are more likely to be flooded than protected lands depends on the increase in flood levels after the construction of a levee. Proponents of levees point out that the impact of a levee should not be isolated because the net effect of all flood control projects has been to reduce flood levels and prevent billions of dollars in flood damage. Levees are only one of many natural and man-made factors that help determine the peak level of a flood. Cumulative changes within the upper Mississippi River basin have caused higher water levels for similar flows. These trends could mean that the damage from flooding may increase in the future because higher water levels are associated with more frequent and more extensive flooding. No federal program regulates the design, placement, construction, or maintenance of nonfederal levees. However, the federal government can exercise some control over nonfederal levees through programs that regulate navigable waters and wetlands and that provide flood insurance and disaster and emergency assistance. Overall, 17 of the 50 states have specific programs for regulating levees. Five of the nine states involved in the 1993 flood have regulatory programs that, to varying degrees, affect nonfederal levees. Most often, states are responsible for the overall coordination of floodplain management activities within the state and across state lines. In some cases, states may regulate local land use when localities are unable or unwilling to take the actions needed to reduce the risk of flooding. Local governments usually exercise control over nonfederal levees in response to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and state regulatory programs. However, in states without a regulatory program, local land use regulations generally affect the placement and construction of levees. Nonfederal levees are regulated to some extent under two federal programs that require permits to construct or modify levees affecting navigable waters and wetlands. In addition, the programs of three federal agencies that provide flood insurance and emergency and disaster assistance to repair flood-damaged levees affect nonfederal levees. Under the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA exempts communities from certain requirements of the flood insurance program if they can show that the levees protecting them are designed, constructed, located, and maintained according to specified criteria. As part of its mission to provide disaster assistance, the Corps is authorized to repair levees through its levee rehabilitation program. The Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides funds and technical assistance for the emergency repair of nonfederal levees that are damaged during a flood. In all of these programs, the federal government exercises some direct or indirect control over the nonfederal levees’ design, placement, construction, or maintenance. However, all of these elements are not always affected by each program. Table 4.1 lists the federal programs affecting levees, and table 4.2 shows whether these programs affect a nonfederal levee’s design, placement, construction, or maintenance. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable U.S. waters without a permit from the Corps. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit from the Corps when wetlands are to be altered. Under both of these authorities, the Corps may control the design, placement, and construction of a nonfederal levee when the levee affects areas regulated by these programs. However, the owner, sponsor, or builder is responsible for informing the Corps of the intent to construct a levee and for obtaining a permit. The Corps’ data do not indicate how many of the 15,000 permits requested for activities in wetlands or navigable waters in fiscal year 1994 were for constructing or modifying levees. For the 1993 flood, the Corps issued a nationwide permit for the construction of temporary levees and emergency repairs to levees. This permit encompassed U.S. waters—including rivers, streams, lakes, and wetland areas—in the counties that had been declared flood disaster areas. The permit was specific and identified conditions where it applied. For example, the permit required any levee that was reconstructed or repaired to be maintained after the flood. Since some levees were being constructed in new locations, the Corps could also require that the former location of the levee be restored to its previous condition. The permit also required that any temporary levees built must minimize damage to U.S. waters and that measures must be taken to maintain near-normal downstream flows. Furthermore, all levees were to be designed and constructed so as to prevent the channel from being constricted or redirected and erosion from occurring upstream or downstream. Section 10 prohibits the obstruction of the navigable capacity of waters of the United States without a permit from the Corps. To clarify the extent of the Corps’ authority to regulate levees under this section, we asked the Corps to provide its interpretation of this authority. Specifically, we asked whether the Corps has the authority to regulate upland nonfederal levees. Currently, these levees are not regulated by the Corps. In a November 1994 response, the Chief Counsel of the Corps indicated that the Corps might be able to assert jurisdiction over upland nonfederal levees on the basis of section 10. While this provision prohibits the obstruction of the navigable capacity of waters of the United States, it also prohibits the alteration or modification of the course, location, condition, or capacity of “any navigable water of the United States unless recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War” before work begins. From his review of court cases dealing with section 10, the Chief Counsel opined that a prerequisite to the Corps’ exercising jurisdiction would be circumstances demonstrating an alteration or modification of the course, location, condition, or capacity of navigable U.S. waters. However, he noted that a court might require that jurisdiction be founded on a negative effect and that, arguably, nonfederal levees have an essentially beneficial effect on navigable capacity. The Chief Counsel concluded that if the Corps exercised jurisdiction over upland federal levees under section 10 without clear authority and direction from the Congress, this action would likely be overturned upon appeal to the federal courts. FEMA administers a levee certification program under the auspices of the National Flood Insurance Program. To be certified and to enable communities to enact less stringent building codes, levees must meet FEMA regulations specifying design, placement, construction, and maintenance standards. In all cases, the levee must, at a minimum, protect against a 100-year flood and, in most cases, have at least 3 feet of height (or freeboard) above the 100-year level of protection. When FEMA maps a community, it designates the 100-year floodplain and floodway. When a community joins the insurance program, it must require that all buildings constructed or substantially improved be protected to the base flood elevation. This is usually accomplished by elevating the structure above the base flood elevation or, in some instances, by floodproofing. While increasing construction costs, these requirements make buildings more resistant to flood damage. FEMA officials said that experience confirms that elevated buildings are less susceptible to flood damage and, therefore, cost less to repair when a flood occurs. When FEMA certifies a levee as protecting against a 100-year flood, it exempts new construction and substantial improvements from the requirement to build above the base flood elevation. The effect of this exemption is to increase the costs of repairing buildings that are more susceptible to flood damage because they are not elevated. The Corps will repair, on a cost-shared basis, nonfederal levees that are damaged by floods if the levees meet the qualifying standards of the program and are in good standing with the program at the time of flooding. In order to be accepted into the Corps’ rehabilitation program for damaged nonfederal flood control levees, a sponsor’s levee must meet or be improved to meet the Corps’ minimum design standards before flood damage occurs. The owner may need to modify the levee in order for the levee to be admitted to the program. Once in the program, the levee must be maintained in accordance with the Corps’ criteria. For levees that have qualified, the Corps provides 80 percent of the repair costs and the levee’s sponsor pays the rest. To qualify, the levee must (1) be publicly sponsored to ensure that the 20-percent share can be paid, (2) be a primary levee providing a 10-year level of protection for urban areas and a 5-year level of protection for agricultural areas, (3) be properly maintained and regularly inspected, and (4) provide benefits that equal or exceed the cost of the levee’s repair. The rehabilitation program includes levees maintained by local sponsors, such as levee districts, individual municipalities, or Indian tribes. The Corps received 546 requests for assistance under the levee rehabilitation program after the 1993 flood. Of these requests, as many as 345 either were declared ineligible for assistance because the levees did not meet the basic requirements identified above or had been repaired under other disaster assistance programs, such as NRCS’ program. As of October 1994, the Corps estimated that the costs of repairing the 201 levees that met its established criteria would be $250 million. Also, during 1993, the Corps worked with the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) to identify and repair levees that were deemed to affect the economic development of the community where the levee was located. The Corps assisted EDA in assessing the levees that had not qualified for the Corps’ program in advance primarily because they lacked public sponsorship. Because one of EDA’s missions is to provide economic assistance to areas experiencing sudden and severe economic distress, the agency provided funding on a cost-shared basis to repair levees that protect critical public infrastructure. Working with the Corps, EDA reviewed all applications and funded those that identified local sponsors to share costs and maintain the levees. EDA has funded the repair of 13 levees at a cost of about $4.2 million. NRCS’ Emergency Watershed Protection Program, authorized by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334), funds repairs to levees. To be eligible for these funds, the levee project must protect property threatened by a watershed emergency and the owner must either have exhausted, or lack, the funds needed to remedy the problem. To be eligible for assistance after the 1993 Midwest flood, potential applicants were also required by NRCS to show that the levee restoration project protected property or life, that benefits exceeded the costs of repair, and that regular maintenance would be performed. Since the program supports the repair of nonfederal levees to their preflood condition, it does not control the original design, placement, or construction of nonfederal levees. However, because regular maintenance is required for future assistance, the program does set maintenance standards. NRCS also received funding in a 1994 supplemental appropriation to make repairs to levees otherwise ineligible for assistance on condition that a sponsor share the cost and that the levee qualify for the Corps’ levee rehabilitation program. The levee also had to be environmentally sound and provide a 5-year level of protection. While NRCS’ Emergency Watershed Protection Program provides for a smaller proportion of the funding for repairs than the Corps’ levee rehabilitation program (75 percent versus 80 percent), NRCS would provide 100 percent of the funding in the case of extreme need or hardship on the part of the levee sponsor. As of February 1, 1995, NRCS had approved repairs for 375 levees at a cost of $10.2 million under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. NRCS had also determined that 16 levees were eligible for repairs, costing a total of $650,000, under the supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1994. NRCS officials reported the agency is evaluating repairs for 26 more levees under the supplemental appropriation. Some of these repairs were for levees whose drainage area exceeded NRCS’ threshold of 400 square miles and would, therefore, normally have fallen under the Corps’ levee rehabilitation program. However, NRCS was given the responsibility for repairing these levees under the supplemental appropriation. In 1992, the Association of State Floodplain Managers issued a reportdocumenting the scope of floodplain management programs in the states and found that 17 states regulate levees as part of their floodplain management programs. Of the nine states involved in the 1993 flood, five states (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin) have programs to regulate levees. These programs have standards regulating the design, construction, placement, and maintenance of levees. We judgmentally selected Iowa as an example of a state that regulates its levees. Iowa’s program for regulating levees addresses the design, placement, construction, and maintenance of nonfederal levees. The program, which is described in Iowa’s statute on floodplain management, is administered by the state’s Environmental Protection Division within the Department of Natural Resources and has been in existence since at least 1967. In general, Iowa requires permits to construct, operate, and maintain levees in rural areas where the watershed drainage area exceeds 10 square miles and in urban areas where the watershed drainage area exceeds 2 square miles. Specific requirements must be met to comply with the statute’s criteria for level of protection, placement, interior drainage, freeboard, or design. For example, Iowa requires agricultural levees, at a minimum, to protect against a 10- to 25-year flood and urban levees to protect against a 100-year flood. Urban levees must provide at least 3 feet of freeboard above the design flood profile. Furthermore, any agricultural levee whose protection level is increased must comply with the state’s equal and opposite conveyance rule: An increase in the levee on one side of a river’s floodplain cannot cause a disproportionate increase in the flooding of the river’s opposite floodplain. Iowa officials told us that only one FEMA regulation more strictly controls levees. Under this rule, development within FEMA’s identified 100-year floodway cannot increase the area designated as the 100-year floodway. The effect of this rule is that agricultural levees may be placed farther away from the river than the equal and opposite conveyance rule may initially require. Of the nine states involved in the 1993 flood, four (Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota) have yet to develop specific regulatory programs for levees. All of these states have a floodplain management program that may (1) provide technical expertise to localities and individuals on complying with FEMA’s or other federal agencies’ requirements, (2) regulate local land use when localities are unable or unwilling to take needed actions to reduce the risk of flooding, or (3) coordinate local and regional floodplain management programs. We judgmentally selected Missouri as an example of a state that does not regulate levees. Missouri does not currently regulate its levees but has identified areas of its floodplain management program that need to be improved. A task force established by Missouri’s governor to review and evaluate the state’s floodplain management program recommended the development of a levee oversight program to help decrease the risk to life and property from flooding. The task force recommended in a July 1994 report that Missouri (1) adopt a permit program for constructing and modifying levees; (2) identify all existing levees for the purpose of developing design criteria and policy guidelines; (3) determine the need for setbacks, relocations, and construction standards; and (4) enact legislation that would make it easier for levee districts to form and obtain public sponsorship for participation in the Corps’ levee rehabilitation program. As of June 1995, the Missouri General Assembly had not yet enacted these recommendations into law. Local governments generally exercise more control over local floodplains and levees than do the states or the federal government. This is often because FEMA requires the adoption of community floodplain regulations as a condition for joining its flood insurance program. The 1992 report by the Association of State Floodplain Managers noted that every state has granted its localities enough authority to meet the regulatory requirements of FEMA’s flood insurance program. As a result, localities may enact ordinances that allow them to (1) require certain building codes for development in the floodplain, (2) issue zoning regulations describing the types of land uses permitted in the floodplain, or (3) require that development incorporate improvements to alleviate potential flood hazards. Two exceptions to this local authority exist, however: First, most localities cannot regulate federal or state property or development by other localities, and, second, some states have exempted from local control certain activities that are important to the state’s economy (i.e., transportation, agriculture, mining). Under these exceptions, a local government could be prevented from exercising control over a nonfederal levee if, for example, the state determined that such control would negatively affect the economy of the river’s transportation industry. In a state that regulates levees, the locality is generally required to enforce and comply with the state’s standards for the design, placement, construction, and maintenance of levees. For example, in Iowa, local regulations must meet state requirements. In Minnesota, the state government may directly regulate levees and enforce compliance if the local government does not. In states that do not regulate levees, such as Missouri, local governments are bound by the standards of FEMA’s flood insurance program if the community participates in the program. According to the city engineer in St. Louis, the city complies with FEMA’s standards for floodplain management but has not established local levee regulations. As part of its review of floodplain management in the aftermath of the 1993 flood, the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee reported that few states control the design, placement, construction, and maintenance of nonfederal levees. As explained in detail in appendix VI, the Committee found that the states’ involvement in many floodplain management activities—including issuing permits for levees, flood-fighting, and repairing levees—was highly variable and in need of enhancement. The Committee recommended that the states assume responsibility for regulating the location, alignment, design, construction, upgrading, maintenance, and repair of levees and flood-fighting at levees. While no comprehensive federal program regulates the design, placement, construction, or maintenance of nonfederal levees, control over nonfederal levees is exercised through various federal programs for regulating navigable waters and wetlands and for providing flood insurance and disaster and emergency assistance. Not all aspects of levees are regulated in every program, and not all nonfederal levees are affected. Five of the nine states involved in the 1993 flood have regulatory programs that, to varying degrees, affect the design, placement, construction, or maintenance of nonfederal levees. Most often, states are responsible for the overall coordination of floodplain management activities within the state and across state lines, and local governments exercise direct control over levees through land-use regulations. Local governments often impose regulations to comply with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and state regulatory programs. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the operations of levees involved in the 1993 Midwest flood, focusing on: (1) whether the Army Corps of Engineers' flood control levees prevented flooding and reduced damage or increased the flooding and added to the damage; and (2) the governments exercise control over the design, construction, placement, and maintenance of nonfederal levees. GAO found that: (1) 157 of the 193 Army Corps of Engineers levees found in the areas affected by the 1993 flood prevented rivers from flooding and $7.4 billion in damages; (2) 32 of the Corps levees withstood floodwaters until the water rose above the levees and overtopped them; (3) 4 of the Corps levees allowed water into protected areas before their design capacity was exceeded; (4) the Corps estimated that the breaching of these levees caused about $450 million in damages; (5) although levees allow floodwater to rise higher than it normally would because they confine a flood to a portion of a floodplain, the Corps believe that its levees have the net effect of reducing flooding; (6) no federal programs specifically regulate the design, placement, construction, or maintenance of nonfederal levees, however, flood insurance and disaster assistance programs may exercise control over certain levees; and (7) 17 states and various local governments have programs to regulate levees, many of which are in response to the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. |
This report examines scenarios in which international trade could be heavily controlled or limited due to an avian flu pandemic. Each of the scenarios presented depicts the possibility that imports of goods into the United States could be curtailed due to the avian flu. Some experts argue that these scenarios are not likely to occur, because they believe that the United States would probably not implement a general ban on the importation of goods from affected regions. It is believed that such a ban would not prevent transmission of the avian flu to the United States, because there is little evidence that inanimate objects could transmit the disease. Furthermore, opponents to a general ban on imports argue that such actions could unnecessarily cause economic and social hardship. The United States depends on global trade for necessities such as food, energy, and medical supplies. Also, some observers point out that the nature of the "just-in-time" global economy is such that the United States does not stockpile these and other necessities. Finally, the World Health Organization does not recommend quarantining any individual country or closing international borders at any phase of an avian influenza pandemic. If international borders are not closed to human passage, then it follows that there will probably not be direct trade restrictions. While some experts believe that a general ban on imports either globally or from affected regions is highly unlikely, others contend that the strategy cannot be totally ruled out, particularly since there is already a U.S. ban on imports of poultry products from certain H5N1 (highly pathogenic strain of avian influenza)-affected countries and regions. Some experts argue that it may be possible to transmit the virus through any object that has had contact with infected feces, blood, or other bodily fluids. Some policy analysts predict that if the H5N1 virus were to become a pandemic with human-to-human transmission, then the United States might control the movement of people across its borders to slow the virus' arrival on U.S. soil. This could involve limiting airline passenger flights into the country, but it could also mean limiting entry of cargo ships due to a fear of transmission from ship operators or stowaway birds. These types of restrictions may result in a de facto import ban. Some experts believe these restrictions are unnecessary and potentially harmful, but they might nevertheless be implemented to give the appearance of strong preventative actions, in response to public concerns or political factors. Many believe that if such restrictive measures were adopted, they would likely be short-lived. Once the pandemic reached the United States, such measures would appear to serve little further purpose and could be abandoned. A more likely scenario is that a supply-side constraint in the exporting country would limit U.S. imports. Pandemic-affected countries could curtail their exports, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Governments may nationalize assets and stop export operations. An outbreak may also constrain production and key export infrastructure through excessive worker absences, to the point where exporting becomes difficult and is involuntarily slowed or halted. Such a slowdown in commerce could cause price increases or temporary shortages in certain goods within the United States, depending on the duration and breadth of the slowdown. It could exacerbate the effects of slowed production and distribution networks within the United States, leading to decreased demand and supply and a recession. Several studies have been undertaken to estimate the effects of a pandemic on the U.S. and global economy. According to one study, a mild pandemic could reduce global economic output by $330 billion, or 0.8% of global gross domestic product (GDP). The same study estimates that a pandemic of the worst case scenario severity could reduce global economic output by $4.4 trillion, or 12.6% of global GDP. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a severe influenza pandemic might cause a decline in U.S. GDP of about 4.25%, and that a milder pandemic might cause a decline of about 1%. Other studies have found both greater and lesser economic effects, depending on the methodology and data used. Different studies also disagree on the extent to which international trade would be disrupted by an avian flu pandemic. This section considers the potential economic and trade effects on the United States of import disruptions from countries affected by avian flu, either as a result of border closings in the United States or supply side constraints in the exporting country or region. Only countries with human avian flu cases confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO) from January 2004 to January 2008 are considered, because these countries are arguably more likely to experience trade disruptions due to avian flu. The relative likelihood of import disruptions from one country or region over another is not considered, because it is too difficult to ascertain. As seen in Table 1 , the United States imports far more from China than any other country that has thus far reported confirmed human cases of the avian flu. In fact, China is the largest source of U.S. imports overall, accounting for over 16% of total U.S. imports in 2007. Therefore, if imports from China were disrupted on a large scale over a long time period, it could have a significant effect on the U.S. economy. However, a short-lived disruption in imports from China may not cause an immediate crisis. Forty-four percent of U.S. imports from China are in the category of machinery or electronic machinery, and include items such as computers, televisions, and parts. A disruption in imports of these items could have implications for the domestic electronics market, but it may have a less severe effect on the U.S. economy as a whole. One import category of special concern is medical supplies; the United States imported over $5 billion in optical and medical instruments from China in 2007, representing 10% of such U.S. imports. Many, but not all, products in this category are considered essential medical equipment. For example, China was the second-largest supplier (after Mexico) of respirator equipment to the United States, supplying over 13% of U.S. respirator equipment imports. China has also been an important supplier of bandages (41% of U.S. imports in 2007), boxed first aid kits (53%), clinical thermometers (50%), orthopedic appliances (9%), and syringes (13%). Some observers recommend that U.S. hospitals stockpile essential supplies to take a possible avian flu pandemic into account, especially considering that medical supplies are sourced from potential avian flu hot spots. Many of these essential medical supplies are reportedly not manufactured in the United States. Almost 15% (about $1.5 billion) of fish and seafood imports into the United States are from China, second only to Canada ($1.9 billion). It is not clear whether a trade disruption with China alone would have a great impact on the U.S. food supply, since the United States also imports food from other countries and regions, in addition to having domestic production. Although the United States imports a great deal from China, many of these products originate elsewhere, and only their final stage of production takes place in China. For some items, production could possibly be shifted to another location if a long-term trade disruption were to occur. However, shifting production in the global supply chain may have great costs or not be feasible for other reasons. Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam have similar patterns of exports to the United States, although in different volumes. Among countries with confirmed human avian flu cases, Thailand is the second largest supplier of U.S. imports. However, Thailand's total 2007 exports to the United States were just under $23 billion, and it ranked 18 th out of all exporters to the United States, with 1.2% of the U.S. import market. Indonesia and Vietnam were ranked 26 th and 31 st , respectively, with $14 billion and $11 billion in 2007 U.S. imports. Like China, Thailand's main exports to the United States are electrical machinery and machinery, comprising about 44% of Thailand's exports to the United States. Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam all export large quantities of fish to the United States. Thailand is the largest exporter of prepared crustaceans and mollusks (the second largest is China), and the second largest exporter of fresh crustaceans to the United States (after Canada). Indonesia and Vietnam are the third and fifth largest suppliers of prepared crustaceans, and the fourth and third largest suppliers of fresh crustaceans to the United States. Thailand and Indonesia also export optical and medical instruments to the United States, ranking 21 st and 28 th , respectively, in 2007 U.S. imports. The United States imports medical supplies such as dialysis instruments, diagnostic instruments, syringes, needles, and ultrasound devices from Thailand and Indonesia. In analyzing the trade data, it appears that if trade were disrupted between the United States and any one of Thailand, Indonesia, or Vietnam, the effects would probably be minimal. However, if U.S. trade was disrupted with all three countries and China (considered more likely under a flu pandemic), the U.S. supply of seafood and medical supplies could be impaired. Reduced seafood imports could increase not only the price of seafood, but it could cause increased demand and possible price increases in substitute goods. The impact of reduced medical supply imports could be more severe, possibly resulting in a shortage of certain medical supplies, since substitutes are generally not readily available. Oil comprised 95% ($10.8 billion) of U.S. imports from Iraq in 2007, representing 3% of U.S. oil imports. Iraq is the ninth-largest oil exporter to the United States. If oil imports from Iraq were to stop, the reduced supply of oil could cause domestic energy prices to increase. However, there are many factors determining domestic energy prices, and other events could overshadow, exacerbate, or offset any disruption of trade with Iraq due to an avian flu pandemic. Egypt, Turkey, and Azerbaijan all primarily export oil to the United States, though not in significant amounts relative to total U.S. oil imports. In 2007, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Turkey ranked 27 th , 33 rd , and 49 th , respectively, in exports of oil to the United States. Turkey's main export to the United States was stone for monuments and construction, with 14% of the U.S. import market. Cambodia's and Azerbaijan's overall exports to the United States are relatively small and would likely have little impact on the U.S. economy if they were to be disrupted. The United States is the largest global producer and exporter of poultry, and the second-largest global producer and exporter of eggs. In 2005, U.S. farm sales of poultry were $23.3 billion, while U.S. imports of poultry were only $130 million. In 2007 the U.S. exported $3.3 billion in poultry, up from $2.2 billion in 2006. Poultry exports to China have increased exponentially, from $15.7 million in 2004 to $578.4 million in 2007. China is the second-largest importer of U.S. poultry, after Russia. Almost all U.S. poultry and egg imports are from Canada, which has not been affected by the highly pathenogenic avian influenza, H5N1. Some observers argue that as long as the United States remains unaffected by avian influenza the U.S. poultry industry may be positively affected by outbreaks of avian influenza elsewhere, as it may increase demand for U.S. poultry exports. On the other hand, news about avian influenza cases in other countries could reduce consumer demand for all poultry, even if it is considered influenza-free. If the United States were to shut its borders to trade completely, the impact could range from moderate to severe, depending on how long the restrictions were in place. A very short-term trade shutdown of just a few days may not have significant long term effects. As an example, in the days following September 11 th , 2001, shipments to the United States were slowed dramatically (though not stopped entirely) because of tightened security at the borders. Once the borders were effectively reopened business resumed with little if any economic impact from the slowdown in trade. A longer trade shutdown could have greater implications, both domestically and globally. Much would also depend on how Wall Street reacted. A sharp fall in financial markets would be likely, but the question is how resilient the U.S. economy would be. Many countries rely on the United States as an export market. The loss of that market even temporarily could cause economic hardships around the world and contribute to the beginning of a possible global economic slowdown. The United States is a large economy and does not rely on trade to the same extent as smaller economies, but it is not self-sufficient. There could possibly be an oil shortage, and energy prices could increase. Oil might not be available to all who need it. This would have implications for the rest of the economy, as transportation costs increase and cause price increases for goods across the economy. Also, many U.S. businesses rely on imports, both for intermediate goods and consumer products. It is difficult to determine which individual products could be in short supply, because many consumer goods that are generally not considered imported products depend on imports at some stage of their production. Also, some consumer goods that are imported have substitutes that may be produced in the United States. Finally, trade disruptions would account for only part of the economic impact of an avian flu pandemic. Other domestic and international economic events could have more severe impacts, which could be compounded by disruptions in global trade. | Concerns about potential disruptions in U.S. trade flows due to a global health or security crisis are not new. The possibility of an avian flu pandemic with consequences for global trade is a concern that has received attention recently, although some experts believe there is little cause for alarm. Experts disagree on the likelihood of an avian flu pandemic developing at all. This report considers possible trade disruptions, including possible impacts on trade between the United States and countries and regions that have reported avian influenza infections. These trade disruptions could include countries banning imported goods from infected regions at the onset of a pandemic, de facto bans due to protective health measures, or supply-side constraints caused by health crises in exporting countries. |
This breakfast burger is loaded with cholesterol. But new dietary guidelines may say that this doesn't matter as much as we thought. (Photo: Aramark)
Longstanding advice about avoiding cholesterol for heart health may be on the way out.
In a draft report issued in December, an influential federal panel — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — scrapped longstanding guidelines about avoiding high-cholesterol food. In the draft, cholesterol — found in foods such as egg yolks — is no longer listed as a "nutrient of concern."
The panel hasn't yet filed its final report, but it ncludes the same comment on cholesterol, according to a report in The Washington Post.
The committee is not reversing advice about the risks of having a high level of LDL cholesterol, the "bad" cholesterol, in the blood. People with high LDL levels are at greater risk of a heart attack.
The committee will send its final recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which issue the dietary advice. Those departments are expected to issue Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015 later this year.
Spokesmen for the USDA and HHS declined to comment on the Post story. In a written statement, the USDA said, "The committee's activities are solely advisory in nature. We look forward to reviewing the recommendations from the advisory committee, as well as public comments and the views of other experts, as we formulate the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans over the course of the next year."
The proposed change on cholesterol would be in line with the positions of other health groups, said Robert Eckel, past president of the American Heart Association. The heart association and American College of Cardiology issued dietary guidelines in 2013 and did not include advice about cholesterol. That's because there wasn't definitive evidence to tell the average person to reduce how much cholesterol they consume, Eckel said.
People with diabetes should still be careful about consuming too much cholesterol, which may increase their heart risks, Eckel says.
Other cardiologists agree it's time to stop telling people to limit cholesterol from food.
"It's the right decision," said Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the famed Cleveland Clinic. "We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades."
He noted that only 20% of a person's blood cholesterol — the levels measured with standard cholesterol tests — comes from diet. The rest comes from genes, he said.
"We told people not to eat eggs. It was never based on good science," Nissen said.
Advice to avoid foods high in fat and cholesterol led many Americans to switch to foods high in sugar and carbohydrates, which often had more calories. "We got fatter and fatter," Nissen says. "We got more and more diabetes."
Recent studies even suggest that longtime advice on saturated fat and salt may be wrong, Nissen says.
Marion Nestle, a professor in the department of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, noted that the federal government doesn't have to follow the committee's advice.
The last set of advice, the 2010 guidelines, advised Americans to consume less than 300 milligrams a day of dietary cholesterol, about the amount in one egg. Nestle said she has no inside knowledge of the committee's decision.
"If the committee is dropping this recommendation, it may be because so many people are taking statins that dietary cholesterol doesn't matter so much anymore," Nestle said. "In the last study I saw that exonerated eggs from raising heart disease risk, 90% of the study subjects were taking statins. But I think we need to wait and see what the committee actually says before saying too much about this."
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1Dfs7Pw |||||
Time to put eggs back on the menu? (Deb Lindsey for The Washington Post)
The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.
The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.
The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.
The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.
The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets.
While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice.
The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks.
After Marian Neuhouser, chair of the relevant subcommittee, announced the decision to the panel at the December meeting, one panelist appeared to bridle.
“So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.”
Members of the panel, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said they would not comment until the publication of their report, which will be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.
While those agencies could ignore the committee’s recommendations, major deviations are not common, experts said.
Five years ago, “I don’t think the Dietary Guidelines diverged from the committee’s report,” said Naomi K. Fukagawa, a University of Vermont professor who served as the committee’s vice chair in 2010. Fukagawa said she supports the change on cholesterol.
Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, also called the turnaround on cholesterol a “reasonable move.”
“There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said.
But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice.
Cholesterol has been a fixture in dietary warnings in the United States at least since 1961, when it appeared in guidelines developed by the American Heart Association. Later adopted by the federal government, such warnings helped shift eating habits -- per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 percent -- and harmed egg farmers.
Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided.
Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning.
***
The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s.
As with cholesterol, the dietary panel’s advice on these issues will be used by the federal bureaucrats to draft the new guidelines, which offer Americans clear instructions -- and sometimes very specific, down-to-the-milligram prescriptions. But such precision can mask sometimes tumultuous debates about nutrition.
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
Now comes the shift on cholesterol.
Even as contrary evidence has emerged over the years, the campaign against dietary cholesterol has continued. In 1994, food-makers were required to report cholesterol values on the nutrition label. In 2010, with the publication of the most recent “Dietary Guidelines,” the experts again focused on the problem of "excess dietary cholesterol."
Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol.
“Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado.
The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is " just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.”
"We just don't know," he said.
Other major studies have indicated that eating an egg a day does not raise a healthy person’s risk of heart disease, though diabetic patients may be at more risk.
“The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol,” said David Klurfeld, a nutrition scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Some of it is scientific inertia.”
***
The persistence of the cholesterol fear may arise, in part, from the plausibility of its danger.
As far back as the 19th century, scientists recognized that the plaque that clogged arteries consisted, in part, of cholesterol, according to historians.
It would have seemed logical, then, that a diet that is high in cholesterol would wind up clogging arteries.
In 1913, Niokolai Anitschkov and his colleagues at the Czar’s Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg, decided to try it out in rabbits. The group fed cholesterol to rabbits for about four to eight weeks and saw that the cholesterol diet harmed them. They figured they were on to something big.
“It often happens in the history of science that researchers ... obtain results which require us to view scientific questions in a new light,” he and a colleague wrote in their 1913 paper.
But it wasn’t until the 1940s, when heart disease was rising in the United States, that the dangers of a cholesterol diet for humans would come more sharply into focus.
Experiments in biology, as well as other studies that followed the diets of large populations, seemed to link high cholesterol diets to heart disease.
Public warnings soon followed. In 1961, the American Heart Association recommended that people reduce cholesterol consumption and eventually set a limit of 300 milligrams a day. (For comparison, the yolk of a single egg has about 200 milligrams.)
Eventually, the idea that cholesterol is harmful so permeated the country's consciousness that marketers advertised their foods on the basis of "no cholesterol."
***
What Anitschkov and the other early scientists may not have foreseen is how complicated the science of cholesterol and heart disease could turn out: that the body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than their diet provides, that the body regulates how much is in the blood and that there is both “good” and “bad” cholesterol.
Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets.
“It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
As a graduate student at the University of Arkansas in the late 1960s, Rudel came across Anitschkov’s paper and decided to focus on understanding one of its curiosities. In passing, the paper noted that while the cholesterol diet harmed rabbits, it had no effect on white rats. In fact, if Anitschkov had focused on any other animal besides the rabbit, the effects wouldn't have been so clear -- rabbits are unusually vulnerable to the high-cholesterol diet.
“The reason for the difference -- why does one animal fall apart on the cholesterol diet -- seemed like something that could be figured out,” Rudel said. “That was 40 or so years ago. We still don’t know what explains the difference.”
In truth, scientists have made some progress. Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame.
Rudel said that Americans should still be warned about cholesterol.
“Eggs are a nearly perfect food, but cholesterol is a potential bad guy,” he said. “Eating too much a day won’t harm everyone, but it will harm some people.”
***
Scientists have estimated that, even without counting the toll from obesity, disease related to poor eating habits kills more than half a million people every year. That toll is often used as an argument for more research in nutrition.
Currently, the National Institutes of Health spends about $1.5 billion annually on nutrition research, an amount that represents about 5 percent of its total budget.
The turnaround on cholesterol, some critics say, is just more evidence that nutrition science needs more investment.
Others, however, say the reversal might be seen as a sign of progress.
“These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.”
When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ”
Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way.
“Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.”
RELATED LINKS:
The Center for Science in the Public Interest's Xtreme Eating Awards went to nine "winning" chain restaurant meals especially high in calories, fat, sugar and salt. The Cheesecake Factory got three of them. (Tom LeGro/The Washington Post)
Where people around the world eat the most sugar and fat
The Chipotle effect: Why America is obsessed with fast casual food
There are 19 ingredients in McDonald’s french fries
Your kids are getting way too many calories from pizza | It looks like Americans will be able to eat their eggs guilt-free soon. The Washington Post reports that the federal government is poised to drop its decades-long warning about eating foods high in cholesterol. In classic bureaucrat-speak, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has concluded that cholesterol is no longer a "nutrient of concern." The finding is currently in a draft report, but it is expected to be included in official USDA dietary guidelines that will be released within weeks. "The move reflects updated scientific thinking on cholesterol," explains a post at Reason. "While high cholesterol levels in the blood can still be a bad health indicator, scientists no longer view high blood cholesterol as a direct result of eating a cholesterol-rich diet, at least not for most people." A cardiologist quoted by USA Today echoes the point: "We told people not to eat eggs," he says. "It was never based on good science." The change will not reverse warnings that high levels of "bad cholesterol," or LDL, pose a health risk, but the panel is embracing the evolving view that dietary cholesterol is not the culprit. Instead, most nutritionists now think that trans fats and saturated fats are the bigger dangers in regard to heart disease, notes the Post. |
One day in August, 2016, the financier Carl Icahn made an urgent phone call to the Environmental Protection Agency. Icahn is one of the richest men on Wall Street, and he has thrived, in no small measure, because of a capacity to intimidate. A Texas-based oil refiner in which he had a major stake was losing money because of an obscure environmental rule that Icahn regarded as unduly onerous. Icahn is a voluble critic of any government regulation that constrains his companies. So he wanted to speak with the person in charge of enforcing the policy: a senior official at the E.P.A. named Janet McCabe. Icahn works from a suite of offices, atop the General Motors Building, in midtown, that are decorated in the oak-and-leather fashion of a tycoon’s lair in a nineteen-eighties film. During that decade, Icahn made his reputation as one of the original corporate raiders, pioneering the art of the hostile takeover and establishing himself as a human juggernaut—a pugnacious deal machine, all avarice and swagger. By the time he called the E.P.A., he was eighty, and long since unburdened of any personal or dynastic need to make money; according to Forbes, he is worth approximately seventeen billion dollars. Plenty of titans who are not as old and not as rich as Icahn have opted to devote their remaining years to spending their money, or to giving it away. Not Icahn. A tall man with a shambling manner, he recently grew a white beard, which softens his round face, giving him the cuddly appearance of an elderly Muppet. But he has not lost his taste for the kill. A few years ago, he sold his mega-yacht, because cruising on it bored him. He has engaged in philanthropy, building charter schools and a stadium on Randall’s Island that bears his name. But the charity circuit is a snooze. What Icahn loves beyond all else is to rise late each morning, and then to spend the rest of the day and much of the night working the phone, making deals. Years ago, a reporter asked Icahn why he kept making money when he already had more than he could ever spend. “It’s a way of keeping score,” he said. He is one of the wealthiest individuals not just in the world but in the history of the world—a man who takes pride in many things, not the least of which is his ability to get just about anybody on the phone. “She’s on vacation,” McCabe’s assistant said, flatly. For how long? Two weeks. To Icahn, there was something that simply did not compute about going on vacation and leaving one’s work behind. Surely, he insisted, McCabe could interrupt whatever leisure activity she was engaged in to take a pressing phone call from Carl Icahn? No, McCabe’s assistant informed him. She couldn’t. The old conundrum about whether it is better to be loved or feared has never posed much of a dilemma for Icahn. In “King Icahn,” a 1993 biography, the author, Mark Stevens, described his subject as a “germophobic, detached, relatively loveless man,” and quoted one contemporary saying, “Carl’s dream in life is to have the only fire truck in town. Then when your house is in flames, he can hold you up for every penny you have.” When the biography was published, Icahn stocked his office with copies to give to visitors. These days, he bristles at the term “corporate raider,” favoring the euphemism “activist investor,” but the reality is that when Icahn targets a company the response from management is generally terror. He has a volatile temper and a vindictive streak. Everyone makes time to take his calls. Incredulous that Janet McCabe might not do so, Icahn asked, “What if the world’s falling apart?” The refiner that he was worried about is CVR Energy, which is based in Sugar Land, Texas. In 2012, Icahn acquired a controlling stake in the company, with the intention of making it more profitable and then selling it at a higher price. But under the Renewable Fuel Standard—a law passed, under George W. Bush, to promote the use of ethanol and other biofuels—refiners like CVR are forced either to blend ethanol into their products or to purchase credits, known as Renewable Identification Numbers, from refiners that do. CVR did not make sufficient investments to blend ethanol into all its products, choosing to buy credits instead. When Icahn bought his shares in the refiner, RINs were cheap—about a nickel each—so it was reasonably affordable for the company to comply with the law. But in 2013 the price of RINs, which had been stable, began fluctuating, and by 2016 the company was spending two hundred million dollars a year on credits. When Icahn called McCabe, CVR’s stock had dropped seventy per cent from the previous year. This incensed him. “Look, I’m too old to be politically correct,” he told CNBC, on September 13th. “This woman, Janet McCabe . . . she’s never run a business.” Icahn pointed out that, “at the risk of being immodest,” he had made a great deal of money in his career. “The government shouldn’t run things, because they aren’t trained to run things,” he continued. This is a core element of Icahn’s philosophy. Jimmy Williams, a former in-house lobbyist for Icahn, told me, “Carl is a man who thinks that business should be unfettered and that government should not be involved in the free-market economy. With every fibre in his body, that is what he truly believes.” When Icahn couldn’t reach McCabe, he wrote a blistering open letter to the E.P.A., in which he demanded that the rules be changed so that other parties, and not refiners, would be responsible for blending ethanol or purchasing credits. “At the risk of being immodest,” he wrote, “most respected experts involved in markets and the way they function would agree there are few in the country that understand investing in markets better than I do.” One person who was listening to Icahn was the Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Icahn and Trump have known each other for decades, and Icahn supported his friend’s aspirations for the White House at a time when they still looked quixotic. Trump has long boasted about his association with more successful businesspeople, dropping references to potentates the way kids decorate their school binders with the names of their favorite pop stars. But, in reality, many New York financiers considered him a buffoon. In 2015, Lloyd Blankfein, the C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs, greeted the suggestion that Trump might run for President by remarking that the notion of the former star of “The Apprentice” having his “finger on the button blows my mind.” In this context, an endorsement from Icahn was a precious credential. On the campaign trail, Trump bragged about his “very dear friend Carl Icahn,” the name functioning as a byword for boundless prosperity. If Icahn was willing to be enlisted in this fashion, he was also prepared to drop Trump’s name when it served his interest. Appearing on Bloomberg TV on August 16, 2016, he vowed that Trump would put an end to “these crazy regulations” on his first day in office. In fact, Icahn continued, he had spoken with Trump about the E.P.A. rule obliging his refiner to purchase renewable-fuel credits. If elected, Trump “will stop that,” Icahn promised. “That’s a hundred per cent.” Several weeks after Trump’s victory, Icahn tweeted, “I’ve agreed to serve as a special advisor to the president on issues relating to regulatory reform.” In a press release, Trump said, “Carl was with me from the beginning and with his being one of the world’s great businessmen, that was something I truly appreciated. He is not only a brilliant negotiator, but also someone who is innately able to predict the future, especially having to do with finances and economies.” He added that Icahn would help him address regulations that were “strangling” American business. Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted. In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner, nearly doubled—a surge that is difficult to explain without acknowledging the appointment of the company’s lead shareholder to a White House position. The rally meant a personal benefit for Icahn, at least on paper, of half a billion dollars. There was an expectation in the market—an expectation created, in part, by Icahn’s own remarks—that, with Trump in the White House and Icahn playing consigliere, the rules were about to change, and not just at the E.P.A. Icahn’s empire ranges across many economic sectors, from energy to pharmaceuticals to auto supplies to mining, and all of them are governed by the types of regulations about which he would now potentially be advising Trump. Janet McCabe, who left the E.P.A. in January, and now works at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, told me, “I’m not naïve. People in business try to influence the government. But the job of the government is to serve the American people, not the specific business interests of the President’s friends. To think that you have somebody with that kind of agenda bending the President’s ear is troubling.” Conflicts of interest have been a defining trait of the Trump Administration. The President has not only refused to release his tax returns; he has declined to divest from his companies, instead putting them in a trust managed by his children. Questions have emerged about the ongoing business ties of his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who, since early 2016, have reaped as much as two hundred million dollars from the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., and from other investments. Although Trump promised to “drain the swamp,” he has assembled a Cabinet of ultra-rich Americans, including two billionaires: Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, and Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce. But Icahn is worth more than the Trump family and all the members of the Cabinet combined—and, with no constraint on his license to counsel the President on regulations that might help his businesses, he was poised to become much richer. Robert Weissman, who runs the watchdog group Public Citizen, told me, “This kind of self-enrichment and influence over decision-making by an individual mogul who is simultaneously inside and outside the Administration is unprecedented. In terms of corruption, there’s nothing like it. Maybe ever.” In conversations with me, financiers who have worked with Icahn described his appointment as a kind of corporate raid on Washington. One said, “It’s the cheapest takeover Carl’s ever done.”
If you squint, Trump and Icahn look alike. Both grew up in Queens and have an outer-borough chip on their shoulders. Both first came to tabloid prominence against the gaudy backdrop of the nineteen-eighties. Both are brash, plainspoken street fighters, examples of an American archetype: the populist rich guy. But Trump comes from the wealthy enclave of Jamaica Estates, whereas Icahn grew up in a lower-middle-class family in Bayswater. His mother, Bella, was a schoolteacher; his father, Michael, was a failed opera singer who, even though he was an atheist, became the cantor in a local synagogue, because he loved the music. Carl was an only child, born toward the end of the Depression, in 1936. Throughout his youth, his father railed against the robber barons, condemning the concentration of extreme wealth. Icahn told Mark Stevens, “The social juxtaposition of a tiny group of people living in great splendor and many more living in abject poverty was anathema to him.” As a boy, Icahn was bright and ambitious. When he was offered a scholarship to Woodmere Academy, an expensive private school on the South Shore of Long Island, his parents toured the campus and met with teachers. But they worried about the values that their son would be exposed to there, so they sent him to public high school instead. The sting of that reversal lingered. Half a century later, in the heat of a high-stakes negotiation, Icahn would occasionally digress to inform his adversaries that although he attended public school instead of Woodmere Academy, he still went on to become a billionaire. Icahn is an old man now, with an old man’s penchant for repeating stories; he frequently returns to the theme that his parents underestimated him. “My father was never able to accomplish anything,” he once said, adding, “I never respected him.” In 1960, after studying philosophy at Princeton (where he wrote a thesis titled “The Problem of Formulating an Adequate Explication of the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning”) and a stint in medical school (he was a hypochondriac, which did not help his bedside manner), Icahn shifted to Wall Street. For a time, he worked as an arbitrageur, but he eventually established himself as a takeover artist, orchestrating high-profile raids on companies such as Texaco, RJR Nabisco, and Phillips Petroleum. His method was straightforward: he identified businesses whose assets were worth more than their stock; he acquired enough of that stock to force changes in the company which drove up the stock price; then he sold the stock. Implicit in Icahn’s approach was the conviction that he was smart enough to know more about how to make money in a given business than the executives who actually ran the business. He regarded the management at the companies he targeted with contempt. Unlike Trump, Icahn was not one to insinuate himself into the sort of club that would not accept him as a member; he preferred to storm the clubhouse with a pitchfork. One of Icahn’s oft-repeated bromides is that the average C.E.O. is like a fraternity president: a nice guy to have a beer with, but maybe not too bright. Corporations, seeing Icahn coming, often tried to fight him off. His reputation grew so fearsome that some companies paid him to go away by buying his shares back at a premium—a practice known as “paying greenmail.” Marty Lipton, a corporate lawyer whose firm has often been hired by companies that were looking to thwart an Icahn takeover, wrote a memo four years ago in which he described raiders like Icahn as engaging in “a form of extortion.” In Lipton’s view, such investors “create short-term increases in the market price of their stock at the expense of long-term value.” In the nineties, when Icahn was fighting for control of Marvel Comics, the company’s C.E.O., a veteran of the Israeli Army, likened dealing with him to negotiating with terrorists. Icahn prefers to describe himself in more righteous terms, as a warrior for stockholders who have been disenfranchised by inattentive corporate boards and myopic executives. He sees himself as a champion of “shareholder rights,” an advocate for the little guy. By going after lacklustre management, he argues, he has generated “billions and billions” of dollars for shareholders, while managing to make out just fine himself. “I’m like a gunfighter you hire to save the town,” he once remarked. “That gunfighter is there to do good. He knows he’s on the right side, and he’s proud of it, but he’ll only do what he does if he knows he’ll get paid for it.” It is true that Icahn has increased the value of many companies that he has invested in, but there are also numerous instances in which, in the aftermath of a raid, he emerges as a winner and everyone else seems to lose. In 1985, he seized control of the airline T.W.A. According to the Times, Icahn celebrated by donning a T.W.A. flight jacket and strutting around his office, exclaiming, “We’ve got ourselves an airline!” He took the company private, pocketing nearly half a billion dollars, then sold off its assets. He also waged a bitter fight against the flight attendants’ union. Because most attendants were women, Icahn insisted, they were not “breadwinners,” and should not expect compensation commensurate with that of male employees. At one point in the negotiations, he reportedly suggested that if the flight attendants were having such trouble making ends meet they “should have married a rich husband.” (Icahn denied having made sexist comments.) C. E. Meyer, the company’s chief executive, described Icahn as “one of the greediest men on earth.” T.W.A. eventually went out of business. Like Trump, Icahn adheres to a simian dominance code in which every deal—and possibly every human interaction—is a zero-sum contest. Only the alpha prevails. Yet, among Trump’s panoply of wealthy boosters, Icahn is distinctive, if not unique, because of the President’s willingness to play the beta role and genuflect before him. When they met, during the eighties, Trump was an eager supplicant, perhaps in part because Icahn really is what Trump has always pretended to be: a genuine master dealmaker, and a legitimately self-made man. Icahn started out with much less than Trump did, and ended up with vastly more. In 1988, Trump paid eleven million dollars to host a heavyweight title fight between Mike Tyson and Michael Spinks, at Boardwalk Hall, in Atlantic City. Before the fight, Trump took Icahn backstage to meet Tyson. The bout started late, and the announcer was obliged to recite an attenuated roll call of famous guests, among them Trump’s “good friend” Carl Icahn. Two years later, Trump unveiled the Taj Mahal, a spangled confection on the boardwalk. It had been financed entirely with junk bonds, and by the time construction was complete it was already imperilled by debt. When Trump needed to make an interest payment on the loans, his father, Fred, sent a lawyer to another Trump casino, the Trump Castle, to buy $3.3 million in chips. Not long afterward, Trump was bailed out once again—this time by Icahn. One of Icahn’s specialties is investing in distressed debt, and he purchased the Taj’s outstanding bonds at a steep discount. Rather than oust Trump, Icahn negotiated with the other bondholders to allow Trump to retain equity in the casino, as well as his place on the board. Years later, when Trump named Icahn a special adviser, the Democratic National Committee released a statement that alluded to the Atlantic City episode, suggesting that the White House appointment was “a quid pro quo twenty-five years in the making.” Icahn, however, had already been handsomely remunerated for his investment: he sold the bonds, in 1993, for more than double what he had paid for them. Icahn and Trump maintained a loose friendship during the ensuing decades, one that was hardly as intimate as Trump likes to make it sound. The very notion of a relationship that transcends mercenary self-interest may be alien to Icahn. Once, in a court proceeding, he said, “If the price is right, we are going to sell. I think that’s true of everything you have, except maybe your kids and possibly your wife.” “Possibly?” the judge asked. “Possibly,” Icahn said, adding, “Don’t tell my wife.” (Icahn’s first marriage ended in an acrimonious divorce. He is now married to his former assistant, Gail Golden, who manages his charitable interests.) When Oliver Stone was doing research for his 1987 film, “Wall Street,” he paid a visit to Icahn, and borrowed one of his observations for the character Gordon Gekko: “If you need a friend, get a dog.” Trump’s almost canine subservience to the older financier is such that, for years, Icahn, who is a tennis fan, has enjoyed droit-du-seigneur access to Trump’s personal box at the U.S. Open. In 2010, Trump again found himself in trouble in Atlantic City. But this time Icahn was his antagonist. Along with a Texas banker, Icahn was trying to gain control of three Trump casinos. When a lawyer asked, during a deposition, whether Icahn intended to rebrand the casinos, he said that a consultant had deemed the Trump name a “disadvantage.” In an interview, Trump shot back, “Everybody wants the brand, including Carl. It’s the hottest brand in the country.” But in Icahn’s opinion the only real downside to shedding the Trump name was the expense that would be associated with changing all the signage. Trump expressed dismay at Icahn’s slight, telling the Times, in 2011, that he was a “loyalist” who prioritized friendship, whereas “with Carl the friendship stops where the deal begins.” (Icahn responded that he did not consider the two of them to be close, adding, pointedly, that he had not been invited to Ivanka Trump’s wedding.) In court papers, Icahn’s lawyers suggested that Trump’s name was no longer “synonymous with business acumen, high quality, and style.” Icahn told the Wall Street Journal, “I like Donald personally, but frankly I’m a little curious about the big deal about the name.” If the Trump brand carried such cachet, he asked, why did Trump properties keep going bankrupt? Even after Icahn started supporting Trump’s Presidential run, he often seasoned his praise with a dash of disdain. “I’m not here to say Donald’s a great businessman,” he told the Washington Post. “But I will say he’s a consensus builder.” When Trump first announced his candidacy, in June, 2015, he appeared on “Morning Joe,” and said, “I would like to bring my friend Carl Icahn” into the government, suggesting that Icahn might make a good Treasury Secretary. Icahn replied, in a post on his personal Web site, “I am flattered but do not get up early enough in the morning to accept this opportunity.”
When Icahn initially made a takeover bid for CVR Energy, in February, 2012, the company hired Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the formidable New York law firm, to deflect him. But Icahn prevailed, acquiring an eighty-two-per-cent stake in the refiner. CVR had never built enough of its own ethanol-blending facilities to comply with the Renewable Fuel Standard, buying RIN credits instead. This was a bad bet. “Up until 2013, the conventional wisdom was that there would be no volatility in RIN prices,” Tristan Brown, a professor at the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry, who has studied the RIN market, told me. But that year prices started to climb. The RIN market is much less transparent than the stock market, and some players appeared to be hoarding credits, which drove up their price. Icahn worried that CVR’s competitors, knowing that the company was in trouble, were deliberately manipulating the price, subjecting his refiner to a so-called “short squeeze.” (Icahn is no stranger to this tactic, having attempted to put a short squeeze on the investor Bill Ackman by driving up the price of Herbalife, a stock that Ackman was betting against.) During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Icahn—who owns twenty or so companies and has investments all over the world—raised the issue of renewable-fuel credits at every opportunity, speaking of the “insane” perfidy of the E.P.A. and the plight of his refiner. “This is something that Carl does,” a former Icahn employee told me. “He becomes fixated on something, even something that represents a small part of his portfolio. He gets obsessed.” Trump’s bid for the Presidency may have seemed like a long shot, and Icahn professed to have misgivings about the “negativity” of his chosen candidate. But he believed that Trump would slash regulation and, specifically, would make the change that Icahn wanted on biofuel credits—shifting the so-called “point of obligation” so that other parties, closer in the supply chain to the gas pump, would be compelled to purchase RIN credits, instead of merchant refiners like CVR. Even if Trump was elected, there were reasons to believe that Icahn’s objective might be difficult to achieve. The ethanol industry opposed shifting the point of obligation, and was represented by experienced lobbyists. In August, 2016, Bob Dinneen, who runs a leading ethanol trade group, the Renewable Fuels Association, told the Houston Chronicle that the Renewable Fuel Standard functions basically as it should, providing incentives to refiners that blend ethanol and penalizing those which do not. Changing the regulation, Dinneen said, would simply reward “folks who haven’t done what the law said they should do.” “What do you think of the new cubicles?” The Renewable Fuel Standard had passed with support from an improbably diverse coalition: environmentalists, who wanted to curb greenhouse-gas emissions; national-security hawks, who wanted to reduce reliance on foreign oil; and farm-state lawmakers, who wanted to boost the corn industry. (Most ethanol is made from corn.) Senator Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican, opposed shifting the point of obligation. So did the American Petroleum Institute, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, because some integrated oil giants, such as BP and Shell, were now producing so much blended fuel that they were generating surplus credits, which they sold to smaller refiners like CVR. Because the petroleum industry and the ethanol industry tend to see in one another an existential threat, there are few policy issues on which they agree. The point of obligation for RIN credits is one of them. This daunting array of forces only intensified Icahn’s ire, reinforcing his sense of himself as an aggrieved outsider. In his open letter to the E.P.A., he fumed that the RIN market was “rigged,” giving Big Oil a windfall at the expense of smaller refiners such as CVR. Without a policy change, he warned, the regulation would soon bankrupt small and mid-sized refiners, creating a Big Oil “oligopoly” that would cause gas prices to skyrocket. Whatever sympathy Trump may have felt for Icahn’s predicament, he had an important interest of his own: he needed states like Iowa on his side in order to win the Presidency. At a June, 2016, rally in Cedar Rapids, he pledged his support for the Renewable Fuel Standard, and promised to save the ethanol industry, which was “under siege.” That September, however, something curious happened. The Trump campaign—which had not distinguished itself for the wonky exactitude of its white papers—issued a fact sheet on economic policy that, amid generic promises of “unbridled economic growth,” contained a surprisingly detailed bullet point about the E.P.A.’s RIN program. “These requirements have turned out to be impossible to meet and are bankrupting many of the small and midsize refineries in this country,” the passage read. “These regulations will give Big Oil an oligopoly.” This did not sound especially like Donald Trump. It did sound a lot like Carl Icahn. When the press asked whether the fact sheet signalled Trump’s intention to adjust the rule—at the risk of inflaming Corn Belt voters—a spokesman responded that an “incorrect” version of the fact sheet had been posted. The bullet point disappeared.
As an investor, Icahn likes to zig where others zag. It is not clear how much confidence he had in Trump’s prospects in 2016, or whether, on Election Night, he was as surprised as the rest of the country. But Icahn attended the impromptu victory party at the Hilton in midtown, where nobody seemed to have arranged for balloons, though a cake had been fashioned into a bust of a scowling Trump. Supporters wearing “Make America Great Again” hats celebrated, in a daze. Icahn left the party after midnight. The global markets were tanking on the news of Trump’s win, so he went home and made a billion dollars’ worth of investments. Within days of the victory, according to people familiar with the situation, Trump had enlisted Icahn to help him staff major government agencies. Icahn employees began reviewing the references and résumés of potential Cabinet appointees. It has frequently been remarked that Trump has stacked his Administration with plutocrats. Less often acknowledged is the degree to which many of these appointments bear Icahn’s fingerprints. On November 15th, Icahn tweeted, “Spoke to @realDonaldTrump. Steve Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross are being considered for Treasury and Commerce. Both would be great choices.” He added, “Both are good friends of mine but, more importantly, they are two of the smartest people I know.” Two days later, Icahn told the Fox Business Channel that he had just had dinner with Mnuchin, and had “urged Donald to consider him.” He continued, “I’m not going to be the one to announce it, but I do believe he will get the job.” On November 30th, Mnuchin did. When potential Cabinet secretaries visited Trump Tower to meet with the President-elect, they were sometimes sent for a second interview—with Icahn. On the day that Jay Clayton was announced as Trump’s choice to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, he stopped by Icahn’s office for a meeting. Appearing on CNBC in December, Icahn defended his role as a talent spotter for the Trump Administration. “Over the years, you develop instincts for picking the right C.E.O.,” he said. “Is there anything wrong with me saying, ‘This guy is the right guy for this job at this time’? It doesn’t mean Donald is going to take my advice, necessarily.” When Scott Pruitt visited Trump Tower to discuss the top job at the E.P.A., the President-elect concluded the interview by instructing him to walk two blocks uptown to meet with Icahn. Trump, according to a Bloomberg News account, told him, “He has some questions for you.” Pruitt was precisely the sort of candidate that Icahn might favor. A fierce opponent of environmental regulation, Pruitt had spent years, as the attorney general of Oklahoma, suing the agency that he was now in talks to oversee. Even so, Pruitt knew that Icahn would likely want to discuss one particular issue—RIN credits—and as Pruitt and an aide headed up Fifth Avenue they searched the Internet for information on the credits system and its impact on Icahn’s refiner. Pruitt was nominated on December 8th. The next day, Icahn said in an interview with Bloomberg News, “I’ve spoken to Scott Pruitt four or five times. I told Donald that he is somebody who will do away with many of the problems at the E.P.A.” He continued, “I do think he feels pretty strongly about the absurdity of these obligations, and I feel that this should be done immediately.” One reason that the RIN market is so unstable is that the price of the credits is extremely sensitive to developments in the news that might affect their future value. On the day that Pruitt was appointed, the price of RINs plunged—a welcome outcome for Icahn, because it would cost CVR less to purchase the credits that it needed to fulfill its regulatory obligation. On December 22nd, the day after Icahn was formally declared to be an adviser to the President, RIN prices dropped again. It was hardly lost on Wall Street that the famously single-minded investor might leverage his new role to advocate for his own investments. Barron’s asked, “Has Carl Icahn been appointed Secretary of Talking His Own Book?” The Web site Dealbreaker, noting Icahn’s lack of conflict-of-interest constraints, proposed an alternative job title: “Secretary of Do Whatever the Fuck You Want.”
All Presidents seek advice from the private sector. Sometimes they have done so informally, as when Bill Clinton made late-night phone calls to a “kitchen cabinet” of business leaders. On other occasions, an Administration has brought executives into the bureaucracy on a part-time basis, making them so-called Special Government Employees, which requires certain divestments and disclosures. Between these informal and formal models lies a third option: Presidents often establish outside advisory boards of corporate leaders; in such situations, the business leaders are not expected to give up any of their holdings, and may advocate on behalf of their industries without having to register as lobbyists. Icahn has likened his sinecure to this type of arrangement, saying, “I’m not making any policy. I am only giving my opinion.” For any executive, having access to the Oval Office can be good for business. In a new research paper, “All the President’s Friends,” the University of Illinois finance professors Jeffrey R. Brown and Jiekun Huang studied the share prices at companies whose executives visited the White House, and found that the real, or implied, influence of such encounters boosted the value of the companies in the months after such visits. Jimmy Williams, Icahn’s former lobbyist, told me, “Can Carl Icahn take his influence with the President and make deals that benefit him? Any C.E.O. who has a relationship with the President can do that, regardless of party.” Brown and Huang were able to write their paper only because the Obama White House made public its visitor logs—something that Trump has refused to do. Without such information, it is impossible to know which executives are meeting with the Trump Administration at the White House. And the kind of outside panels that Icahn considers to be similar to his role are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which mandates that their meetings must be held in public. Austan Goolsbee, who served as the chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, told me, “The Obama Administration established clear disclosure and full transparency about what advice people were giving and when they were giving it. You can be an outside adviser or a government employee. The rules are clear for each. With Icahn, they seem to be trying to invent a kind of Guantánamo Bay situation, in which you’re simultaneously both and neither.” Norm Eisen, who served as Obama’s Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, argues that Icahn is “not just an outside kibbitzer” but a formal adviser who should be subject to constraints. “He gets a title,” Eisen said. “He gets a broad policy portfolio. He’s involved in personnel decisions, in policy discussions. To me, all of that adds up to him being a Special Government Employee.” The blitheness with which Icahn and the Trump White House sidestepped the federal requirements is evidence, Eisen contends, that “this is a lawless Administration.” Immediately after Icahn’s appointment was announced, shares in Icahn Enterprises surged. Forbes estimated that his stake in the company rose in value from $6.8 billion to $7.3 billion—an increase of five hundred and ten million dollars, in a day.
In early February, Icahn contacted Bob Dinneen, the head of the Renewable Fuels Association. Icahn proposed that they meet to discuss Dinneen’s opposition to shifting the point of obligation for RINs. Dinneen took the train from Washington to New York and went to the offices of Icahn Enterprises. Icahn, as a younger man, hopped on planes to visit companies he was investing in, but now he mostly has people come to him. His offices are full of reminders, as if arranged by a set decorator, that Icahn is a conqueror: the walls are lined with oil paintings depicting famous battles, as well as framed stock certificates and other trophies from companies that he has subdued. A pair of antique duelling pistols adorn his desk. Icahn is known for his stamina and deviousness as a negotiator. Connie Bruck, in her 1988 book, “The Predators’ Ball,” describes his passion for all-night negotiation sessions, and notes that some of his interlocutors suspect that he deliberately prolongs these encounters, not just as a tactic but “because he is having such a good time.” Icahn is a serious chess player; as a young man, he considered becoming a chess master but decided not to, because there was no money in it. He paid his way through Princeton, in part, with poker earnings, and he has played the game with Leon Black, the founder of Apollo Global Management; Sam Waksal, the ImClone founder, who went to prison for insider trading; and the onetime junk-bond king Michael Milken, who has also done time for white-collar crime. “Waksal, Milken, Ivan Boesky,” the former Icahn employee said. “Carl has never got into trouble. But he’s played with everyone who did.” In his business dealings, Icahn is a master of the bluff. “Carl views the legal norms as a starting point for a negotiation, rather than a moral compass,” a financier who has faced off against him told me. “He’s not afraid to cross the line if he thinks he’s on firm ground. ‘Perhaps the law says that this is wrong. But I know better, and I am willing to sue or be sued.’ It’s a rare breed of person who will do that. Carl lives in that breach.” On February 27th, the news leaked that Dinneen and Icahn had struck a deal: the Renewable Fuels Association would end its long-held opposition to changing the point of obligation, and side with Icahn in his push to shift the obligation away from refiners like CVR. This was a surprising development. There had been no ambiguity about Dinneen’s position, and earlier that month the Renewable Fuels Association had made a submission to the E.P.A. objecting to such a change. What was behind this abrupt reversal? Some speculated that Dinneen had been influenced by Valero, a refiner whose biofuels subsidiary had recently joined his association, and which had sent a representative to join Dinneen at his meeting with Icahn. Like CVR, Valero had not sufficiently invested in blending infrastructure and was spending huge sums on RIN credits. But, after reporters hounded Dinneen, he offered a different explanation: in a statement, he explained that he had “received a call from an official with the Trump Administration, informing us that a pending executive order would change the point of obligation.” In other words, the policy was going to change by Presidential fiat, whether the industry liked it or not. “I was told in no uncertain terms that the point of obligation was going to be moved,” Dinneen said. The executive order would be “non-negotiable.” Confronted with this fait accompli, Dinneen apparently felt that his only option was to secure whatever concessions he could for his industry. One long-standing priority for Dinneen and other biofuel advocates has been to change laws so that gas blends containing fifteen per cent ethanol can be sold year-round. (Such blends cannot legally be sold during the summer, the peak driving season; Dinneen contends that the prohibition, meant to alleviate smog, is outdated.) So Dinneen pressed for that adjustment, in exchange for his acquiescence on the point of obligation. Many ethanol-industry watchers I spoke with were flabbergasted by this turn of events. When I called Dinneen, he told me that the only Trump Administration official he had been speaking with was Icahn. “I’m old-school,” Dinneen said. “If I get a call from a special adviser to the President, I’m going to take it.” Dinneen explained that although Icahn never said explicitly that he was speaking on behalf of the President, he did say that he had discussed the point of obligation with Trump, and that he was confident that a change in policy was coming soon. Normally, Dinneen pointed out, any negotiation between the government and private industry would take place with “an army of people” assembled on opposite sides of a conference table: a phalanx of lawyers, technical specialists, and other advisers. This was different. Then again, he noted, with a dry chuckle, “This whole town is different now.” Now he was cutting deals, mano a mano, with Icahn: a friend of Trump, the owner of a refiner, and a special adviser to the President. If this was the new reality, Dinneen figured, he needed to find a way to work with it. To do otherwise would be malpractice, he said, adding, “Icahn had a title I couldn’t ignore.” Dinneen insisted to me that he and Icahn never struck a conclusive deal; they simply came to an agreement that he would propose to his board that the association end its opposition to shifting the point of obligation. But, after a phone call with Dinneen on February 23rd, Icahn spoke with the President and relayed the substance of this agreement. Icahn, who had been out walking his dog, talked to Trump from the lobby of his apartment building. Bloomberg News later reported that, according to Icahn, “Trump seemed receptive.” Trump instructed Icahn to telephone Gary Cohn, his senior adviser on economic issues. Cohn handed the matter to an aide on the National Economic Council, a former oil lobbyist named Mike Catanzaro, who spent an hour going through the details with Icahn. When, four days later, Bloomberg News broke the story that an executive order was imminent, corn and gasoline prices went berserk. It was not hard to believe that the Trump White House had shifted policy at the behest of an industry crony. The Administration had devoted itself, in its early days, to dismantling the regulatory state, in close consultation with business interests. The White House established deregulation teams at various federal agencies. Administration officials have refused to disclose the names of team members, but reporting by ProPublica and the Times suggests that many of them have come from the regulated industries themselves. “You’re allowed to keep collecting the teeth, but we’re going to call you a fairy to make it sound less terrifying.” Efforts at health-care reform, an infrastructure bill, and tax cuts have all stalled, stymied by the infighting, indiscipline, and incompetence of the Trump Administration. But deregulation has been a quiet success, and nowhere more so than at the E.P.A. Pruitt has not made it a habit to meet with senior career officers at the agency; he does, however, meet regularly, behind closed doors, with industry executives. Some observers fear that the E.P.A. is now run like a Senate office, where representatives meet with constituents and do constituent services—except that the constituent is industry. For example, under the Obama Administration the E.P.A. moved to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide manufactured by Dow Chemical, after agency scientists found that it caused neurodevelopmental damage in children. Dow lobbied against the ban, and Pruitt recently tabled it, citing “uncertainty” about the scientific evidence that it is hazardous to kids. Icahn could scarcely have asked for a more business-friendly figure at the E.P.A. But, when news leaked about a policy shift on the point of obligation, the ethanol industry protested. Jeff Broin, the C.E.O. of Poet, a large ethanol producer, complained, “This was a back-room ‘deal’ made by people who want out of their obligations.” One group, Fuels America, declared that Dinneen’s Renewable Fuels Association was “no longer aligned with America’s biofuel industry,” and severed ties with it. Emily Skor, who runs Growth Energy, another trade group, objected that Dinneen had been negotiating without consulting other stakeholders in the ethanol industry. “This is no deal for anyone but Carl Icahn,” she said. Senator Joni Ernst, of Iowa, also derided the deal, pointing out that it would benefit only a “select few.”
On February 28th, Kelly Love, a spokeswoman for the White House, denied that there was any plan to shift the point of obligation, telling Reuters, “There is no ethanol executive order in the works.” In an interview with Bloomberg, Stefan Passantino, the White House lawyer in charge of ethics and compliance, questioned any characterization of Icahn as a government official, saying, “He is simply a private citizen whose opinion the President respects and whom the President speaks with from time to time.” In subsequent conversations with industry representatives, Pruitt distanced himself from Icahn’s efforts. Two people who spoke with Pruitt in the aftermath of the news reports about the executive order told me that he had assured them, “I was not consulted on this.” Brooke Coleman, the executive director of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council, pointed out to me that these events unfolded just a month into the Trump Administration. Many staffers had not arrived yet, and there was no real policymaking apparatus. The point-of-obligation rule was a relatively obscure agenda item, a top priority for almost nobody but Icahn. “This was a middle-of-the-night quick strike,” Coleman said. “In the middle of the night, Icahn said, ‘Sign this.’ But it didn’t work. He got caught.” Those were heady times for executive orders, with the President seeming to sign a new one each day. But several people told me that the point-of-obligation change could not have been made simply by executive prerogative. “It’s a regulation,” Janet McCabe said. “So the regulation would have to be changed, and there is a whole process for that.” In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act established a protocol for rule-making that involves interagency coördination and input from interested parties. “Icahn was always talking about an ‘executive order’—that was his vernacular,” Dinneen recalled. An official in the Trump Administration told me that reports about an impending executive order were “not true,” because “there was no organic executive-order process that would be normal for something like that.” There was a draft executive order, the official acknowledged, but it did not originate in the White House: “It was something Icahn sent to us.” “Icahn is very sophisticated,” Brooke Coleman said. “But maybe not about Washington.” Senator Chuck Grassley not only represents corn growers; he also chairs the Judiciary Committee, which helps confirm Trump’s appointments of judges. This is the reason that traditional policy negotiations are so overcrowded. Washington is a city of vying constituencies, many of which happen to be very powerful. Coleman believes that “someone probably walked into Trump’s office and said, ‘Here’s why you need Chuck Grassley more than you need Carl Icahn.’ ” Did Icahn think that he could bluff his way to a change in federal regulation? One thing is clear: whatever the White House might say, Dinneen believed that Icahn was negotiating on behalf of the Trump Administration. Icahn has boasted to associates in New York about his access to the President. On March 1st, in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Icahn Enterprises made a point of mentioning that “Mr. Icahn is currently serving as a special advisor to President Donald J. Trump on issues relating to regulatory reform.” Such a disclosure could indicate merely that Icahn is being transparent with his shareholders. But it is also, unequivocally, a signal: I have the ear of the President. Richard Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, told me that it was irrelevant whether or not Icahn received a salary or had an office in the West Wing. “When you give someone a title, you make him your agent,” Painter said. He pointed out that Icahn’s title stood out amid the arid nomenclature of official Washington, where “special advisers” proliferate but only a chosen few can append the words “to the President.” “With a title like that, he has the authority to represent the President’s views. If he goes out and says ‘The President thinks this,’ that means something.” If Icahn’s objective was to shift the point of obligation, his bluff failed. This would appear to be an instance in which the same lattice of vested interests that can cause dysfunction in Washington actually led to a proper result; it prevented a hasty change in policy that was designed primarily to assist one person. “The process worked, at the end of the day,” the Trump Administration official told me. “We made the right decision.” Mark Stevens, Icahn’s biographer, recalled, “Carl once told me, ‘I don’t believe in the word fair. It’s a human concept that became conventional wisdom.’ ” To Icahn, it may have seemed that the roadblocks he faced were not a sign of a sound bureaucracy but, rather, evidence of a power play by more formidable special interests, in the form of the ethanol lobby and Big Oil. But Icahn’s first foray as a Presidential adviser was by no means a complete failure. Icahn had spent the second half of 2016 complaining bitterly about CVR’s obligation to buy RINs. But, when CVR released an earnings report in April, 2017, it emerged that the company had actually been selling them. Reuters subsequently reported that, when the price of RINs was high, CVR sold millions of the credits. The company would eventually need to turn over its quota of credits to the E.P.A., yet in the months before its annual deadline it was quietly selling them off. This was extremely unusual. “To my knowledge, this is the first time you had someone taking a short position in the RIN market,” Tristan Brown, the SUNY professor, told me. To short a stock or a commodity is to make a bet that the price will drop. And in this instance it was extremely risky: if the deadline arrives and a refiner does not have the required quota of credits, the E.P.A. can enforce fines of $37,500 a day for each RIN owed until the refiner complies—a figure that would climb into the billions of dollars immediately. “You’re essentially gambling,” Brown said. “And, if you’re wrong, the penalty is pretty much unlimited.” This was, Brown said, not the sort of speculative play one might anticipate from a mid-sized refiner like CVR. Rather, it was the kind of gamble that a bold Wall Street investor might make. In the near term, at least, Icahn’s bet paid off. As soon as the news broke that an executive order on the point of obligation was imminent—and that Icahn and Dinneen had reached a deal—prices of RINs plummeted. Jim Stock, a professor at Harvard who studies the energy sector, pointed out that “if an individual has influence over expectations in this market, he can end up moving prices.” When RIN prices dropped, it afforded CVR an opportunity to cover its short, buying back the RINs it needed to meet its regulatory obligation at a steep discount. “Hey—you can actually hear the ocean better if you put the shell down.” Because CVR will not comment on the trades, it is impossible to know how many credits were bought during this period. Normally, the refiner posted a loss for the sum that it spent on RINs each quarter, and those losses had lately amounted to as much as sixty million dollars. But, on a shareholder call in April, a CVR representative said that in the first quarter of the Trump Administration the company had experienced a “negative” loss of six million dollars—that is, a profit. Tristan Brown told me that the notion of a profit resulting from compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard was unheard of for a merchant refiner like CVR. When I asked a longtime RIN trader about this gambit, he said, “Either Icahn was extremely lucky or he knew something that other people didn’t.”
“So, what are you doing?” Icahn asked me when I called him for this story. For all his brusque qualities, Icahn is an engaging interlocutor, his voice a raspy staccato, his accent a time capsule of old New York. In the course of three phone calls, we spoke for nearly four hours. Icahn has given hundreds of interviews over the decades. He is a great raconteur. But, on the subject of his role as an adviser to Trump and his effort to change the E.P.A. regulation, he preferred to talk almost entirely off the record. A lawyer joined him for each call. Icahn insisted to me that he does not oppose all regulation, and feels, for example, that “some Wall Street regulation is necessary.” Notwithstanding the title that Trump had conferred on him, Icahn described his advisory role as “unofficial,” and said, “I have only ever made suggestions that I believed would benefit all companies in particular industries, never any one particular company.” Beyond that, he would say little on the record. Icahn was less guarded when his appointment originally generated controversy. “I own a refinery,” he told Bloomberg News, in March. “Why shouldn’t I advocate?” He later added, “I have a right to talk to the President like any other citizen. . . . And, yeah, it helps me. I’m not apologizing for that.” With me, he was more calibrated, insisting that his role has been overstated, and that he has spoken to Trump only “a handful” of times since the election. Confronted with Dinneen’s account of their interactions, Icahn deferred to his lawyer, Jesse Lynn, who disputed several points. Although Dinneen was adamant that Icahn had assured him an executive order was in the works, and had spoken of discussing the matter with Trump, Lynn told me that Icahn had merely expressed “hope” that Trump would come around to his view. Lynn also denied the White House’s account, maintaining that the draft executive order was not prepared by Icahn. I spoke to someone who has seen the draft executive order, and he told me that it looked conspicuously like something that had been prepared by someone with no experience in Washington: “It was like ‘I, the President, instruct Scott Pruitt to move the point of obligation.’ It was almost amateurish. Any policy person or lawyer would understand that this thing was never going to fly.” Several sources in Washington who have discussed the matter with Mike Catanzaro, the Trump Administration official who dealt with Icahn, told me that, once he and Gary Cohn had concluded that Icahn was attempting to hijack the policy process, they put a stop to it. One of the sources said, “I think Icahn thought if he told his pal Don, ‘This is a bad thing,’ and explained why it was stupid, Don would say, ‘God damn it, Carl, you’re right!’—and then the law would change. That’s not how it works down here. We have this thing called the Administrative Procedure Act.” Another source said, “Mike had to make clear that the government is not a vending machine—that it’s not here to profit the President’s friends.” He added, “Not everybody in this Administration necessarily sees it that way.” Icahn would not acknowledge having directed CVR to short RINs. Jesse Lynn said that CVR’s strategies on RINs are decided by its board of directors. (He did not mention that the chairman of the board is Icahn.) On the question of whether Icahn had exploited his proximity to the President to make bets in the marketplace, Lynn said, “Any suggestion that we had access to information that others didn’t is unequivocally false.” Neither Icahn nor Lynn would comment further on the trading of RINs, but Icahn told me, “I have a decades-long, impeccable record of creating literally hundreds of billions of dollars of value for shareholders. I’ve lived through many turbulent times but I’ve never had any problems with the government.” He added that he has “a great respect for the law,” and that he and his associates “cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ in our activities.” These assurances notwithstanding, Icahn could be in legal jeopardy. “He’s walking right into possible criminal charges,” Richard Painter, the Bush Administration ethics lawyer, said. He cited a federal statute that makes it illegal for executive-branch employees to work on any matter in which they may have a direct financial interest. The President and the Vice-President are exempted from this statute. Unpaid White House advisers are not. Painter suggested that the public-integrity division of the Justice Department should be investigating. “If I were Icahn’s private lawyer, I would tell him that he shouldn’t have accepted the special-adviser title,” he said. Jesse Lynn told me that he has reviewed the relevant law, and that it does not apply to Icahn: “Unlike a government employee, Mr. Icahn has no official role or duties and he is not in a position to set policy.” Painter disagrees. “That is clearly an official title,” he said. “If he was advising on a matter where he had an interest, then Icahn was in direct violation of the criminal statute.” The Trump Justice Department may be unlikely to initiate an investigation. But Eliot Spitzer, the former prosecutor and New York governor, told me that Icahn’s activities in Washington should also draw scrutiny in New York. “At a minimum, it looks improper,” he said. “If I were sitting downtown at 120 Broadway, where I used to be the state attorney general, and somebody presented this fact pattern to me, I would say, ‘Let’s take a hard look at this.’ Giving policy advice as a formal government adviser while at the same time trading on the potential impact of that advice violates our notions of transparency in government work. It seems problematic on its face.” In March, Icahn published an article in The Hill, defending himself against any suggestion that, as a private citizen lobbying the Administration on behalf of his own business interests, he might be expected to register as a lobbyist. “I have vetted my activities with a number of lawyers and it is clear that no registration is required,” he wrote. He argued that it was not merely refiners like CVR that were suffering under the current point of obligation; so were mom-and-pop gas stations, many of which were “minority owned.” Icahn argued, with a straight face, that he was actually fighting this battle on behalf of minority communities. The investor who has negotiated with Icahn told me, “Carl confuses the personal good and the social good in a very profound way.” Following the reports that Icahn was negotiating with Dinneen and urging Trump to shift the point of obligation, Icahn acknowledged, in March, that he had not been buying RINs. Jesse Lynn insisted that there was “nothing unusual or inappropriate about any RINs trading that may have been conducted.” Icahn had no ability to influence policy at the White House, Lynn insisted. All that his title and his relationship with the President afforded was “an opportunity to express his views.”
One recurring feature of the Trump Presidency has been an acute collective sensation, shared by a substantial portion of the electorate, of helpless witness. Dismayed Americans wait, like spectators at a game that has turned suddenly dangerous, for a referee to step in and cry foul. But one reason that Trumpism is so transfixing to watch is that it is about the upending of norms, the defiance of taboos, the destabilization of institutions. School’s out forever. What this means in practice is a serious deficit of accountability. Whom can you call when the authorities are the ones breaking the rules? “Of course I drink during the day—I’m way too tired to drink at night.” Since Icahn’s appointment, Senators Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, along with several of their Democratic colleagues, have written a string of letters to the White House and to various agencies to protest the nature of Icahn’s role, and to seek clarity on the question of what he has actually been doing. Whitehouse told me that, because of the “definitional murk” surrounding Icahn’s appointment, it is important to answer a series of baseline questions. How often has he consulted with Trump or others at the White House? Has his position provided access to confidential government information that might affect his investments? How broad an array of regulations has Icahn offered advice on, and how have his recommendations dovetailed with his own portfolio? I asked several people who know Icahn whether he even has policy interests beyond his own investments. They noted Icahn’s commitment to education—he has built eight charter schools in the Bronx—but struggled to offer other examples. Someone who used to work for Icahn told me, “Carl has zero interest in the details of regulation. He has a general feeling that he doesn’t want regulations to affect him, but it’s not like he’s going to be consulting the Federal Register and making policy recommendations. It’s ludicrous.” When a Bloomberg reporter pressed Icahn about sectors beyond oil refining where he felt that regulation was excessive, he spoke of railcars and liquid natural gas—two heavily regulated industries in which Icahn has extensive holdings. In May, after the revelations about the RIN trading by CVR, the senators wrote to the heads of the S.E.C., the E.P.A., and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, calling on them to investigate. But it could not have escaped the senators’ attention that two recipients of their letter—Jay Clayton and Scott Pruitt—had met with Icahn in the context of securing their jobs. The Senate Democrats cannot issue subpoenas to agencies unless they get the Republican majority to sign on—an unlikely outcome. In May, the C.F.T.C. replied to the senators’ letter: the agency would not be investigating Icahn or CVR, because RINs, even though they are commodities, do not trade on a futures market, and the agency therefore had no jurisdiction to look into the matter. By this logic, the fifteen-billion-dollar market for renewable-fuel credits is not regulated by any government agency. In the absence of disclosures about what Icahn has and has not advised on, any investment that he makes in a regulated industry can come to seem suspicious. In February, he acquired a stake in the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb. During Jay Clayton’s confirmation hearings, Elizabeth Warren noted that Icahn had made this move after assuming his role as a special adviser to the President. The value of a company like Bristol-Myers would be affected by Food and Drug Administration decisions, patent determinations, and policies that affect Medicare and Medicaid, she pointed out. It is almost impossible to imagine, she argued, that Icahn did not “have some inside information about how these policies would affect a company like Bristol-Myers.” Warren posed a hypothetical to Clayton: If Icahn had inside information about federal regulatory policy that would affect Bristol-Myers, and he chose to buy shares in the company based on that information, would that not be a violation of securities laws? Clayton demurred, saying that it would depend on an analysis of the “facts and circumstances.” “We are talking about an Administration that just has conflicts everywhere,” Warren pressed. “It is very difficult to determine whether someone is actually working in the interests of the American people or they are just lining their own pockets.” The public should not be forced to “guess” whether its government is serving its interests or that of the President’s cronies, she continued. “And when Carl Icahn is influencing policy that will affect companies and then he is investing in those companies . . . that creates a conflict of interest that is just beyond what we are even talking about everywhere else.” In his conversation with me, Icahn expressed indignation about the effort to hold him accountable, which he has described, in conspicuously Trumpian language, as “fake news” and “a witch hunt.” He told me that any criticism of his role is “both politically motivated and motivated by certain large business interests,” and is “completely without merit.” When I asked Icahn about the nature of his special-adviser role, he maintained that what had initially appeared to be a broad policy portfolio was, in practice, much more limited. “The only suggestions I have ever made throughout this whole period were on the RINs issue,” he said. No railcars? No liquid natural gas? Icahn says that he has not had a single conversation with anyone in the Administration about regulations in these industries, or in any others in which he has holdings. He acknowledges advocating on the RINs issue. But he maintains that this was not problematic, because, though the refiner he owns might benefit from a shift in the point of obligation, it would not be the only company that would welcome such a change. In Icahn’s telling, this makes him practically disinterested. The White House official who would, in theory, police Icahn’s status is Stefan Passantino, the deputy counsel to the President for compliance and ethics. Passantino was responsible for “counselling” Kellyanne Conway, the Presidential adviser, after she sparked an outcry by promoting Ivanka Trump’s apparel line during a Fox News interview. In the view of Trump Administration officials, Passantino laid to rest the Icahn controversy with his February declaration that Icahn was “simply a private citizen.” Kelly Love, the White House spokeswoman, said, “Mr. Icahn does not have a position with the Administration, nor a policymaking role.” It is ironic for Passantino to rule on the controversy surrounding Icahn’s conflicts of interest—because Passantino has a conflict of his own. On June 28th, Walter Shaub, the head of the Office of Government Ethics, wrote a letter pointing out that Passantino, in his mandatory disclosures as a full-time White House employee, noted that before joining the Administration he had been a corporate lawyer. He listed the clients for whom he had done work in the two years prior to joining the government. One of them was Icahn. At the time that Passantino was initially queried about the propriety of Icahn’s position, he made no mention of this relationship. Two weeks after Shaub sent his letter, he resigned, saying that he could no longer meaningfully perform the function for which the Office of Government Ethics was designed. Shaub warned that the United States was facing a “historic ethics crisis.” The White House released a statement lashing out at Shaub, dismissing his concerns as “grandstanding.” For all of President Trump’s fulminations about the danger of leaks, his White House has a bizarre habit of authorizing spokespeople to talk with the press on the condition that their names not be mentioned. When I asked the White House for an interview with Passantino, to discuss how he had vetted Icahn’s position, a spokeswoman replied that Passantino had been “recused on any matters related to Carl Icahn,” because Icahn was a former client. This was the first I had heard of any recusal, and I asked when it had happened. On the first day of the Administration, the spokeswoman replied. If the White House spokeswoman was correct, then at the time that Passantino issued the Administration’s judgment that Icahn’s role posed no ethical conflicts he was already recused from offering legal advice on precisely that question. “That’s not how recusal works,” Shaub told me. “Recusing yourself means not delivering the White House’s legal theories about whether Icahn is an employee.” The spokeswoman maintained that, when Passantino made his declaration, he wasn’t making a legal judgment, but “merely reiterating a fact.” Richard Painter, who used to hold Passantino’s job, told me that the White House’s repeated assertion that Icahn is simply a private citizen is “bogus,” adding, “The ethics shop in this White House is not very good.” If Passantino never weighed in on the terms of Icahn’s unusual appointment, surely some other White House lawyer looked into the matter. I asked who that was. The spokeswoman responded that it “wasn’t necessary” to perform any such legal vetting of Icahn’s role. “That’s just a bush that happens to be on fire—I’m over here.”
For the moment, Icahn’s push on the point of obligation appears to have stalled. But, in July, CVR announced its most recent quarterly results, and once again the firm was spending a great deal of money to purchase RINs. On a call with investors, CVR’s chief executive, John Lipinski, cited the volatility of RIN prices. “When there’s news in the market, it goes up and it goes down,” he said. Lipinski complained, several times, about speculators who were “manipulating” the price of the credits. When he was asked about CVR’s own speculative trading of RINs, he said that he didn’t “intend to go into any detail” on such questions. RIN prices, which hit a low of thirty cents following the news of Icahn’s deal with Dinneen, have since tripled. In the coming weeks, the E.P.A. is expected to issue a formal rejection of proposals to shift the point of obligation. According to Reuters, some investors on Wall Street are now betting against Icahn—by shorting CVR stock. Dinneen, for one, does not anticipate that Icahn will simply let the issue go. “He doesn’t seem like a man who will quit easily,” he said. Jeff Hauser, who runs the Revolving Door Project, a nonprofit focussed on government corruption, told me that Icahn’s relationship with Trump is a particularly bald example of a kind of clientalist politics that has been more typical, historically, of banana republics, but which is on the rise in the United States. “Once there is an acquiescence that this sort of corruption is acceptable, then you just see the demise of representative government,” Hauser said. “We will essentially become a feudal state, with people creating their own fiefdoms and extracting rents from the public.” On August 14th, I asked the White House to confirm that Icahn was still a special adviser to the President. The spokeswoman e-mailed me back: “Icahn is NOT ‘a special adviser to the president for regulatory reform.’ ” This was certainly news. In my conversations with Icahn and his lawyer, I had not developed any impression that his status had changed. Was the Administration cutting him loose? I wrote back to the spokeswoman, asking when Icahn had been let go. She replied, “There was no ‘effective’ end date, because there was never a formal appointment or title after January 20.” This was transparently false; Icahn had been named a special adviser to “the President,” not to “the President-elect.” On March 1st, Icahn’s company told the S.E.C. that he was “currently” a Trump adviser. And why had the White House lawyer, Stefan Passantino, recused himself on January 20th from “any matters related to Carl Icahn” if, as of that very day, Icahn had no role in the Administration? Instead of simply breaking off a questionable liaison, the White House seems intent on going further, insisting that the liaison never happened in the first place. But, in the event that state or federal investigators do examine the legality of Icahn’s role in the early days of the Trump Administration, this heedless revisionism is unlikely to withstand scrutiny. After all, if Icahn had really been dismissed on the first day of the Administration, it might have behooved the White House to tell Bob Dinneen, or the senators who wrote all those letters. Or Icahn. On Friday, August 18th, four days after the White House disavowed Icahn to me, he tweeted, “Today, with President Trump’s blessing, I ceased to act as special advisor to the President on issues relating to regulatory reform.” In a letter posted to his Web site, Icahn explained that he had spoken with Trump that day. His resignation came during a week when numerous private-sector advisers distanced themselves from Trump, in response to his equivocal comments in the aftermath of a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. But Icahn made no mention of these events, claiming instead, “I chose to end this arrangement,” and citing “the insinuations of a handful of your Democratic critics.” He insisted, “I never had access to nonpublic information or profited from my position, nor do I believe that my role presented conflicts of interests.” In our conversations, Icahn was unfailingly polite about President Trump. But it struck me that it must vex him that Trump—the lesser intellect, the lesser businessman, the little-brother tagalong—may now be too busy to take his phone calls, and would jettison him from his position as a White House special adviser without so much as a heads-up. If Icahn’s raid on Washington has proved unsuccessful, he cannot blame the scrupulousness of the Trump Administration. The aging takeover artist may have flown a little too close to the sun in his pursuit of a particular political objective, but his failure was itself an illustration of the power of transactional politics in Washington. Trump may want to govern like a businessman. But Washington is a club like any other, with some codes and protocols that even the brashest arrivistes cannot ignore. Trump needed the farmers of Iowa to win the Presidency, and he would need them to win it again. To a businessman like Icahn, it may have seemed that, in the pay-for-play politics of Washington, everything has a price. But reëlection is priceless. ||||| This article is over 8 months old
Carl Icahn sold $31.3m of shares in a company dependent on steel imports days before the commerce department mooted stiff tariffs on imports
Carl Icahn, a former special adviser to Donald Trump, sold $31.3m of shares in a company heavily dependent on steel imports last week, shortly before Trump’s announcement of new tariffs sent its shares plummeting.
Icahn, a billionaire investor who was a major Trump supporter, started selling shares in the crane and lifting equipment supplier Manitowoc Company on 12 February, days before the commerce department first mooted plans to impose stiff tariffs on foreign steel imports.
The news was first reported by Think Progress.
On Thursday Trump said he would press ahead with the commerce department’s plans to levy 25% tariffs on imports of steel and 10% on aluminium.
According to a regulatory filing Icahn was able to sell his shares for $32 to $34. On Friday morning Manitowoc’s shares had fallen 5.48% to $26.37. The fall was in line with drops seen by other companies dependent on cheap steel imports, including Boeing and Caterpillar.
Trump has argued that the tariffs are necessary to protect US jobs. “We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Steel and aluminum tariffs trigger sharp stock market sell-off in US and Asia Read more
The announcement has rattled stock markets around the world and stoked fears of a trade war with both the EU and China saying they are considering retaliation if the tariffs become law.
Icahn, who has a fortune of $16.9bn according to Forbes, sold 1m shares in Manitowoc, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The value of the shares he sold has since dropped by around $6m.
The investor was a special adviser to Trump during the election but resigned his position amid concerns about potential conflicts of interest relating to his vast business holdings.
Icahn was not immediately available for comment. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Billionaire investor and longtime Trump confidant Carl Icahn dumped $31.3 million of stock in a company heavily dependent on steel last week, just days before Trump announced plans to impose steep tariffs on steel imports.
In a little-noticed SEC filing submitted on February 22, 2018, Icahn disclosed that he systematically sold off nearly 1 million shares of Manitowoc Company Inc. Manitowoc is a “is a leading global manufacturer of cranes and lifting solutions” and, therefore, heavily dependent on steel to make its products.
The filing came just seven days before a White House event where Trump announced his intention to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports.
Trump’s announcement rattled the markets, with steel-dependent stocks hardest hit. Manitowoc stock plunged, losing about 6 percent of its value. Reuters attributed the drop to the fact that Manitowoc is a “major consumer of steel.” As of 10:20 a.m. Friday, the stock had lost an additional 6 percent, trading at $26.21.
Advertisement
Icahn was required to make the disclosure because of the large volume of his sale. The filing reveals that he began systematically selling the stock on February 12, when he was able to sell the stock for $32 to $34.
SEC.GOV
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross publicly released a report on February 16 calling for a 24 percent tariff. But, as the chart in the SEC filing indicates, Icahn started selling his Manitowoc stock on February 12, prior to the public release of that report. Moreover, the sharp drop in steel-related stocks did not occur until Trump announced he would accept the Commerce Department’s recommendations.
Before February, Icahn was not actively trading Manitowoc stock. According to regulatory filings, he did not buy or sell any shares of Manitowoc between January 17, 2015 and February 11, 2018. The February 22 filing was required because his ownership stake dropped below 5 percent. Now that he owns less than 5 percent of the company, he is not required to make another disclosure about his holdings until May. So while the latest filing shows him still retaining some stock in Manitowoc, Icahn could have continued selling the stock. If Manitowoc is not listed on the eventual May filing — called a Schedule 13F — that would mean he has liquidated all his holdings.
Icahn, a billionaire investor with far-flung holdings, is a close associate of Trump — who invoked Icahn’s name repeatedly on the campaign trail. Once in office, Trump installed Icahn as a “special adviser,” although Icahn did not unwind his business entanglements before accepting the position.
Icahn resigned in August, in advance of a New Yorker article which detailed how he used his position in the White House and his connection to Trump to protect his investments:
One day in August, 2016, the financier Carl Icahn made an urgent phone call to the Environmental Protection Agency. Icahn is one of the richest men on Wall Street, and he has thrived, in no small measure, because of a capacity to intimidate. A Texas-based oil refiner in which he had a major stake was losing money because of an obscure environmental rule that Icahn regarded as unduly onerous. Icahn is a voluble critic of any government regulation that constrains his companies. So he wanted to speak with the person in charge of enforcing the policy: a senior official at the E.P.A. named Janet McCabe.
In his resignation letter, Icahn acknowledged discussing regulation of the refining industry with Trump, although he denied seeking to benefit any of his specific holdings. Icahn claimed that, despite being named an adviser, he “had no duties whatsoever.”
Advertisement
In an interview on CNBC on Thursday, Icahn appeared to acknowledge at least occasional ongoing conversations with Trump, saying the two had not had “much” interaction in the last four to five months.
The White House and a representative for Icahn did not immediately respond to request for comment.
This story has been updated with more information from regulatory filings. ||||| SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 13D
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. 4)*
The Manitowoc Company, Inc.
(Name of Issuer)
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value
(Title of Class of Securities)
563571405
(CUSIP Number)
Andrew Langham, Esq.
General Counsel
Icahn Capital LP
767 Fifth Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, New York 10153
(212) 702-4300
(Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person Authorized to
Receive Notices and Communications)
February 21, 2018
(Date of Event which Requires Filing of this Statement)
If the filing person has previously filed a statement on Schedule 13G to report the acquisition that is the subject of this Schedule 13D, and is filing this schedule because of Section 240.13d-1(e), 240.13d-1(f) or 240.13d-1(g), check the following box / /.
NOTE: Schedules filed in paper format shall include a signed original and five copies of the schedule, including all exhibits. See Rule 13d‑7 for other parties to whom copies are to be sent.
*The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting person's initial filing on this form with respect to the subject class of securities, and for any subsequent amendment containing information which would alter disclosures provided in a prior cover page.
The information required on the remainder of this cover page shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act but shall be subject to all other provisions of the Act (however, see the Notes).
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
High River Limited Partnership
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
WC
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
341,254
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
0
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
341,254
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
341,254
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
0.97%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
2
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Hopper Investments LLC
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
341,254
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
341,254
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
341,254
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
0.97%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
OO
3
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Barberry Corp.
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
341,254
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
341,254
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
341,254
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
0.97%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
CO
4
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Partners Master Fund LP
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
WC
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
555,347
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
0
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
555,347
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
555,347
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
1.58%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
5
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Offshore LP
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
555,347
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
555,347
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
555,347
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
1.58%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
6
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Partners LP
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
WC
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
809,675
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
0
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
809,675
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
809,675
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
2.30%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
7
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Onshore LP
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
809,675
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
809,675
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
809,675
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
2.30%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
8
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Capital LP
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
1,365,022
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,365,022
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
1,365,022
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
3.88%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
9
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
IPH GP LLC
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
1,365,022
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,365,022
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
1,365,022
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
3.88%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
OO
10
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P.
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
1,365,022
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,365,022
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
1,365,022
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
3.88%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
PN
11
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc.
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
1,365,022
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,365,022
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
1,365,022
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
3.88%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
CO
12
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Beckton Corp.
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Delaware
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
1,365,022
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,365,022
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
1,365,022
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
3.88%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
CO
13
SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 563571405
1 NAME OF REPORTING PERSON
Carl C. Icahn
2 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
(a) / /
(b) / /
3 SEC USE ONLY
4 SOURCE OF FUNDS
OO
5 CHECK BOX IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)/ /
6 CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
United States of America
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
7 SOLE VOTING POWER
0
8 SHARED VOTING POWER
1,706,276
9 SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0
10 SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
1,706,276
11 AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
1,706,276
12 CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES/ /
13 PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
4.85%
14 TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IN
14
SCHEDULE 13D
Item 1. Security and Issuer
This statement constitutes Amendment No. 4 to the Schedule 13D relating to the shares of common stock, $.01 par value ("Shares"), issued by The Manitowoc Company, Inc. (the "Issuer"), and hereby amends the Schedule 13D filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2014, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Schedule 13D, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2015, Amendment No. 2 to the Schedule 13D, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2015, and Amendment No. 3 to the Schedule 13D, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2016, to furnish the additional information set forth herein. All capitalized terms contained herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Schedule 13D.
Item 5. Interest in Securities of the Issuer
Item 5 of the Initial Schedule 13D is hereby amended by replacing it in its entirety with the following:
(a) The Reporting Persons may be deemed to beneficially own, in the aggregate, 1,706,276 Shares, representing approximately 4.85% of the Issuer's outstanding Shares (based upon 140,734,391 Shares stated to be outstanding as of September 30, 2017 by the Issuer in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2017, as adjusted for the 1-for-4 reverse stock split that occurred on November 20, 2017).
(b) High River has sole voting power and sole dispositive power with regard to 341,254 Shares. Each of Hopper, Barberry and Mr. Icahn has shared voting power and shared dispositive power with regard to such Shares. Icahn Master has sole voting power and sole dispositive power with regard to 555,347 Shares. Each of Icahn Offshore, Icahn Capital, IPH, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Icahn Enterprises GP, Beckton and Mr. Icahn has shared voting power and shared dispositive power with regard to such Shares. Icahn Partners has sole voting power and sole dispositive power with regard to 809,675 Shares. Each of Icahn Onshore, Icahn Capital, IPH, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Icahn Enterprises GP, Beckton and Mr. Icahn has shared voting power and shared dispositive power with regard to such Shares.
Each of Hopper, Barberry and Mr. Icahn, by virtue of their relationships to High River (as disclosed in Item 2), may be deemed to indirectly beneficially own (as that term is defined in Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the "Act") the Shares which High River directly beneficially owns. Each of Hopper, Barberry and Mr. Icahn disclaims beneficial ownership of such Shares for all other purposes. Each of Icahn Offshore, Icahn Capital, IPH, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Icahn Enterprises GP, Beckton and Mr. Icahn, by virtue of their relationships to Icahn Master (as disclosed in Item 2), may be deemed to indirectly beneficially own (as that term is defined in Rule 13d-3 under the Act) the Shares which Icahn Master directly beneficially owns. Each of Icahn Offshore, Icahn Capital, IPH, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Icahn Enterprises GP, Beckton and Mr. Icahn disclaims beneficial ownership of such Shares for all other purposes. Each of Icahn Onshore, Icahn Capital, IPH, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Icahn Enterprises GP, Beckton and Mr. Icahn, by virtue of their relationships to Icahn Partners (as disclosed in Item 2), may be deemed to indirectly beneficially own (as that term is defined in Rule 13d-3 under the Act) the Shares which Icahn Partners directly beneficially owns. Each of Icahn Onshore, Icahn Capital, IPH, Icahn Enterprises Holdings, Icahn Enterprises GP, Beckton and Mr. Icahn disclaims beneficial ownership of such Shares for all other purposes.
(c) The following table sets forth all transactions with respect to Shares effected during the past sixty (60) days by any of the Reporting Persons. All such transactions were sales of Shares effected in the open market.
Name of Reporting Person Date of Transaction Amount of Securities Price Per Share High River Limited Partnership 02/12/2018 (55,000) $ 34.31 High River Limited Partnership 02/13/2018 (15,000) 34.14 High River Limited Partnership 02/21/2018 (73,905) 32.86 High River Limited Partnership 02/22/2018 (43,971) 32.47 Icahn Partners LP 02/12/2018 (131,928) $ 34.31 Icahn Partners LP 02/13/2018 (35,590) 34.14 Icahn Partners LP 02/21/2018 (175,349) 32.86 Icahn Partners LP 02/22/2018 (104,329) 32.47 Icahn Partners Master Fund LP 02/12/2018 (88,072) $ 34.31 Icahn Partners Master Fund LP 02/13/2018 (24,410) 34.14 Icahn Partners Master Fund LP 02/21/2018 (120,270) 32.86 Icahn Partners Master Fund LP 02/22/2018 (71,557) 32.47
(e) As a result of the transactions reported in this Schedule 13D, the Reporting Persons ceased to be the beneficial owners of more than five percent of the Shares and are no longer subject to the reporting requirements of Rule 13d-1(a) of the Exchange Act.
15
SIGNATURE
After reasonable inquiry and to the best of each of the undersigned knowledge and belief, each of the undersigned certifies that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.
Dated: February 22, 2018
ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND LP
ICAHN OFFSHORE LP
ICAHN PARTNERS LP
ICAHN ONSHORE LP
BECKTON CORP.
HOPPER INVESTMENTS LLC
BARBERRY CORP.
HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: Hopper Investments LLC, general partner
By: Barberry Corp.
By: /s/ Edward E. Mattner
Name: Edward E. Mattner
Title: Authorized Signatory
ICAHN CAPITAL LP
By: IPH GP LLC, its general partner
By: Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P., its sole member
By: Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., its general partner
IPH GP LLC
By: Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P., its sole member
By: Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., its general partner
ICAHN ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS L.P.
By: Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., its general partner
ICAHN ENTERPRISES G.P. INC.
By: /s/ SungHwan Cho
Name: SungHwan Cho
Title: Chief Financial Officer
/s/ Carl C. Icahn
CARL C. ICAHN
[Signature Page of Schedule 13D, Amendment No. 4 – The Manitowoc Company, Inc.]
| Billionaire investor Carl Icahn—who once worked as a "special adviser" to President Trump—dumped about $31 million of shares in a company that depends on steel imports just days before Trump announced tariffs on steel imports, the Guardian reports. On February 12, Icahn began selling his shares in crane and lifting equipment supplier Manitowoc Company for $32 to $34. A few days later the Commerce Department recommended steep tariffs and import quotas on steel. Then Trump threatened a trade war Thursday and Manitowoc tumbled 5.48% to $26.37, meaning Icahn's shares lost about $6 million. He quietly submitted his SEC filing about a week later. Icahn hadn't bought or sold any Manitowoc shares in the previous three years, reports ThinkProgress, which broke the story. He did appear to maintain a small piece of the stock, but because it's less than 5% of Manitowoc he could have kept selling without immediately disclosing it. Icahn also dumped 22% of his shares in Freeport-McMoRan, a company that mines gold, copper, and molybdenum—the latter an alloying agent in steels, the Financial Times reports. Freeport-McMoRan stocks fell 1.2% Friday. Icahn worked as a Trump adviser but quit last year before the New Yorker published an article saying he had tried using his position to shield his investments. |
(CNN) A New York prison tailor who allegedly aided a pair of convicted murderers before their brazen escape was arraigned Friday on a felony charge of promoting prison contraband and a misdemeanor charge of criminal facilitation.
Joyce Mitchell, who authorities said has voluntarily provided useful information in the six-day manhunt, attended the arraignment hearing in handcuffs. She pleaded not guilty.
State corrections officers monitor traffic June 8 at the Clinton Correctional Facility. See photos of the route the escaped prisoners took
An officer checks the trunk of a car at a checkpoint near the Dannemora border on June 10.
An officer checks the trunk of a car at a checkpoint near the Dannemora border on June 10.
Law enforcement personnel line the roadside on June 13 as they search an area in Cadyville, New York.
Law enforcement personnel line the roadside on June 13 as they search an area in Cadyville, New York.
A task force of U.S. Marshals and police officers go door to door near Dannemora, New York, searching for the two escaped murderers on Tuesday, June 16.
A task force of U.S. Marshals and police officers go door to door near Dannemora, New York, searching for the two escaped murderers on Tuesday, June 16.
Corrections officers search railroad tracks near Friendship, New York, on Sunday, June 21, after a possible sighting of the fugitives.
Corrections officers search railroad tracks near Friendship, New York, on Sunday, June 21, after a possible sighting of the fugitives.
Corrections officers stop a vehicle Monday, June 22, in Owls Head, about 20 to 25 miles west of the prison where Matt and Sweat escaped. The discovery of the escapees' DNA in a cabin re-energized the search for the fugitives.
Corrections officers stop a vehicle Monday, June 22, in Owls Head, about 20 to 25 miles west of the prison where Matt and Sweat escaped. The discovery of the escapees' DNA in a cabin re-energized the search for the fugitives.
Department of Corrections officers and a forest ranger, back, search a barn in Owls Head, New York, on June 26.
Department of Corrections officers and a forest ranger, back, search a barn in Owls Head, New York, on June 26.
A New York State Police officer stands guard near the shooting scene in Malone on June 26.
A New York State Police officer stands guard near the shooting scene in Malone on June 26.
New York State Police officers stand guard near the site where Matt was shot and killed in Malone on June 26.
New York State Police officers stand guard near the site where Matt was shot and killed in Malone on June 26.
New York State Police officers talk to motorists at a roadblock near Malone on June 27.
New York State Police officers talk to motorists at a roadblock near Malone on June 27.
Law enforcement officials are seen in the side-view mirror of a car as they stand guard June 28 in Duane, New York.
Law enforcement officials are seen in the side-view mirror of a car as they stand guard June 28 in Duane, New York.
Police escort ambulances from an area where law enforcement officers were searching for Sweat on June 28.
Police escort ambulances from an area where law enforcement officers were searching for Sweat on June 28.
Sweat is bloodied, shirtless and cuffed at the ankles, and he appears to be breathing into an oxygen mask after his capture on June 28.
Sweat is bloodied, shirtless and cuffed at the ankles, and he appears to be breathing into an oxygen mask after his capture on June 28.
Sweat was captured on June 28, multiple law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation told CNN. He was shot twice in a field by a New York state trooper and taken into custody in upstate New York, close to the Canadian border.
Sweat was captured on June 28, multiple law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation told CNN. He was shot twice in a field by a New York state trooper and taken into custody in upstate New York, close to the Canadian border.
Matt's body lies on the ground after he was killed by police on June 26.
Matt's body lies on the ground after he was killed by police on June 26.
Richard Matt, left, and David Sweat were on the run after they escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, on Saturday, June 6. Matt was killed by police on Friday, June 26. Sweat was captured two days later and is now in police custody.
Richard Matt, left, and David Sweat were on the run after they escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, on Saturday, June 6. Matt was killed by police on Friday, June 26. Sweat was captured two days later and is now in police custody.
If convicted, she faces up to eight years behind bars.
Mitchell has been suspended from her job without pay, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision said.
Since the breakout of felons Richard Matt and David Sweat was discovered Saturday, authorities have mentioned her as a possible getaway driver as well as a supplier of tools used in the escape. And her cell phone was used to make calls to people connected to Matt, according to a source.
Photos: New York prison escape Photos: New York prison escape Richard Matt, left, and David Sweat were discovered missing on Saturday, June 6, at the 5:30 a.m. "standing count" of inmates at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York. Hide Caption 1 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Gov. Andrew Cuomo, shown during a tour of the prison, said of the escapees: "These are dangerous people. They are nothing to be trifled with." Hide Caption 2 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape The hole the inmates cut into a cell wall to escape. The men had side-by-side cells and apparently had obtained power tools to cut through the steel wall, authorities said.
Hide Caption 3 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Looking from the catwalk, this is the hole the inmates cut into the wall. The pair followed the catwalk toward a series of tunnels. Hide Caption 4 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Gov. Cuomo studies the maze of pipes the prisoners navigated during their escape. Hide Caption 5 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Cuomo climbs a ladder as he examines the prisoners' escape route. Hide Caption 6 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Cuomo examines the escape route of the prisoners. "It was elaborate; it was sophisticated," he said. Hide Caption 7 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape The inmates used power tools to drill through steel pipes as they made their escape. Hide Caption 8 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Gov. Cuomo examines a pipe the inmates cut through. Authorities don't know how the prisoners got the power tools. Hide Caption 9 of 10 Photos: New York prison escape Officials look at the manhole through which the inmates crawled to freedom. Hide Caption 10 of 10
Mitchell has told investigators that Matt made her feel "special" though she didn't say she was in love with him, a source familiar with the investigation said.
Her husband and prison co-worker, Lyle Mitchell, also is under investigation, authorities said.
Joyce Mitchell gave hacksaw blades, drill bits and lighted eyeglasses to the fugitive felons Richard Matt and David Sweat before their escape, sources said.
Photos: Amazing prison escapes Photos: Amazing prison escapes New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, right, is shown the manhole where two convicted murderers escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, on Saturday, June 6, 2015. Police say Richard Matt, 48, and David Sweat, 34, escaped from the maximum-security prison using power tools. Hide Caption 1 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes George Rivas is sworn in at a trial in Dallas in November 2003. On December 13, 2000, Rivas' gang, known as the Texas Seven, overpowered workers at a prison in Kenedy, Texas. They stole the workers' clothes, broke into the prison's armory to get guns and drove away in a prison truck. They committed several robberies and gunned down a police officer. Hide Caption 2 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes French criminal Pascal Payet escaped prison twice using hijacked helicopters. His last escape occurred in 2007. Four men hijacked a helicopter, flew it to the prison Payet was being held in and helped him escape. Three months later, Payet was caught in Spain. Hide Caption 3 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes Michel Vaujour is shown on trial in Paris in 1991. His wife, Nadine Vaujour, flew a helicopter to his Paris prison in 1986, and he forced his way to the roof by wielding nectarines painted as grenades. Nadine was later arrested, and Michel was killed in a failed bank robbery. Hide Caption 4 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes Northern Ireland's Maze Prison, once considered one of the most secure prisons in Europe, was closed in 2000 after a series of escape attempts. The largest of these occurred in 1983, when 38 prisoners escaped by smuggling in weapons and hijacking a food delivery van. Hide Caption 5 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes In 1962, Frank Morris and brothers John and Clarence Anglin escaped a prison that was thought to be inescapable -- Alcatraz in San Francisco. They crafted dummy heads with real human hair to trick guards. They also used homemade drills to enlarge vent holes, and they formed raincoats into a raft to escape the island prison. They still have not been found. It is presumed that they drowned. Hide Caption 6 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes American criminal John Dillinger, center, sits in court in 1934 after being accused of killing a police officer. Later that year, he escaped an Indiana jail wielding a wooden gun he whittled. After imprisoning guards, he drove away in the sheriff's car. A few months later, he was shot dead outside of a theater in Chicago. Hide Caption 7 of 7
Mitchell "provided some form of equipment or tools" to the inmates while her husband "possibly could have been involved or at least had knowledge" of the escape, Clinton County District Attorney Andrew Wylie told CNN. The information was developed through interviews.
Lyle Mitchell has not been arrested or charged. Joyce Mitchell's relatives have denied she did anything wrong.
Her husband worked in the maintenance department at the tailoring block where his spouse was employed, Wylie said. Lyle Mitchell has worked at the prison since 2005, most recently as an $57,697-a-year industrial training supervisor, the same title his wife held, according to state records.
The hacksaw blades and other items given to Matt were purchased over the past few months, according to law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation.
Matt and Sweat used power tools to cut through cell walls that included a steel plate and sever a 24-inch steam pipe -- once to get in and once more to get out -- and surfaced through a manhole. Despite all the time, effort and noise likely involved, authorities didn't learn anything was awry until a bed check at 5:30 a.m. Saturday.
Authorities strongly believe the fugitives are still together after deciding to continue their escape as a pair, two law enforcement sources briefed on the matter said.
A search perimeter was established, one of the sources said, after an officer saw someone entering a wooded area at nightfall Wednesday.
A tactical search team discovered human tracks and bloodhounds picked up the scent of the felons -- leading investigators to the area where the two men apparently bedded down. Wrappers found at that area were consistent with food wrappers from the prison commissary, according to the source.
Investigating relationships, cell phone
The inmates knew Mitchell from her work tailoring clothes as an industrial training supervisor at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora. She hasn't spoken publicly.
State Department of Corrections officials had received a complaint about the relationship between Joyce Mitchell and one of the two escapees, according to a state official. The department didn't find enough evidence to support the complaint, though that does not mean the inmate and prison worker weren't close.
"I don't believe that the information was that there was absolutely no relationship," said Wylie, the district attorney.
Her cell phone was used to call people connected to Matt, according to another source, though it's not known who made these calls. And New York State Police Superintendent Joseph D'Amico said authorities believe she planned to pick up the inmates after their escape only to change her mind at the last minute.
Wylie speculated that perhaps Mitchell felt "some responsibility and guilt ... and wants to help that situation or help herself."
"She does not exercise her right to request an attorney, she voluntarily seeks us out," Wylie said Thursday night. "(She) comes in and each day has been providing ... additional information that's assisted the investigators."
Resident: 'I haven't left home in two days'
The information may have helped authorities figure out how the killers escaped, but so far it hasn't helped locate them.
Between 2002 and 2013, state data shows, almost every prison escapee in New York state was captured within 24 hours and none were out for more than three days. Until Matt and Sweat, who now have been on the lam for six days.
Photos: Amazing prison escapes Photos: Amazing prison escapes New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, right, is shown the manhole where two convicted murderers escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, on Saturday, June 6, 2015. Police say Richard Matt, 48, and David Sweat, 34, escaped from the maximum-security prison using power tools. Hide Caption 1 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes George Rivas is sworn in at a trial in Dallas in November 2003. On December 13, 2000, Rivas' gang, known as the Texas Seven, overpowered workers at a prison in Kenedy, Texas. They stole the workers' clothes, broke into the prison's armory to get guns and drove away in a prison truck. They committed several robberies and gunned down a police officer. Hide Caption 2 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes French criminal Pascal Payet escaped prison twice using hijacked helicopters. His last escape occurred in 2007. Four men hijacked a helicopter, flew it to the prison Payet was being held in and helped him escape. Three months later, Payet was caught in Spain. Hide Caption 3 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes Michel Vaujour is shown on trial in Paris in 1991. His wife, Nadine Vaujour, flew a helicopter to his Paris prison in 1986, and he forced his way to the roof by wielding nectarines painted as grenades. Nadine was later arrested, and Michel was killed in a failed bank robbery. Hide Caption 4 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes Northern Ireland's Maze Prison, once considered one of the most secure prisons in Europe, was closed in 2000 after a series of escape attempts. The largest of these occurred in 1983, when 38 prisoners escaped by smuggling in weapons and hijacking a food delivery van. Hide Caption 5 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes In 1962, Frank Morris and brothers John and Clarence Anglin escaped a prison that was thought to be inescapable -- Alcatraz in San Francisco. They crafted dummy heads with real human hair to trick guards. They also used homemade drills to enlarge vent holes, and they formed raincoats into a raft to escape the island prison. They still have not been found. It is presumed that they drowned. Hide Caption 6 of 7 Photos: Amazing prison escapes American criminal John Dillinger, center, sits in court in 1934 after being accused of killing a police officer. Later that year, he escaped an Indiana jail wielding a wooden gun he whittled. After imprisoning guards, he drove away in the sheriff's car. A few months later, he was shot dead outside of a theater in Chicago. Hide Caption 7 of 7
Their escape sent jitters across neighboring Vermont, where authorities believe they may have gone, and Canada, whose border is about 20 miles from the maximum-security prison.
Authorities in Texas, where Matt reportedly has an aunt, have asked officers to be on the lookout for the fugitive, according to a document obtained by CNN. The document further warns Matt has intentions of crossing into Mexico and says, "Matt is familiar with ranchers on both sides of the border who allow illegal crossings to occur."
Still, the most intense law enforcement activity has been in northeast New York, where investigators continue to search for clues by painstakingly checking wooded areas and roads and popping open trunks at checkpoints. Officials said there have been no confirmed sightings of the escapees.
The ordeal has turned life upside down for those who call this rural, idyllic, out-of-the-way place home. Many people have restricted their movement, while classes in the Saranac Central School District -- which includes Dannemora -- were called off for a second straight day Friday "to assist law enforcement and to keep our buses off the routes ... where they are searching," Superintendent Jonathan Parks said.
"I haven't left home in two days, I had to call in to work today because you wouldn't be able to return back home," resident Brooke Lepage said. "There were constant helicopters.
"Last night they had floodlights. There was a recorded (telephone) message telling us to stay in the house and make sure outside lights were on."
More than 800 state, local and federal law enforcement officers have descended on the area, New York State Police said. They have been following more than 700 leads developed in the nearly weeklong manhunt.
Scent near a sandwich shop
Amid the mayhem, the search may be narrowing down -- the latest focus being a sandwich shop not far from where the convicts escaped.
Investigators are looking at surveillance video from a gas station about a mile away from the prison.
JUST WATCHED Escaped convicts' scent leads to sandwich shop Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Escaped convicts' scent leads to sandwich shop 01:18
Tracking dogs picked up the scent of both prisoners at the station and followed it east toward the town of Cadyville, Wylie said. The gas station has a Subway sandwich shop, and the two might have been rummaging for food in the trash bin, authorities said.
Authorities are reviewing the limited security video from the store.
A perimeter is up around the site of the scent, and Wylie said "dogs were working it (Thursday night) and we're going to continue to pursue that (Friday)."
"It could have been something that occurred earlier in the week," the district attorney said Friday of when the scent was left. "But we're hoping that it was two nights ago, and they're closing in on the two men right now."
Investigators found an imprint from a shoe or boot as well as food wrappers in the area, a source said. And possible bedding -- an indent in the grass or leaves -- has also been discovered, according to the district attorney.
Will any of these efforts lead to Matt and Sweat, though? Wylie said Thursday night that he hoped they'll be found within 24 hours.
"The perimeter is continuing to be closed in," the district attorney said Friday morning. "And we hope ... that this will be effective in bringing these two men back into custody." ||||| DANNEMORA, N.Y. (AP) — A worker at an upstate New York maximum-security prison has been arrested on charges she helped two convicted killers escape, state police said Friday.
Law enforcement officers congregate on the edge of a search area near Dannemora, N.Y., Friday, June 12, 2015. Squads of law enforcement officers are heading out for a seventh day of searching for David... (Associated Press)
A wanted poster is displayed in the window of a state police officer's car near Dannemora, N.Y., Friday, June 12, 2015. Squads of law enforcement officers are heading out for a seventh day, searching... (Associated Press)
Fifty-one-year-old Joyce Mitchell was arrested and will be arraigned on charges of first-degree promoting prison contraband and fourth-degree criminal facilitation, state police said.
Mitchell is accused of befriending inmates David Sweat and Richard Matt at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora and giving them contraband.
District Attorney Andrew Wylie said earlier the contraband didn't include power tools used by the men as they cut holes in their cell walls and a steam pipe to escape through a manhole last weekend.
Meanwhile, law enforcement officers continued to search for the escapees, concentrating Friday in a rural area near the prison. The hunt for the inmates was focused on an area where residents reported seeing two men jumping a stone wall outside the far northern New York town of Dannemora.
About 300 searchers were added, bringing the total number of state, federal and local law enforcement officers involved in the manhunt to more than 800.
Mitchell's family has said she wouldn't have helped the convicts break out.
An instructor in the tailor shop where the men worked, Mitchell is also suspected of agreeing to be a getaway driver but didn't show up, leaving the men on foot early Saturday morning.
Mitchell has a $56,000-a-year job overseeing inmates who sew clothes and learn to repair sewing machines at the prison.
Within the past year, officials looked into whether Mitchell had improper ties to the 34-year-old Sweat, who was serving a life sentence for killing a sheriff's deputy, Wylie said. He gave no details on the nature of the suspected relationship.
The investigation didn't turn up anything solid enough to warrant disciplinary charges against her, the district attorney said.
Matt was serving 25 years to life for the 1997 kidnap, torture and hacksaw dismemberment of Matt's 76-year-old former boss, whose body was found in pieces in a river.
The state corrections department would not comment on the investigation into how the two inmates escaped or what Mitchell might have provided them. Prison contraband can include such things as cellphones, weapons, drugs, tools and unauthorized clothing.
On Thursday, a person close to the investigation said that Mitchell had befriended the two men and agreed to be the getaway driver but never showed up. The person was not authorized to discuss the case and spoke on condition of anonymity.
A former slipper-factory employee who won three terms as tax collector in her town near Dannemora, Mitchell has worked at the prison for at least five years, according to a neighbor, Sharon Currier. Mitchell's husband, Lyle, also works in industrial training there.
"She's a good, good person," Currier said. "She's not somebody who's off the wall."
The garment shop is intended to give prisoners job skills and work habits. In general, an inmate assigned to such a job might work several hours a day there, five days a week, meaning he would have significant contact with supervisors.
Mitchell's union, Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000, would not comment Friday on the prior investigation of Mitchell or the current allegations.
But her daughter-in-law, Paige Mitchell, said this week that her mother-in-law never mentioned Sweat, Matt or any other inmates she encountered. "She doesn't get too involved," Paige Mitchell told the Press-Republican of Plattsburgh.
And Mitchell's son Tobey told NBC that she would not have helped the inmates escape and that she checked herself into a hospital with chest pains on Saturday, the day the breakout was discovered.
___
Klepper reported from Albany. Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Chris Carola and Michael Virtanen in Albany contributed to this report. | A prison employee accused of helping two inmates escape now might end up being a convicted felon herself. Police today charged Joyce Mitchell, 51, with promoting prison contraband and criminal facilitation, reports CNN. It's still not clear exactly how she might have helped—CNN describes it as "providing material assistance"—but authorities may sort that out at a later news conference. Various reports have suggested she provided power tools or some other kind of equipment, let them use her phone, and even arranged to pick them up before backing out at the last minute. Mitchell worked as an instructor in the prison tailor shop at the Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate New York, notes AP, and she allegedly befriended both Richard Matt and David Sweat there. Her husband is an industrial training supervisor at the same prison. Meanwhile, the search goes on in northern New York, with about 800 officers involved in the hunt. |
The FBI invokes the "public safety exception" with Boston bombings suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Chris Hayes breaks down what this means.
The arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ended the manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers, but it set in motion an equally intense phase of the case that will begin with the grilling of the man who – for now at least – is the only surviving suspect.
An indication of the complex investigation ahead came Friday night, when an Obama administration official told NBC News that Tsarnaev would not be given a Miranda warning when he is physically able to be interrogated after receiving medical treatment.
Instead, the official said, the government will invoke a legal rule known as the "public safety exception," which will enable investigators to question Tsarnaev without first advising him of his right to remain silent and to be afforded legal counsel.
The exemption can be invoked when information is needed to protect public safety. In this instance, the government believes it's vital to find out if Tsarnaev planted any other explosives before his capture or whether others might have plotted with him to do so, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
While the crisis is over, the investigation of what motivated the suspects is just beginning. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
Tsarnaev’s older brother, Tamerlan, was killed in a shootout with police early Friday, and it was not clear until late Friday that authorities would be able to question their remaining prime suspect.
Until shortly before his capture around 8:45 p.m. ET, the wounded and bleeding Tsarnaev exchanged gunfire with authorities in Watertown, Mass., while sheltering in a plastic-wrapped pleasure boat.
Officers on the scene and the brass in the command center were both clearly elated by the outcome.
“We always want to take someone alive so we can find out what happened,” Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said at a media briefing an hour later, “and we can hold them to justice."
High Value Detainee Interrogation Group
The rule waiving the Miranda warning does not set a precise limit on how long a suspect can be interrogated before being advised of his rights, but it likely buys authorities no more than 48 hours.
Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about the likely interrogation of Marathon bombing suspects Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and how the public celebration of the law enforcement victory in this case undermines what would have been a bragging point for recruiters of terrorists worldwide.
During that time Tsarnaev, 19, will be questioned by a federal government team called the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, consisting of officials of the FBI, CIA and Defense Department. Though he will not have a lawyer present, any statements he makes during the questioning will be admissible in court.
Among the questions investigators are certain to focus on is whether he and his brother had help in plotting or carrying out the terrorist attack at the finish line of the marathon. The dual blasts from pressure cookers packed with explosives and shrapnel killed three people and injured 176.
That question took on more urgency when police in New Bedford, Mass., south of Boston, announced Friday evening that three people there had been taken into custody as part of the bombing investigation.
In addition to possible co-conspirators in the U.S., the interrogators also will want to know whether the brothers, both ethnic Chechens, received any assistance from overseas.
Travel records obtained by NBC New York showed that Tamerlan Tsarnaev left the country for six months in 2012, flying to Moscow on Jan. 12 and returning on July 17. Where he went and what he did after his arrival in Russia could expand what so far has been a domestic manhunt into a global one.
Enemy combatant?
Suspicions that the elder brother could have received terrorist training or support abroad were heightened Friday, when an official familiar with the matter told NBC News that a foreign government had expressed concern in 2011 that Tamerlan Tsarnaev could have ties to terrorism. The official said the FBI investigated, but found no such links and reported the findings back to the foreign government.
Even if authorities determine that the Tsarnaevs received support from an overseas terrorist organization, the Obama administration official said the government will not seek to declare him an enemy combatant and try him before a military commission, as it has done with senior al Qaeda officials captured overseas and imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Administration officials see that scenario as a non-starter, the official said, particularly given the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen, naturalized last September.
AP Tamerlan Tsarnaev, left, was killed by police. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured and will be interrogated by a special team of investigators.
Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona issued a statement late Friday urging that the administration hold Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.
"It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives," said the statement, posted on Graham's Facebook. "The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now."
Mass of evidence
At the same time they are seeking to uncover the bombing suspects’ motives and determine whether they had a support network, investigators will continue to collect and analyze vast amounts of forensic evidence from crime scenes stretching across three cities.
In addition to processing evidence from the bombings, FBI technicians will analyze hundreds of hours of video camera recordings from private and public surveillance and traffic cameras as they attempt to trace the brothers’ movements – both after the attack and before it.
Investigators also will obtain and assess phone records, seeing who the brothers were in contact with in the weeks and months leading up to the attacks.
Only when they have scrutinized every bit of data, and explored every lead, will they turn over the mountain of evidence they have assembled to prosecutors. It will be up to them to decide what charges the younger Tsarnaev should face and whether to seek the federal death penalty in a state where life in prison is the maximum sentence that can be imposed.
But despite such a massive expenditure of time and technological know-how, they may never answer the most haunting question surrounding the case, as President Barack Obama noted.
“Why,” he asked during a brief statement on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s arrest late Friday, “did young men who grew up and studied here as part of our communities and country resort to such violence?”
More from Open Channel:
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook ||||| Story highlights NEW : Federal Public Defender Office in Boston to represent Dzhokar Tsarnaev after charges are filed
: Federal Public Defender Office in Boston to represent Dzhokar Tsarnaev after charges are filed Russian President Vladimir Putin wants details from U.S. on bombing suspects
If physically able, suspect could be in court this weekend, expert says
Two U.S. senators say Dzhokar Tsarnaev should be questioned without a lawyer
Federal terrorism charges against Boston Marathon bombings suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev could be filed soon, even as he remains hospitalized, a Justice Department official told CNN on Saturday. The 19-year-old could also face murder charges at the state level.
At the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where Tsarnaev was in serious condition while being held in federal custody, federal prosecutors were formulating the charges.
The development came amid questions as to what's next for the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.
"There are still many unanswered questions," Obama said Friday night. "Why did these young men who grew up and studied here as part of our communities and our country resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks? And did they receive any help? The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers."
Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, are accused of setting off bombs at the marathon Monday, killing three people and wounding more than 170.
JUST WATCHED The long night of terror comes to an end Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The long night of terror comes to an end 02:06
JUST WATCHED Breaking down the Boston bomber capture Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Breaking down the Boston bomber capture 01:58
Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested on April 19, 2013, after a massive manhunt. An overnight shootout with police killed the other suspect -- Tsarnaev's 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan. A jury condemned Tsarnaev to death on Friday, May 15, for his role in killing four people and wounding hundreds more. Hide Caption 1 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev On April 18, 2013, the FBI released photos and videos of two suspects and asked the public to help identify them. Hide Caption 2 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found on April 19, 2013, in a boat that was dry-docked in the backyard of a Watertown home. He was covered in blood from bullet wounds. Hide Caption 3 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev The August 2013 cover of Rolling Stone featured Tsarnaev and sparked a backlash against the magazine. Hide Caption 4 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Tsarnaev stands in court, flanked by his lawyers, in this sketch from July 2013. Hide Caption 5 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev An image posted to the social sharing website Reddit purportedly shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev being detained by law enforcement officers. Hide Caption 6 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Tsarnaev was seen on this convenience store surveillance video that was released by the Boston Police Department. Hide Caption 7 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev A still of the suspects from footage released by the FBI after the bombing. Hide Caption 8 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Additional photos and video were released by the FBI. Hide Caption 9 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev A picture of Tsarnaev from his apparent profile on VKontakte, a Russian social network similar to Facebook. Hide Caption 10 of 11 Photos: Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev The Boston Police Department also released this undated photograph of Tsarnaev. Hide Caption 11 of 11
JUST WATCHED Tracing the suspected bombers roots Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Tracing the suspected bombers roots 03:26
On Thursday night, they allegedly killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer before the older brother was killed during a shootout with police.
Dzhokar Tsarnaev was captured Friday night after he was found hiding in a boat in a backyard in Watertown, Massachusetts.
When will the suspect be in court?
Tsarnaev could be in a courtroom for an arraignment soon.
Ordinarily at an arraignment, the suspect is provided a lawyer, and the defense and prosecution try to make a case for whether he should be released on bail.
"He will not get bail obviously," said senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
"They will set a preliminary hearing that could happen in the next 30 days. He will be indicted with the grand jury. And that's when the case will begin."
After the charges are filed, the Federal Public Defender Office in Boston will be appointed to represent Tsarnaev, according to Miriam Conrad, the federal public defender for the Massachusetts district.
Should bomber suspect be questioned without a lawyer?
For now, the government is invoking the public safety exception, a designation that allows investigators to question Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, a Justice Department official told CNN on condition of anonymity.
In ordinary cases, a suspect is told by police he has the right to remain silent and he has the right to a lawyer.
But this is not an ordinary case, say U.S. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
They urged that Tsarnaev be held as an "enemy combatant," a designation that allows a suspect to be questioned without a lawyer and without being informed of his Miranda rights.
"Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes," the senators said. "Under the law of war we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel."
But Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Saturday that the suspect should not be held as an enemy combatant.
"I am not aware of any evidence so far that the Boston suspect is part of any organized group, let alone al Qaeda, the Taliban, or one of their affiliates -- the only organizations whose members are subject to detention under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, as it has been consistently interpreted by all three branches of our government," he said.
"In the absence of such evidence I know of no legal basis for his detention as an enemy combatant. To hold the suspect as an enemy combatant under these circumstances would be contrary to our laws and may even jeopardize our efforts to prosecute him for his crimes."
Alan Dershowitz, a prominent defense attorney and Harvard law professor, scoffed at the Republican senators' statement.
"Impossible. There's no way an American citizen committing a domestic crime in the city of Boston could be tried as an enemy combatant," he told CNN's Piers Morgan. "It could never happen. And that shows absolute ignorance of the law."
Dershowitz also said statements made by police in Boston seems to contradict the government's reasons for invoking the public safety exception.
"The police have said there's no public safety issue; it's solved, it's over," Dershowitz said. "There are no further threats. But the FBI is saying there's enough further threats to justify an exception."
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the federal government may have known about international threats about which state officials were not aware.
"You would have to know the internals of what they have before you can assess whether there is a sensible invocation or not," Giuliani said.
If the government had prior knowledge of Tsarnaev's activities, it hasn't disclosed it. It did say that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been on the FBI's radar in the past
FBI agents interviewed Tamerlan two years ago and also looked at his travel history, checked databases for derogatory information and searched for Web postings. The agency found no connection with terror groups, an FBI official told CNN.
Two key Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee -- Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, the panel's chairman; and Rep. Peter King of New York -- will press the Obama administration for details about the FBI's questioning of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, according to a GOP congressional source.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was not a U.S. citizen, traveled to Sheremetyevo, Russia, in January 2012, according to travel records provided by a U.S. official. He returned six months later.
Federal or state trial?
Dershowitz said there are many arguments that can be made to try the case in state court. It may be hard for a prosecutor to prove which crimes were committed by Tsarnaev or his older brother, Dershowitz said.
"If he says my intent was to please my brother, they could raise the question of federal jurisdiction," Dershowitz said.
This fight over federal or state jurisdiction could mean life or death.
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.
There's another big question: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 requires temporary military custody of certain terrorist suspects, but Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a U.S. citizen, and the act doesn't apply to Americans.
What is the reaction in the suspects' homeland?
Tsarnaev's family lives in the Russian republic of Dagestan, which is next to the suspects' homeland of Chechnya, located in the North Caucasus region of southern Russia.
Russia's investigative committee in Dagestan said it will not engage with the Tsarnaev family unless there is "an order from above" to do so, spokesman Rasul Temerbekov told Russian state news agency RIA Novosti on Saturday.
A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday that Russia wants to get official information from the United States about the bombing suspects, and he wants there to be contact between investigators in both countries. ||||| For just a few minutes, it seemed like the dragnet that had shut down a metropolitan area of millions while legions of police went house to house looking for the suspected Boston Marathon bomber had failed.
Andre Savazoni, 38, of Brazil, who participated in his second Boston Marathon this week, takes a photo of a crowd gathered at Boston Common after the final suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing was arrested,... (Associated Press)
Joseph Eli Libby, 20, of Boston, carries a flag near a makeshift memorial on Boylston Street, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, Friday, April 19, 2013, in Boston. Boston Marathon bombing suspect... (Associated Press)
Frank McGillin, who ran three Boston Marathons, waves a U.S. flag as a crowd reacts to news of the arrest of one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects during a celebration at Boston Common, Friday,... (Associated Press)
This combo of photos released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation early Friday April 19, 2013, shows what the FBI is calling suspects number 1, left, and suspect number 2, right, walking through the... (Associated Press)
Police officers guard the entrance to Franklin street where there is an active crime scene search for the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, Friday, April 19, 2013, in Watertown, Mass. Gunfire erupted... (Associated Press)
A police officer reacts to news of the arrest of one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, Friday, April 19, 2013, in Boston. Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured in Watertown,... (Associated Press)
ALTERNATE CROP - This still frame from video shows Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev visible through an ambulance after he was captured in Watertown, Mass., Friday, April 19, 2013.A 19-year-old... (Associated Press)
This photo released Friday, April 19, 2013 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows a suspect that officials identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, being sought by police in the Boston Marathon bombings... (Associated Press)
This surveillance photo released via Twitter Friday, April 19, 2013 by the Boston Police Department shows a suspect entering a convenience store that police are pursuing in Watertown, Mass. Police say... (Associated Press)
Taylor Richard, center, of Belmont, Mass., and Alyssa Kohler, 17, of Cambridge, Mass., wrap themselves in the American Flag in Watertown, Mass., Friday, April 19, 2013. A 19-year-old Massachusetts college... (Associated Press)
This photo released by the FBI early Friday April 19, 2013, shows what the FBI is calling the suspects together, walking through the crowd in Boston on Monday, April 15, 2013, before the explosions at... (Associated Press)
Weary officials lifted a daylong order that had kept residents in their homes, saying it was fruitless to keep an entire city locked down. Then one man emerged from his home and noticed blood on the pleasure boat parked in his backyard. He lifted the tarp and found the wounded 19-year-old college student known the world over as Suspect No. 2.
Soon after that, the 24-hour drama that paralyzed a city and transfixed a nation was over.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capture touched off raucous celebrations in and around Boston, with chants of "USA, USA" as residents flooded the streets in relief and jubilation after four tense days since twin explosions ripped through the marathon's crowd at the finish line, killing three people and wounding more than 180.
The 19-year-old _ whose older brother and alleged accomplice was killed earlier that morning in a wild shootout in suburban Boston _ was hospitalized in serious condition Saturday, unable to be questioned to determine his motives. U.S. officials said a special interrogation team for high-value suspects would question him without reading him his Miranda rights, invoking a rare public safety exception triggered by the need to protect police and the public from immediate danger.
President Barack Obama said there are many unanswered questions about the Boston bombings, including whether the two men had help from others. He urged people not to rush judgment about their motivations.
Dzhokhar and his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were identified by authorities and relatives as ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the U.S. for about a decade and were believed to be living in Cambridge, just outside Boston. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in the shootout early in the day of gunshot wounds and a possible blast injury. At one point, he was run over by his younger brother in a car as he lay wounded, according to investigators.
During a long night of violence Thursday and into Friday, the brothers killed an MIT police officer, severely wounded another lawman during a gun battle and hurled explosives at police in a desperate getaway attempt, authorities said.
Late Friday, less than an hour after authorities lifted the lockdown, they tracked down the younger man holed up in the boat, weakened by a gunshot wound after fleeing on foot from the overnight shootout with police that left 200 spent rounds behind.
The resident who spotted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in his boat in his Watertown yard called police, who tried to talk the suspect into getting out of the boat, said Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis.
"He was not communicative," Davis said.
Instead, he said, there was an exchange of gunfire _ the final volley of one of the biggest manhunts in American history.
The violent endgame unfolded just a day after the FBI released surveillance-camera images of two young men suspected of planting the pressure-cooker explosives at the marathon's finish line, an attack that put the nation on edge for the week.
Watertown residents who had been told in the morning to stay inside behind locked doors poured out of their homes and lined the streets to cheer police vehicles as they rolled away from the scene.
Celebratory bells rang from a church tower. Teenagers waved American flags. Drivers honked. Every time an emergency vehicle went by, people cheered loudly.
"They finally caught the jerk," said nurse Cindy Boyle. "It was scary. It was tense."
Police said three other people were taken into custody for questioning at an off-campus housing complex at the University of the Massachusetts at Dartmouth where the younger man may have lived.
"Tonight, our family applauds the entire law enforcement community for a job well done, and trust that our justice system will now do its job," said the family of 8-year-old Martin Richard, who died in the bombing.
The FBI was swamped with tips _ 300,000 per minute _ after the release of the surveillance-camera photos, but what role those played in the overnight clash was unclear. State Police spokesman Dave Procopio said police realized they were dealing with the bombing suspects based on what the two men told a carjacking victim during their night of crime.
The search by thousands of law enforcement officers all but shut down the Boston area for much of the day. Officials halted all mass transit, including Amtrak trains to New York, advised businesses not to open, and warned close to 1 million people in the entire city and some of its suburbs to unlock their doors only for uniformed police.
Around midday, the suspects' uncle, Ruslan Tsarni of Montgomery Village, Md., pleaded on television: "Dzhokhar, if you are alive, turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness."
Until the younger man's capture, it was looking like a grim day for police. As night fell, they announced that they were scaling back the hunt and lifting the stay-indoors order across the region because they had come up empty-handed.
But then the break came and within a couple of hours, the search was over. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured about a mile from the site of the shootout that killed his brother.
A neighbor described how heavily armed police stormed by her window not long after the lockdown was lifted _ the rapid report of gunshots left her huddled on the bathroom floor on top of her young son.
"I was just waiting for bullets to just start flying everywhere," Deanna Finn said.
When at last the gunfire died away and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was taken from the neighborhood in an ambulance, an officer gave Finn a cheery thumbs-up.
"To see the look on his face, he was very, very happy, so that made me very, very happy," she said.
Authorities said the man dubbed Suspect No. 1 _ the one in sunglasses and a dark baseball cap in the surveillance-camera pictures - was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, while Suspect No. 2, the one in a white baseball cap worn backward, was his younger brother.
Chechnya, where the brothers grew up, has been the scene of two wars between Russian forces and separatists since 1994, in which tens of thousands were killed in heavy Russian bombing. That spawned an Islamic insurgency that has carried out deadly bombings in Russia and the region, although not in the West.
The older brother had strong political views about the United States, said Albrecht Ammon, 18, a downstairs-apartment neighbor in Cambridge. Ammon quoted Tsarnaev as saying that the U.S. uses the Bible as "an excuse for invading other countries."
Also, the FBI interviewed the older brother at the request of a foreign government in 2011, and nothing derogatory was found, according to a federal law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official did not identify the foreign country or say why it made the request.
Exactly how the long night of crime began was unclear. But police said the brothers carjacked a man in a Mercedes-Benz in Cambridge, just across the Charles River from Boston, then released him unharmed at a gas station.
They also shot to death a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, 26-year-old Sean Collier, while he was responding to a report of a disturbance, investigators said.
The search for the Mercedes led to a chase that ended in Watertown, where authorities said the suspects threw explosive devices from the car and exchanged gunfire with police. A transit police officer, 33-year-old Richard Donohue, was shot and critically wounded, authorities said.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ran over his already wounded brother as he fled, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation. At some point, he abandoned his car and ran away on foot.
The brothers had built an arsenal of pipe bombs, grenades and improvised explosive devices and used some of the weapons in trying to make their getaway, said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Watertown resident Kayla Dipaolo said she was woken up overnight by gunfire and a large explosion that sounded "like it was right next to my head ... and shook the whole house."
"It was very scary," she said. "There are two bullet holes in the side of my house, and by the front door there is another."
Tamerlan Tsarnaev had studied accounting as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston for three semesters from 2006 to 2008, the school said.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was registered as a student at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Students said he was on campus this week after the Boston Marathon bombing. The campus closed down Friday along with colleges around the Boston area.
The men's father, Anzor Tsarnaev, said in a telephone interview with AP from the Russian city of Makhachkala that his younger son, Dzhokhar, is "a true angel." He said his son was studying medicine.
"He is such an intelligent boy," the father said. "We expected him to come on holidays here."
A man who said he knew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Krystle Campbell, the 29-year-old restaurant manager killed in Monday's bombing, said he was glad Dzhokhar had survived.
"I didn't want to lose more than one friend," Marvin Salazar said.
"Why Jahar?" he asked, using Tsarnaev's nickname. "I want to know answers. That's the most important thing. And I think I speak for almost all America. Why the Boston Marathon? Why this year? Why Jahar?"
Two years ago, the city of Cambridge awarded Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a $2,500 scholarship. At the time, he was a senior at Cambridge Rindge & Latin School, a highly regarded public school whose alumni include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and NBA Hall of Famer Patrick Ewing.
Tsarni, the men's uncle, said the brothers traveled here together from Russia. He called his nephews "losers" and said they had struggled to settle in the U.S. and ended up "thereby just hating everyone."
___
Sullivan and Associated Press writers Stephen Braun, Jack Gillum and Pete Yost reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Mike Hill, Katie Zezima, Pat Eaton-Robb and Steve LeBlanc in Boston, Rodrique Ngowi in Watertown, Mass. and Jeff Donn in Cambridge, Mass., contributed to this report. | For now, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev remains too seriously injured to be questioned by authorities, reports AP. But as soon as he's able, a special team of interrogators from the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon will grill him without reading him his Miranda rights. Authorities plan to invoke a rare "public safety exception" that allows them to question the 19-year-old without his lawyer present and without giving him the right to remain silent. The point is to find out whether other explosives or accomplices are still out there, and NBC News figures that he can be questioned without legal counsel for maybe 48 hours. It's still way too early to determine whether Tsarnaev will be tried in military or civilian court. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a statement arguing that Tsarnaev should be held as an enemy combatant under the "law of war" and thus not entitled to the usual legal rights. That would result in a military commission, but NBC says the White House is determined to make this a civilian trial. CNN quotes Harvard's Alan Dershowitz as skeptical of the senators' approach. "There's no way an American citizen committing a domestic crime in the city of Boston could be tried as an enemy combatant," he said. "It could never happen. And that shows absolute ignorance of the law." |
Retailing
Remember the Cabbage Patch Kids craze? The Tickle Me Elmo frenzy? Meet their 2009 brethren, Zhu Zhu Pets. The quintet of electronic hamsters has been the runaway hit of the recession-hobbled holiday season so far. The furry little, wheeled critters scoot around a Habitrail-like track, spin in a hamster wheel, and drive little hamster sports cars. The battery-powered pets coo and squeak and have a little artificial intelligence—knowing to make teeth-brushing sounds when they enter their little bathrooms, for example. "They're so real—without the mess," chirps a television commercial. They are also flying off the shelves, with many of the nation's largest retailers already out of stock. The critters were designed to sell at retail for $9.99 each but they have recently been selling for as much as $40 on eBay.com (EBAY) and Amazon.com (AMZN). "Nobody saw these little hamsters coming," says Chris Byrne, a toy reviewer at the Web site Timetoplaymag.com. Zhu Zhu's Path to MarketThe $20Â billion toy industry has been declining for years, as kids increasingly trade traditional toys for video games and other consumer electronics. The recession has been particularly hard on toymakers such as Mattel (MAT) and Hasbro (HAS), as skittish retailers held back on orders this year. The success of Zhu Zhu Pets, though, shows that with a little humor at the right price, even a tiny toy company can have a monster hit. The pets are made by Cepia, a seven-year-old outfit in St. Louis. It's the second toy startup for company CEO Russell Hornsby, a Mattel veteran who says his first company, Trendmasters, went under in the 2002 recession after his bank cut his funding. Trendmasters was acquired by rival Jakks Pacific (JAKK). Cepia's other products include the less successful Glo-e line of teddy bears, which have lights inside them, and the DigiWidgets desktop robots. Hornsby, 56, says Zhu Zhus were inspired by his own family's pet hamster (which, regrettably, isn't around to bask in the fame: It got eaten by the family cat). The toys were just a prototype as recently as last November. The company tested them with focus groups of kids at Wal-Mart (WMT) and Toy "R" Us stores in Phoenix this past May. The company even changed the product name from Go Go Pets right before the September retail launch. Ramping Up Production to Meet DemandAfter the sneak peak in Phoenix, Toy "R" Us committed to a sizable order. Company spokesperson Kathleen Waugh says the retailer isn't selling them through its Web site or advertising them in flyers. For this year's Black Friday sales push, though, it's letting the media know it should have "thousands" of Zhu Zhus in stock. Purchases are limited to one per household. "It's so hot we're going to use them to drive in-store traffic," Waugh says. Rival Wal-Mart, meanwhile, got a big shipment in late October and advertised Zhu Zhus in its weekly circular for Sunday, Nov. 8. Some stores put the pets out too early, though, and customers weren't allowed to purchase them, spurring rumors that Zhu Zhus had been recalled. In early November, Hornsby hopped on a plane to spend the next two months in China boosting production of Zhu Zhus. He convinced the four plants the company has under contract to increase their output from 70,000 pieces to 120,000 pieces per day. Hornsby says retailers that were initially hesitant to commit to Zhu Zhus are now paying extra to air-ship the hamsters to the U.S. The toy's phenomenal success is proving bittersweet, Hornsby says: "It's a big hit; with it comes lots of anxiety. It's heartbreaking to go to the stores and see people wanting [a Zhu Zhu] who can't find it." ||||| "Zhu Zhu Pets are everywhere!" -- or so goes their catchy jingle. Come Christmas morning, retailers across the country hope that will be true.
Zhu Zhu Pets, the cuddly, on-the-go hamsters who squeak, roll, even drive their own cars, are on their way to becoming the holiday season's "must-have" toy.
Retailers like Ken Levinsohn, owner of the Learning Express toy store in Scarsdale, N.Y., hope they'll be the hamsters that save Christmas.
Play
"Based on the demand, it's going to be hot," Levinsohn said.
The trouble is for Levinsohn is that he has none to sell. Following in the footsteps of must-haves of seasons past -- the Furby, Tickle-me Elmo, Cabbage Patch dolls, Beanie Babies -- supply seems to grow short just when demand is high, and Zhu Zhu Pets are flying off store shelves.
"It's easier to get a swine flu shot than to get Zhu Zhu Pets," said customer Julie Gerstenblatt.
Levinsohn said he has been waiting for another shipment for nearly two months. "Clearly, the demand is there. The product is not. It's very frustrating," he said.
But it isn't just small independents like Levinsohn who are having trouble getting hold of Zhu Zhu Pets. Even the biggest retailers say they can't get enough.
Selling Out in Hours
At the Toys "R" Us in New York City's Times Square, salespeople don't bother putting Zhu Zhu Pets on the shelves. Every shipment has sold out in a matter of hours.
One salesperson told us that even the accessories, which are sold separately from the coveted pets, were running low. At one store, shopper Theresa Brdaric scored the last Zhu Zhu Pet car.
"The cars are going for quite a bit on Ebay. The cars and the ball are the biggest sellers on Ebay, I think. I'm just happy to get some," she said.
On Ebay, the $9 hamsters are being auctioned for up to $60 a piece.
Retailers Look to Fad Toy to Lure Shoppers
Chris Byrne, known in industry circles as the "toy guy," has seen many fads come and go, but still can't say why lightning strikes any particular toy.
"At the end of the day, you can't predict a fad. Some people will tell you you can but it's not possible. When something really catches the imagination,then you've got people who wouldn't normally buy these toys looking for them," Byrne said.
"I think with the Zhu Zhu Pets -- everybody's been talking technology, cell phones, iPods. This is sort of, even though its great technology, it's the antithesis of that because it's really fun, and creative and it's a classic play pattern," he said.
Last Christmas, with the economy in turmoil, retailers suffered badly. But Zhu Zhu Pets are miraculously bringing people back into toy stores.
"You know, it may be the hamster that saved Christmas because it's a rising tide lifts all boats. It's got people coming to the stores. They're looking to find these. But then they're looking around at other things," Byrne said.
Where Zhu Zhu Pets Are Born
"Nightline" visited the Zhu Zhu headquarters near St. Louis, where the pets' creator, Russ Hornsby, introduced us to his top-selling line of characters. They have names like "Mr. Squiggles," "Chunk," "Num Num," and "Pipsqueak."
Hornsby said they didn't make many of the robotic hamsters at first, because he didn't know if they would catch on.
The response has been "phenomenal ...unbelievable," he said. "I've never seen anything like this in my entire life and probably will never see anything like it again in my life."
Hornsby credits Zhu Zhu Pets' popularity to fair price, novelty and the "nag factor" -- children whining for their parents to get them. The products retail for about $9.
"Whenyou have an item under $10 today, the consumer is going to rally towards it. That's provided that in fact kids are excited about it," he said. "And the excitement is, 'Hey mom, did you see the hamster that just drove across that TV set? I want one, Mom.' That's the 'Hey mom, I want it, please!'"
Hornsby has gambled before and lost. He was the brains behind the "Powerpuff Girls" and "Rumble Robots," but eventually, like most fad toys, they disappeared.
Kids Going Ga-Ga for Zhu Zhu Pets
At the company's height, Hornsby said he had a staff of 600 and annual sales of $250 million. Then it was gone.
"It was actually probably within a few days it was gone. Lights were turned out. Boom," he said.
Now, he and daughters Natalie and Ashley are back with Zhu Zhu pets. His firm, Cepia, is smaller and leaner, with only 15 staff employees this time around. They handle everything from design to marketing to creative development and are currently producing 220,000 Zhu Zhu pets a day.
To test Zhu Zhu Pets' popularity, we gathered a panel of "experts" at the Elegant Child preschool outside St. Louis. (In the interest of full disclosure, they included Vicki's niece Sienna and cousins Jaden, 7, and Blake, 10).
"I like the speed and the, the ball thing. The thing they ride in. They push it and it rolls," young Jaden Fields said.
Another kid said, "I want one for Christmas."
When asked if they would rather have a real hamster or a Zhu Zhu Pet, many kids said Zhu Zhu Pets.
"Because you can turn it on and off, and you can't turn a hamster on and off," said nine-year-old Sam Wolfe.
On Tuesday, toy store owner Ken Levinsohn finally received his shipment of Zhu Zhu Pets. It was only a third of what he had expected.
"Most likely they'll be gone by the end of the day," he said.
Levinsohn e-mailed anxious customers who had been on his waiting list. He sold out of his allotment in only an hour and a half.
Zhu Zhu Pets' creators say they'll have four to five million in stores by Christmas. ||||| (CBS) They were all Olivia Mondesando wanted for her birthday."Well, I felt really excited to get Zhu Zhu pets because I just love them," Olivia said. "Because of their little cute faces. How they talk."They have names like "Chunk," "Pipsqueek," and "Num Nums."reports these robotic rodents suddenly top every little girl's holiday wish list.Olivia's mother Deb said, "it's the toy that everyone wants that you can't find."Melissa Post has been on a hamster hunt for weeks now for her daughter Jessica."I called every Toys R Us, Walmart and Target within two hours of my home."Zhu Zhu pets retail for only $8 -- if you can find one. But on the Internet, they're going for much more.The hottest holiday toy doesn't come from one of the mega toy makers. It's made by the little St. Louis-based Cepia company."In our world wide network we have 16 people here in St. Louis, Mo.," said Natalie Hornsby, director of brand development and marketing strategies. "We have about 25 people in Shenzhen, China."Cepia came up with the toy hamster idea only a year ago. Toys R Us helped test market them in Phoenix."We couldn't believe the numbers," said Jerry Storch, CEO of Toys R Us. "When we first looked at them we thought there was something wrong with the computer."Now fans are filling YouTube with their Zhu Zhu videos. One analyst projects holiday sales of $50,000,000. Cepia has cranked up three more factories in China to try to keep up with demand.Electronic hamsters. Who knew? This little company in St. Louis, that's who. ||||| The five different battery-operated hamsters — Chunk, PipSqueak, Mr. Squiggles, Num Nums and Patches — are mainly coveted by girls, according to toy industry professionals. This possibly makes sense; Jim Silver, editor in chief of TimetoPlayMag.com, pointed out that girls also own the majority of live hamsters.
Photo
Boys, it appears, are wild this year for Bakugan Battle Brawlers, a game that uses cards and action figures hidden inside small spheres. The goal is to be the first player to capture three of your opponent’s cards, known as Gate cards. (The name comes from the Japanese words “baku,” meaning “to explode,” and “gan,” meaning “sphere.”) Yet as popular as Bakugan is, the hamsters are upstaging that game and everything else in toy land this season.
“It clearly is the hottest phenomenon of the year,” said Gerald L. Storch, chairman and chief executive of Toys “R” Us. “There’s no doubt about that.”
After seeing a commercial in October for Zhu Zhu Pets, Tracey Henry of Safety Harbor, Fla., decided to buy one for her 6-year-old daughter, even though the girl wanted a real hamster for her birthday. Ms. Henry considered a fake hamster a better idea, so she went to Toys “R” Us.
“The shelves were empty,” she said, “and there were these signs that said, ‘Limit four Zhu Zhu Pets per day.’ ”
Ms. Henry, who writes the blog SuburbanDiva.com, returned home and began calling local toy stores and scouring the Web sites of Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart and Target, with no luck. In the end, she bought a Zhu Zhu Pet (pronounced zoo zoo) on Amazon, marked up to $34.99. “We got the yellow one,” Ms. Henry said. “We should rename it ‘greenback.’ ”
The nation’s stores, which have become familiar with these sorts of tales, are trying to round up enough hamsters for the holidays.
Photo
Toys “R” Us said this week that it would have tens of thousands of Zhu Zhu Pets in stock on the Friday after Thanksgiving. But consumers will have to drink coffee with their turkey if they want a hamster: Toys “R” Us stores will open on Thanksgiving at midnight, and the first 100 customers in line will receive a ticket for a Zhu Zhu Pet, with a limit of one for each household.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“Others may try to make a lot of noise out of a few hamsters,” Mr. Storch said, “but we have by far the most inventory and opportunity to find Zhu Zhu at any retailer.” (Next month, Toys “R” Us plans to offer an exclusive $100 Zhu Zhu Pets set that includes — brace yourself — two hamsters, an exercise wheel, a fun house, a car and garage, an adventure ball and a sleep dome.)
Melissa O’Brien, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores, declined to comment on the chain’s Black Friday hamster plans, though she said the chain had more Zhu Zhu Pets on the way.
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 this time, we’re even air-shipping them in some markets,” she said. But she warned that when the hamsters do arrive, “a lot of them don’t spend the night in a store.”
Indeed, Cepia has found itself increasing hamster production and fielding phone calls from parents desperately seeking Zhu Zhu Pets, as well as their slightly pricier accessories, like a ramp with slide and a garage with car. There is even a surfboard.
Ms. Hornsby said the hamsters take their name from “zhu zhu,” or “little pig” in Chinese, which the folks at Cepia thought was fitting, given that hamsters are known for making messes.
Photo
Mr. Silver of TimetoPlayMag.com said a toy hamster had not been this hot for at least a decade, when Americans became enamored of one that danced to “Kung Fu Fighting.”
Cepia is relatively new. Founded in 2002, it has 16 employees in the United States and 25 in China. Ms. Hornsby, the marketing director, said Zhu Zhu Pets were the company’s breakthrough toy. “This is definitely our big fish,” she said, forgetting the hamster lingo for a moment. “Every day, we are humbled by what’s going on.”
The creators of Bakugan have more experience with this sort of craze. Bakugan, a Japanese import that some industry professionals have likened to the Pokémon phenomenon, was a hit last Christmas. The must-have addition to the toy line this year is Bakugan 7-in-1 Maxus Dragonoid, which, at $39.99, enables children to connect several game pieces to form one intimidating creature. Toys “R” Us has an exclusive 7-in-1 Bakugan, New Vestroia Maxus Helios, also for $34.99.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Harold Chizick, vice president of global communications and promotions for Spin Master, the creator of Bakugan, said the toys were all the rage because children liked collecting the cards and action figures just as much as battling. There is also a hit Bakugan Battle Brawlers anime television show that has fueled sales. “We have increased manufacturing and expedited shipment to be here for the holiday season,” Mr. Chizick said.
While it is the second Christmas for Bakugan, Mr. Silver of TimetoPlayMag.com noted that “when you have a hot item like this, usually Year 2 is bigger than Year 1.” That is primarily because the toy companies are able to ramp up to meet demand the second year.
Josh Green, chief executive of Panjiva, which tracks water-borne goods, said shipments of Zhu Zhu Pets to the United States skyrocketed for the three months ended in October.
But a warning to mischievous children everywhere: Mr. Green noted that shipments of coal were also up, by 6 percent, over last year. | The year's "must-have" toy has been crowned. For the uninitiated, Zhu Zhu Pets are electronic hamsters. They typically cost under $10, but stores are selling out quickly and prices are soaring online. Witness the coronation: BusinessWeek: "Remember the Cabbage Patch Kids craze? The Tickle Me Elmo frenzy? Meet their 2009 brethren, Zhu Zhu Pets." ABC News: "The cuddly, on-the-go hamsters who squeak, roll, even drive their own cars, are on their way to becoming the holiday season's 'must-have' toy." New York Times: "The hottest toy this holiday season is not a ticklish red monster. It’s a fake hamster." CBS News: "The hottest holiday toy doesn't come from one of the mega toy makers. It's made by the little St. Louis-based Cepia company." |
The extent of foodborne illness in the United States and its associated costs are significant. CDC estimates that unsafe foods cause as many as 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths annually. In terms of medical costs and productivity losses, foodborne illnesses associated with seven major pathogens cost the nation between $7 billion and $37 billion annually, according to USDA’s estimates. According to CDC, almost 12,000 cases of foodborne illness were reported in 1997, the latest year for which data are available. Of the approximately 7,000 cases in which the food source for the illness was known, about 85 percent were associated with food products that are regulated by FDA, such as fish, shellfish, fruits, vegetables, and salads. The remaining 15 percent were associated with food products, such as meat and poultry, that fall under FSIS’ jurisdiction. The relative proportion of illness associated with foods under each agency’s jurisdiction reflects consumer expenditures for food products under the jurisdiction of each. Nearly 80 percent of consumer expenditures are for foods under FDA’s jurisdiction, while FSIS is responsible for the remaining 20 percent. While 12 different federal agencies located within six federal departments conduct food safety activities, FSIS and FDA have primary regulatory responsibility for ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply. FSIS has responsibility for ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, overseeing about 6,000 meat, poultry, egg product and import establishments. Under the governing inspection acts, FSIS, in effect, preapproves products before they are marketed. As such, FSIS operates under a mandated continuous inspection frequency for meat and poultry slaughter plants and egg processing plants and inspects meat and poultry processing plants daily. FSIS marks all inspected and approved meat, poultry, and egg products with a USDA inspection stamp. Without this marking, the products cannot be legally marketed. FSIS also reviews and assesses the effectiveness of state intrastate meat, poultry, and egg product inspection programs to ensure that their standards are at least equal to federal standards. In addition, FSIS reviews and assesses foreign inspection systems and facilities that export FSIS-regulated products to the United States for equivalency with U.S. standards. In 1998, FSIS reviewed 7 of the 26 states with intrastate inspection programs for meat and/or poultry and reviewed foreign inspection programs in 22 of the 37 countries that were eligible to export to the United States. In addition to the inspection activities, FSIS conducts emergency responses, including retention, detention, or voluntary recall of adulterated foods and epidemiological investigations of foodborne hazards or disease outbreaks. Furthermore, FSIS engages in developing and implementing cooperative strategies to prevent health hazards associated with animal production practices, coordinating U.S. participation in international sanitary standard-setting activities, and providing safety information to food handlers and consumers. FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of a broad range of products, including foods, animal drugs and feeds, human medicines and vaccines, radiation-emitting devices, medical devices, blood and blood products, and cosmetics. Specifically, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA is responsible for ensuring that domestic and imported food products (except meat, poultry, and processed egg products) are safe, wholesome, and labeled properly. This includes ensuring the safety of ingredients that make up foods, such as food additives that change a food’s color or taste, and reviewing and approving new additives unless they are generally recognized as being safe. In administering the act, which generally follows the regulatory approach of allowing food products to enter the market without preapproval, FDA inspects and tests domestic and imported food products. However, the act does not mandate or specify inspection frequencies for overseeing an estimated 57,000 food establishments under FDA’s jurisdiction. Products under FDA’s jurisdiction do not require, and FDA does not place, any inspection mark on the products before they can be legally marketed. FDA is also responsible for maintaining surveillance of all animal drugs and feeds to ensure that they are safe and labeled properly and produce no human health hazards when used in food-producing animals and for overseeing more than 9,000 animal drug and feed establishments. States all have departments that are responsible for the regulation and enforcement of their own food safety laws to ensure the safety of foods produced, processed, or sold within their borders. These responsibilities are primarily within the state departments of agriculture and health and may involve others, such as state environmental protection agencies and county departments of health. States and territories may also perform inspections for FSIS or FDA under contract or form partnerships to report their results to the federal agencies. For example, in fiscal year 1998, FDA contracted with 38 states to conduct inspections in accordance with the federal regulations. Under partnership agreements, 29 states shared the results of inspections conducted under their own standards with FDA. FSIS was responsible for food safety expenditures of $678 million in fiscal year 1998 and $712 million in fiscal year 1999, or about 55 percent of the nearly $1.3 billion fiscal year 1999 federal and state expenditures. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, FSIS employed 11,057 and 10,951 staff years, respectively. FDA food safety activities accounted for about 22 percent of the total expenditures—$253 million in fiscal year 1998 and $283 million in fiscal year 1999—and employed 2,505 and 2,609 staff years, respectively. State agriculture and health departments reported food safety expenditures of about $292 million in fiscal year 1998 and $301 million in fiscal year 1999 and employed 5,617 and 5,717 staff years, respectively. About 85 percent of FSIS’ expenditures were for field activities, while FDA’s expenditures were almost evenly divided between field and nonfield activities. The federal agencies’ expenditures reflect the regulatory approaches or inspection frequencies contained in the laws under which they operate. FSIS expended $678 million in fiscal year 1998 and $712 million in fiscal year 1999 on food safety. FSIS’ food safety activities can be separated into two major components—operations conducted in the field by district offices or in direct support of those district offices and operations conducted primarily in headquarters offices. As shown in figure 2, about 85 percent of FSIS’ fiscal year 1999 expenditures were for field activities and 15 percent were for headquarters office activities. See appendix II for details on FSIS’ activities, expenditures, and staff years for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. In aggregate, FSIS’ field activities accounted for $614 million in fiscal year1999. Specifically: Inspections at more than 6,000 slaughter, processing, and import establishments accounted for $486 million, or 68 percent, of total agency expenditures. Of the $486 million, FSIS estimates that slaughter inspections conducted at 262 establishments accounted for about $324 million; daily meat and poultry processing inspections at about 4,300 establishments accounted for about $145 million; continuous inspections at 75 egg processor establishments accounted for about $8 million; and inspections at 129 import/export establishments accounted for about $7 million. Regarding slaughter inspections, FSIS estimates that carcass-by- carcass organoleptic (see, touch, smell) inspections accounted for about $296 million of the total inspection expenditures. FSIS does not track expenditures specifically related to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system inspections and thus could not provide that information. Field office administration, supervision, and compliance activities, such as following-up on inspection findings, accounted for $34.1 million, or 5 percent, of total expenditures. Field office management by the Office of Field Operations located in Washington, D.C., accounted for $79.9 million, or 11 percent, of total expenditures. The largest expenditure was for grants to states for inspections, field automation, and other activities, accounting for almost $47 million, or over half, of the office’s total expenditures for fiscal year 1999. Field laboratory analysis services provided by the Office of Public Health and Science accounted for $14 million of field activity expenditures, or 2 percent, of total expenditures. FSIS’ headquarters-based activities accounted for the remaining $98 million of fiscal year 1999 expenditures, or about 15 percent, of total agency expenditures. Four program offices—Management; Public Health and Science; Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation; and the Office of the Administrator—conduct FSIS’ headquarters food safety activities. Specifically: The Office of Management accounted for about $61.8 million, or 9 percent, of total expenditures. The office is responsible for providing centralized administrative and support services to all other FSIS program offices, including functions such as human resource management, strategic planning, procurement, and financial management. The Office of Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation accounted for about $18.9 million, or 3 percent, of total expenditures. The office is responsible for, among other things, coordinating activities, such as developing and recommending domestic and international policies for FSIS; reviewing product process standards; product labeling; and developing and evaluating inspection programs. The Office of Public Health and Science accounted for about $11.4 million, or 2 percent, of total expenditures. The office is responsible for conducting scientific analysis, providing scientific advice and data, and making recommendations involving all public health and science concerns relating to products under FSIS’ jurisdiction. This includes mission activities such as epidemiology and risk assessment, surveillance, and response to food safety emergencies. The Office of the Administrator accounted for about $6.1 million, or 1 percent, of total expenditures. The office is responsible for managing agency activities such as public affairs, food safety education, coordinating U.S. involvement in international standard-setting for food safety, and maintaining liaison with trade organizations. FSIS’ large proportion of expenditures on field and supporting activities reflects the mandate of the meat and poultry acts. The two acts require that meat and poultry slaughter plants be under continuous FSIS inspection. If a federal inspector is not present, the animals cannot be slaughtered. FSIS inspects animals both before and after slaughter. The acts also require FSIS inspectors to monitor processing plant operations, such as deboning and canning, to ensure that plants are sanitary and adhere to approved procedures and label specifications. The acts do not explicitly set inspection frequencies for meat- and poultry-processing plants; however, FSIS has interpreted the acts as requiring the daily inspection of such plants and has established its regulations accordingly. That is, an FSIS inspector must visit each meat- and poultry-processing plant for an unspecified period of time—which may be as little as an hour—each operating day. As such, the majority of FSIS expenditures are directed to conducting inspection activities based on frequencies derived from the regulatory acts, rather than on the food safety risk of a specific plant or process. In 1998, we reported that FSIS’ funds could be used more effectively if they were redirected using risk-based criteria. Specifically, the approximate $296 million in fiscal year 1999 expenditures for organoleptic, carcass-by-carcass slaughter inspections do not optimize federal resources because these inspections do not detect the most serious public health threat associated with meat and poultry—microbial contamination. Rather, some of these funds and funds used for daily inspections of meat- and poultry-processing plants could be used, for example, to increase testing for microbial and other types of contamination, risk assessment, and scientific research, or could be congressionally redirected to other food plants, such as seafood processors, based on the health risk posed. We continue to hold this view. FDA expended $253 million in fiscal year 1998 and $283 million in fiscal year 1999 on food safety activities. These activities represent the combined efforts of FDA’s three centers with food safety responsibilities: the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and the National Center for Toxicological Research, as well as the field activities conducted by the Office of Regulatory Affairs in support of the centers. As with FSIS, FDA’s food safety activities can be separated into two major elements: (1) inspection and enforcement operations conducted in the field by district offices or at headquarters in direct support of those district offices, and (2) operations conducted primarily in headquarters offices. As shown in figure 3, about 56 percent of FDA’s fiscal year 1999 food safety expenditures were for field activities and about 44 percent were for headquarters-based activities of FDA’s centers. Appendix III provides detailed information on FDA’s fiscal years 1998 and 1999 activities, expenditures, and staff years. In aggregate, FDA’s field activities accounted for about $159 million in fiscal year 1999, or about 56 percent of the agency’s total food safety expenditures. The Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) is responsible for conducting field activities designated by the centers. ORA’s compliance, inspection, and laboratory field staff manage, supervise, and conduct enforcement, compliance, inspection, sample collection and analysis activities, as well as criminal investigation, education, and outreach activities. Specifically: The ORA-conducted field activities in support of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition accounted for about $145 million in expenditures for fiscal year 1999. Using these funds, FDA conducted over 14,600 domestic food establishment inspections, including those conducted by states under contract with FDA, at a cost of about $2 million; and about 765 inspections of food importers. About $27 million, or 19 percent, of the $145 million went to domestic and imported seafood hazard analysis and critical control point inspection activities. Also included in these total expenditures is more than $40 million for laboratory analysis of about 25,000 domestic and foreign product samples associated with field inspection activities. The ORA-conducted field activities in support of the Center for Veterinary Medicine accounted for about $13.5 million in expenditures in fiscal year 1999. With these funds, FDA conducted nearly 3,500 domestic animal drug and feed establishment inspections, including those conducted by states under contract with FDA at a cost of about $600,000. Also included in these expenditures is about $2 million for laboratory analysis of about 1,800 feed samples associated with field inspection activities. In aggregate, the headquarters-based activities of FDA’s centers accounted for about $125 million in fiscal year 1999, or 44 percent of the agency’s total food safety expenditures. Specifically: The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s activities accounted for about $96 million in fiscal year 1999, or 34 percent of total agency food safety expenditures. The center operates FDA’s Foods Program, which is responsible for ensuring that FDA-regulated food is safe, sanitary, wholesome, and labeled properly. To attain this goal, the center implements programs that address specific food safety concerns; premarket review of food and color additives, infant formula and medical foods accounted for about $10 million in expenditures, and postmarket monitoring and response activities accounted for about $17 million in expenditures, and cross-cutting activities that address both premarket and postmarket concerns, such as regulatory policy development and education and outreach activities, accounted for about $61 million in expenditures. Food safety research and risk assessment accounted for about $32 million, or about half of cross-cutting activity expenditures. The Center for Veterinary Medicine’s activities accounted for about $28 million in fiscal year 1999, or 10 percent, of total agency food safety expenditures. The center operates FDA’s Animal Drugs and Feeds Program, which has primary goals of ensuring that only safe and effective animal drugs, feeds, and feed additives are marketed and that foods from animals that are administered drugs and food additives are safe for human consumption. The center maintains surveillance over all animal drugs and feeds to minimize threats to human health. Premarket application review for new animal drugs accounted for the center’s largest expenditures, about $12.8 million in fiscal year 1999. In the same year, FDA reviewed 36 original new animal drug applications, approving 17, and reviewed 767 supplemental applications to change the conditions of existing approvals, approving 421. The National Center for Toxicological Research located in Jefferson, Arkansas, accounted for nearly $1.5 million in fiscal year 1999, or about 1 percent of total agency expenditures. The center’s mission is to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research that provides the basis for FDA to make sound, science-based regulatory decisions and to protect the public health through pre- and post-market surveillance. During fiscal year 1999, the center conducted 10 research projects that contributed to FDA’s food safety mission; due to the center’s research focus, it did not engage in field activities related to food safety. FDA’s relatively small proportion of expenditures on field inspection and supporting activities in comparison to FSIS’ expenditures for those activities reflects the absence of specified inspection frequencies in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. The act, which FDA has primary responsibility for administering, generally follows the regulatory approach of allowing almost all food products to enter the market without preapproval by federal agencies. Therefore, FDA is not required to inspect foods or food firms on a given schedule. As a result, FDA inspects the more than 57,000 food establishments under its jurisdiction about once every 5 years, on average, and according to FDA officials, inspected less than 1 percent of the 3.7 million imported food entries in fiscal year 1999. State agriculture and health departments reported expenditures of about $292 million in fiscal year 1998 and $301 million in fiscal year 1999. As shown in figure 4, nearly half of the expenditures reported by state agencies, or about $144 million in fiscal year 1999, were for inspection and licensing activities. Appendix IV provides detailed information on the state agencies’ fiscal years 1998 and 1999 expenditures and staff years for food safety activities. State agriculture and health departments reported food safety expenditures in six categories: licensing and inspection, response to food safety problems, laboratory analysis, technical assistance and training, administration and support, and other expenditures. Specifically, for fiscal year 1999: Licensing and inspection activities for a wide variety of establishments, including meat and poultry slaughter and processing plants, fish and seafood plants, shellfish operations, dairy product and egg product plants, as well as groceries, restaurants, and institutions, accounted for about $144 million, or about 48 percent, of state expenditures. Laboratory analysis activities, including analysis for microbial contamination, pesticides and other chemical residues, filth and/or sanitation, and food label accuracy, accounted for about $34 million, or about 11 percent, of state expenditures. Administration and support for food safety activities accounted for about $33 million, or about 11 percent, of state expenditures. Technical assistance and training activities for a wide variety of recipients, including farmers, producers, processors, consumers, department staff, and the staff of outside departments, accounted for about $18 million, or about 6 percent, of state expenditures. Response to food safety problems, including investigation of outbreaks, recall activities, natural disasters, and regulatory enforcement activities, accounted for about $16 million, or about 5 percent, of state expenditures. Other activities that did not fit into the above categories, such as committee or council activities, computer or equipment purchases, and database development, accounted for about $5 million, or about 2 percent, of state expenditures. State agriculture and health departments reported in aggregate over 1 million establishments under their collective inspection jurisdictions and about 2 million inspections conducted each year, not counting continuous inspections at meat and poultry slaughter plants and other establishments. Groceries, other retail outlets, and restaurants were by far the largest proportion of establishments under state inspection jurisdiction, representing more than 60 percent of all establishments under state jurisdiction. Dairy farms were the next largest group of establishments under state inspection jurisdiction, representing almost 10 percent of the establishments. While state agriculture and health departments are generally charged with primary food safety responsibilities, a wide variety of other state and local agencies that were not included in our survey also have food safety responsibilities and associated expenditures. About half of the state departments of agriculture and health that we surveyed reported that other state departments or agencies had a role in ensuring food safety, but often only at a specific type of establishment or for a specific food product. States also reported that local governments are involved in conducting food safety inspections at some types of establishments, such as groceries and other retail outlets, restaurants, and at institutions, but are less involved in conducting laboratory analysis, responding to food safety problems, or providing technical assistance and training. We provided FSIS and FDA with a draft of this report for review and comment. FSIS generally agreed with the information provided but said that the report should clearly state that FSIS’ responsibilities and expenditures also involve some nonfood safety activities, such as ensuring that products meet consumer expectations for wholesomeness and quality. We believe that the report clearly identifies FSIS’ responsibilities—i.e., ensuring that meat, poultry, and processed egg products moving in interstate and foreign commerce are safe, wholesome, and marked, labeled, and packaged correctly. Regarding nonfood safety expenditures, throughout our review, FSIS officials said that the expenditure information provided to us was for food safety or food safety- related activities. As such, we believe that the FSIS expenditures in this report are appropriately characterized as “food safety” expenditures. FSIS also said that it would be useful if we included the size and scope of the products it regulates. We believe the report adequately describes the size and scope of FSIS’ activities. For example, the report includes information on the number of meat, poultry, egg product, and import establishments FSIS oversees; the number of state and foreign programs it reviewed; and the number and type of inspections it conducted. The level of detail provided on FSIS’ responsibilities and activities is similar to that provided on FDA’s activities. FSIS also said that the statistics provided in the report regarding the relative proportions of food purchases and agency food safety expenditures were misleading due to the high risk of FSIS-regulated products compared with some of the FDA-regulated products. While the relative risk of FSIS-regulated products may be greater in some cases than FDA-regulated products, it was not our intent to analyze or compare the risk of products. We believe that the data accurately reflect the proportion of each agency’s expenditures and the proportion of consumer expenditures for foods under each agency’s jurisdiction. The report also clearly identifies the food products for which each agency has responsibility. Finally, FSIS said that the report should further define its responsibilities under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act. FSIS also described court actions related to its efforts to design new inspection models that would realign roles and responsibilities of industry and federal inspectors. We modified the report to clearly identify FSIS’ responsibilities under the federal meat and poultry inspection acts and described its efforts, with guidance from the courts, to realign the responsibilities and roles of industry and federal inspectors. FDA agreed with the report and said that it contained valuable information on the allocation of food safety resources. FDA applauded the report for including important information on the efforts and resources expended by states but believed that the report was incomplete because it did not include information on the expenditures and efforts of other agencies, such as USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. We have previously reported on the resources and staffing of the 12 federal agencies involved in food safety activities. By design, the scope of this report was limited to FSIS and FDA food safety activities and expenditures. FSIS and FDA also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. FSIS’ comments and our responses are included in appendix VI; FDA’s comments and our responses are included in appendix VII. We conducted our review from March through December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Honorable Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable Bernard Schwetz, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; the Honorable Mitchell Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII. To determine for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 the amount of resources that were expended by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the states for food safety and how the agencies actually used these resources, we conducted work at each of the federal agencies and mailed surveys to food safety agencies in 50 states, 3 territories, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the North Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the District of Columbia (hereafter referred to as states unless specified otherwise). Regarding FSIS and FDA, we obtained appropriations documentation showing the amount of funding provided to each agency. We collected records of expenditures and staff years for specific activities from each of the agencies as follows: FSIS provided expenditure and full-time equivalent staff-year information from its accounting system for each of its headquarters and field offices for specific food safety activities within those offices, such as inspection, education, and laboratory activities. FSIS could not provide expenditure information from its accounting system for approximately 2 weeks at the end of fiscal year 1999 because of problems created by the implementation of a new accounting system. Instead, FSIS determined the allocation of expenditures for that time period based on other expenditure records. The Office of Inspector General could not give an opinion on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) financial statements for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 because of weaknesses in evidence and internal controls.We did not verify FSIS’ accounting information, as it was the only information available, and such an audit was outside of the scope of our review. FDA provided records of expenditures and staff years from the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). Each center used its own methodology to identify and provide expenditures and staff years for specific food safety activities, using a combination of accounting system information, staff activity time records, and estimations. FDA’s Office of Financial Management reviewed the information provided by the centers for accuracy and consistency and also provided us with the share of FDA central administrative costs allocable to each center. We did not verify FDA’s accounting information; we relied on an independent auditor’s finding that FDA’s accounting records fairly reported its financial position and had no internal control weaknesses in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. At each agency, we gathered documentation and interviewed agency officials to (1) obtain additional information on the specific activities funded by the expenditures and accomplishments associated with those activities and (2) discuss the expenditure and staff-year information they provided. We also collected documentation and the transfer of funds between food safety and nonfood safety activities at each agency and discussed other financial concerns, such as FSIS’ fiscal years 1997 and 1998 anti-deficiency violations caused by the over-obligation of as much as $4 million each year. To determine the amounts that states expended on food safety and how they actually used the resources, we surveyed the agriculture and health departments of 50 states, 3 territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia; we surveyed the health departments of the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, which do not have agriculture departments. In total, we sent out 112 surveys. The survey requested information on the scope of food safety activities performed by their departments, the costs and staffing levels of those activities, the scope and frequency of inspection activities, how the states allocated expenditures between various activities, and perceptions regarding the extent of local government involvement in food safety activities. In developing the survey, we coordinated with staff from FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, Division of Federal/State Relations, which is also surveying the states. We pretested the survey at seven food safety departments in four states—Colorado, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Virginia—to ensure that our questions were clear, unbiased, and precise and that responding to the survey did not place an undue burden on their agencies. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the state officials’ responses. We also reviewed each response to identify internal data inconsistencies and other issues needing clarification, called respondents to resolve questions, and made agreed-upon changes to their responses as appropriate. We received surveys from 98 of the 100 state health and agriculture departments; 6 of the 10 food safety agencies in the territories and other entities; and both the health and agriculture departments in the District of Columbia. Our overall response rate was 95 percent. In completing the survey, we asked the states to obtain information from staff who are most knowledgeable about food safety activities, that they respond only for their department’s activities, and that they submit only one survey reflecting the entire department’s activities. Regarding expenditures, we asked that states report actual expenditures for each state fiscal year, but if these were not available, to report budget allocations and to inform us which of the two data types they provided to us. Of the responding agencies, 37 reported actual expenditures, 9 reported actual budget allocations, and 55 reported estimates. The majority of the respondents did not report all indirect costs for food safety activities or in-kind contributions, although some did. We recognize that the total funding amounts reported for food safety activities, as well as the amounts reported for specific categories of activities, could be under- or over-reported because of differences in state department reporting, budgeting, and accounting practices. In some cases, states did not report expenditures, staff years, or establishments by the individual categories provided in the survey; rather, they may have pooled categories together or reported only a total amount. These amounts are reported as “uncategorized.” A few state departments sent in several individual responses from various entities, which we consolidated into a single departmental response. Some states provided a response for only one of the two departments. The reported expenditures do not reflect the full cost of food safety activities within each state, because expenditures and activities of other state agencies, local agencies, and private industry, by design, are not included in our scope. However, we believe the information presented in the report reasonably and conservatively represents the food safety activities and expenditures of the survey respondents. Appendix V contains the survey results. We performed our work from March through December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and processed egg products moving in interstate and foreign commerce are safe, wholesome, and labeled and packaged correctly. The food safety activities undertaken by FSIS to attain these goals during fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the costs and staff years associated with each activity, and outcomes associated with selected activities are presented in the following sections. FSIS accomplishes its mission to ensure that the nation’s meat, poultry, and egg products moving interstate and into foreign commerce are safe, wholesome, and labeled and packaged correctly through five program offices located in Washington, D.C. The offices include the Office of the Administrator; Office of Public Health and Science; Office of Policy, Program Development and Evaluation; Office of Field Operations (headquarters and district offices); and Office of Management. In addition, FSIS operates a Technical Service Center in Omaha, Nebraska; three field laboratories located in Alameda, California; St. Louis, Missouri, and Athens, Georgia; and 17 district offices located throughout the United States. FSIS’ food safety activities are funded through annual congressional appropriations, industry reimbursements, and trust funds for meat and poultry inspection. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, funds available to FSIS totaled about $678 million and $714 million, respectively. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, FSIS expended about $678 million and $712 million, respectively, for its food safety activities. As shown in table 1, about 84 percent of the expenditures were for the Office of Field Operations to conduct headquarters and district office food safety activities. The other four offices accounted for about 16 percent of expenditures in aggregate. The Office of Field Operations is responsible for managing a program of regulatory oversight and inspection for the meat, poultry, and egg product laws enforced by FSIS. As such, the office was responsible for the largest proportion of agency expenditures—$568 million and $600 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 84 percent of agency expenditures and over 90 percent of staff years. The office is divided into two components—headquarters operations and field district operations. The headquarters unit located in Washington, D.C., sets policy and manages field operations. As shown in table 2, the headquarters unit accounted for about $69 million and $79 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 10 percent of total FSIS expenditures. Included within this unit is the Technical Service Center, which serves as the agency’s center for technical assistance and guidance for field operations personnel and industry. The center also reviews domestic and foreign inspection programs. Three activities—grants provided to states, the Field Automation and Information Management initiative, and reviews conducted by the Technical Service Center—accounted for $70 million, or about 88 percent, of the total office expenditures in fiscal year 1999. Grants to states accounted for almost 60 percent of total office expenditures. Most of the grants, about $40 million, funded up to 50 percent of state costs to operate inspection programs for meat and poultry plants that are “equivalent to” federal programs. In fiscal year 1999, 26 states received funding through grants. The Field Automation and Information Management initiative accounted for about 17 percent of the Office of Field Operations headquarters expenditures for fiscal year 1999. This initiative provides for uniform automation of FSIS’ inspection functions at plants inspected by FSIS and state inspectors. Expenditures were for the purchase and installation of the equipment, as well as training inspectors. For example, during fiscal year 1999, over 750 federal inspectors were trained and 700 computers delivered to FSIS field locations. In addition, over 550 state inspectors were trained, and states received over 500 computers. The Technical Service Center conducted review activities that accounted for about 12 percent of field operation’s headquarters expenditures for fiscal year 1999. The center is responsible for designing and implementing guidelines and procedures for review of foreign, state, and federal domestic inspection programs. The center also conducts special inquiries and reviews, such as reviews of state inspection programs, to ensure they are equivalent to the federal programs. In fiscal year 1999, the center reviewed the program documentation of 36 countries exporting to the United States to determine if they had implemented Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point systems and Salmonella testing programs equivalent to U.S. requirements. In that same year, the center’s review staff reviewed 96 state-inspected establishments in 11 states to determine their effectiveness and whether or not they were equivalent to the federal inspection programs. The Office of Field Operation’s field district offices conduct compliance and inspection activities for meat, poultry, and egg products. As shown in table 3, the field district offices accounted for expenditures of about $499 million and $520 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 73 percent, of agency expenditures and about 90 percent of staff years. Within the district offices, 93 percent of their expenditures were for in-plant inspections and 7 percent for the administration of those activities and compliance activities. Under the guidance and direction of the Office of Field Operation’s headquarters District Inspection and District Enforcement offices, the districts manage and direct both inspection and compliance activities. As shown in table 4, the district offices direct inspections of meat and poultry slaughter plants, processing plants, and plants that have combined slaughter and processing operations, and other establishments such as egg product plants. In addition, the offices inspect these products at import points. For example, in fiscal year 1999, they inspected over 99 billion pounds of meat and poultry and 3 billion pounds of egg products at about 6,000 domestic plants and inspected 3.2 billion pounds of imported meat and poultry from 34 countries. The district offices also direct compliance reviews that are designed to (1) monitor businesses engaged in the production, distribution, and marketing of food products and (2) prevent the violation of laws and regulations. As a result of these reviews, in fiscal year 1999, the district offices detained approximately 20 million pounds of adulterated meat and poultry products and initiated 118 enforcement actions to stop inspection operations in federally inspected plants. The Office of Management is responsible for providing centralized administrative and support services to all other FSIS program offices, including human resource management, strategic planning, procurement, and financial management. As shown in table 5, the office accounted for expenditures of about $63 million and $62 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 9 percent, of agency expenditures and 4 percent of staff years. About 46 percent of the office’s expenditures were for “central charges” attributed to the entire agency. Almost one-half of these charges were expenditures for benefits such as worker’s compensation and unemployment. Other charges included “other services” such as contractual and consulting services, communications, utilities, and rent. The Office of Public Health and Science is responsible for conducting scientific analysis, providing advice, collecting data, and making recommendations involving all public health and science concerns relating to products under FSIS’ jurisdiction. This includes mission activities such as epidemiology and risk assessment, surveillance, response to food safety emergencies, and laboratory analysis by the agency’s three field laboratories. As shown in table 6, the office accounted for expenditures of about $24 million and $25 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 4 percent, of agency expenditures and 2 to 3 percent of staff years. The combined expenditures for the three field laboratories and the Office of Public Health and Science’s Office of Deputy accounted for 77 percent of all expenditures for that program office in fiscal year 1999. Three field laboratories located in Alameda, California; Athens, Georgia; and St. Louis, Missouri, accounted for more than 50 percent of the office expenditures and almost 70 percent of the staff years. These laboratories coordinate and conduct analyses in microbiology, chemistry, and pathology for food safety in meat, poultry, and egg products. Among other things, they conduct these services to (1) support both domestic and import inspections done by FSIS, (2) support the agency’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point initiative, and (3) identify emerging pathogens in the food supply. In addition, the laboratories provide technical assistance to FSIS field staff. The Office of Deputy accounted for about 22 percent of office expenditures, with the majority of these being for charges attributed specifically to the Office of Public Health and Science. Most of these charges are for “other services” such as facilities renovations, equipment, or payments to other agencies for studies. For example, in fiscal year 1999, the Office of Deputy expended $1.2 million to repair its Eastern Laboratory in Athens, Georgia, and provided the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with $1.5 million for Food Net surveys. The Office of Policy, Program Development and Evaluation is responsible for, among other things, coordinating activities such as developing and recommending domestic and international policies for FSIS; reviewing product processes, standards, and labeling; and developing and evaluating inspection programs. As shown in table 7, the office accounted for expenditures of about $18 million and $19 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 3 percent, of agency expenditures and 1 percent of staff years. The combined expenditures of two offices in the Office of Policy, Program Development and Evaluation—the Inspection Development Division and the Office of Deputy— accounted for over 40 percent of all expenditures for that office in fiscal year 1999. The Inspection Systems Development Division designs, develops, and tests new or modified inspection systems for food safety. This division works on developing specific changes to FSIS’ inspection procedures, including work related to hazard analysis and critical control point procedures. For example, this division has contracted for the collection of microbiological and organoleptic data in poultry and hog plants to support the proposed Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-based Inspection Models Project. The Office of Deputy accounted for about 20 percent of total office expenditures. Other than personnel expenditures, the majority of these were for “centrally administered” charges. According to FSIS officials, these are charges associated with the entire Office of Policy, Program Development and Evaluation office, rather than a specific division within that office. Most of these charges are for “other services,” such as production of food safety educational materials. The Office of the Administrator is responsible for overall management of the agency and activities such as public affairs, food safety education, and coordination of U.S. involvement in international standard setting for food safety and maintaining liaisons with trade organizations. As shown in table 8, the office accounted for expenditures of about $5 million and $6 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 1 percent of agency expenditures and 1 percent of staff years. A significant portion of the Office of the Administrator’s funding, about 30 percent in fiscal year 1999, was expended on food safety education. The functions of the Food Safety Education staff are different from other units in the office because, while others primarily conduct management and policy type activities, the food safety education staff provides FSIS food safety education programs to the public. These programs are designed to educate producers, distributors, food preparers, and consumers on the prevention of foodborne illnesses. This office also operates the agency’s Meat and Poultry Hotline to answer consumer inquiries. In fiscal year 1999, this staff coordinated the agency’s food safety education campaign, FightBAC! tm, and handled about 36,000 consumer calls to the hotline. Food safety is one of the Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) many responsibilities, shared by multiple units within the agency. FDA food safety activities undertaken by each unit during fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the costs and staff years associated with each activity, and outcomes associated with selected activities are presented in the following sections. FDA accomplishes its mission of protecting the public health by ensuring the safety of a broad range of products, including foods, animal drugs and feeds, human medicines and vaccines, radiation-emitting devices, medical devices, blood and blood products, and cosmetics through six centers. Three of these centers are responsible for food safety activities: the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) for the Foods Program; the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) for the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program; and the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) for research into the toxicity of products. In addition, the Office of Regulatory Affairs conducts inspections and compliance reviews and collects and analyzes product samples in support of the centers. The three centers and the Office of Regulatory Affairs are also provided administrative support through numerous offices, such as the Office of the Commissioner and the Office of Management and Systems. FDA food safety facilities are distributed nationwide. FDA headquarters and CVM are located in Rockville, Maryland, CFSAN is located in Washington, D.C., and NCTR is located in Jefferson, Arkansas. The two Centers, CVM and CFSAN, have a research facility in Beltsville, Maryland; CFSAN has a fishery research center in Dauphin Island, Alabama, and a food technology research center in Chicago, Illinois. Field facilities, primarily staffed by Office of Regulatory Affairs personnel conducting inspections and laboratory activities, are distributed across 5 regional offices, 19 district offices, and 13 laboratories, and are supported by over 120 resident posts. FDA’s appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 were about $1.050 billion and $1.130 billion, respectively. Each of FDA’s programs received a specified amount of the total appropriation to conduct both their food safety and nonfood safety-related responsibilities. For example, in fiscal year 1999, the Foods Program received about $235 million, of which about $222 million was expended on CFSAN and related field food safety activities. The difference reflects that while most of the Food Program’s responsibilities relate to food safety, the program also has other responsibilities and related expenditures for other activities, such as cosmetics safety. Similarly, in fiscal year 1999, the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program received about $43 million, of which about $38 million was expended on CVM and related field food safety activities. The difference reflects that while the majority of the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program’s responsibilities relate to food safety, the program also has responsibilities and related expenditures for nonfood animals, such as dogs and cats. The Office of Regulatory Affairs receives a specific amount of the appropriation for each program to conduct field activities in support of the centers. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, as shown in table 9, about 56 percent of FDA’s food safety expenditures and over 60 percent of its staff years were for food safety activities conducted in the field, and the remaining 44 percent of expenditures and nearly 40 percent of the staff years were for the headquarters-based activities of the centers. Field activity expenditures of about $141 million and $159 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, accounted for about 56 percent of total FDA food safety expenditures each year and 62 to 64 percent of FDA’s staff years. CFSAN is responsible for directing field activities related to food products, and CVM is responsible for field activities related to feeds and drugs for food animals. These field activities, conducted by FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, include the inspection of food and animal feed and drug establishments under the agency’s jurisdiction, field examination of food and feed products, and the collection and analysis of product samples to ensure that the products comply with applicable regulations. The overall results of FDA’s inspection and sample analysis fieldwork are presented in table 10. Field activities for foods accounted for about $127 million in fiscal year 1998 and $145 million in fiscal year 1999, or about 90 percent of FDA’s food safety field expenditures. Table 11 lists the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 food field expenditures of $1 million or more. FDA food field activities accounting for less than $1 million in annual expenditures each, such as criminal investigations, emergency response to foodborne outbreaks, and various unplanned activities, represented in aggregate less than $8 million in expenditures each year. The expenditures reflect the total cost of each activity, including inspection, investigation, field examination, sample collection, sample analysis, and other costs, such as Office of Regulatory Affairs management and administrative support expenditures, associated with each activity. FDA agencywide support expenditures accounted for about 8 percent of food product field expenditures. Five of the field activities listed in table 11 accounted for about $71 million, or almost 50 percent, of total food field expenditures in fiscal year 1999. Imported foods general activities accounted for about $27 million, or about 19 percent, of food field expenditures. The objective of this activity was to ensure that imported foods comply with federal law and with guidelines for gross and microbiological filth. To attain this objective, FDA conducted import field examinations of the foods most likely to be out of compliance, collected samples, and conducted analysis for filth, decomposition, and microbiological contamination. The domestic fish and fish products inspection activity accounted for about $14 million, or about 10 percent, of food field expenditures. The objective of this activity was to ensure that domestic establishments involved in the production, storage, and distribution of fish and fish products are in compliance with the applicable hazard analysis and critical control point regulations as well as with federal law. To attain this objective, FDA conducted establishment inspections, and samples were collected and analyzed when appropriate, with a priority on firms processing scombrotoxic products, smoked products, vacuum packed products, and ready-to-eat products, as well as follow-up on firms found to be in noncompliance with hazard analysis and critical control point regulations. The imported seafood products inspection activity accounted for about $13 million, or about 9 percent, of food field expenditures. The objective of this activity was to ensure a safe imported seafood supply by enforcing importer compliance with the seafood hazard analysis and critical control point regulation and federal law, focusing on importers of high-risk products and firms found in noncompliance with the hazard analysis and critical control point regulations. To attain this objective, trained investigators reviewed importers’ written documentation demonstrating that the product was produced under a hazard analysis and critical control point program, with priority assigned to firms processing scombrotoxic products, smoked products, vacuum packed products, and ready-to-eat products. The domestic food safety activity accounted for about $11 million, or about 7 percent, of food field expenditures. The objective of this activity was to ensure that domestic establishments involved in the production, storage and distribution of food products are in compliance with federal law and that manufacturers produce products under good manufacturing practices. To attain this objective, FDA conducted inspections (including hazard analysis and critical control point) and investigations and necessary sample collections and analyses to document and support inspection findings. The pesticides and chemicals in imported foods activity accounted for about $7 million, or about 5 percent, of food field expenditures. The objective of this activity was to determine the incidence and level of pesticides and industrial chemicals in imported food (including seafood and aquaculture products) and to prevent importation of products not meeting federal requirements. To attain this objective, FDA developed pesticide import sampling plans, collected samples, and analyzed samples for chemical contamination. Animal drugs and feeds field activity expenditures of about $13.7 million and $13.5 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, accounted for about 10 percent of FDA’s total food safety field expenditures each year. Table 12 lists the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 animal feed and drug field activity expenditures of $1 million or more. Other field activities, such as criminal investigations, response to consumer complaints, and various unplanned activities in aggregate, accounted for just over $3 million in expenditures each year. The expenditure amounts reflect the total cost of each activity, including inspection, investigation, field examination, sample collection, sample analysis, and other costs, such as Office of Regulatory Affairs management and administrative support expenditures, associated with each activity. FDA agencywide support expenditures accounted for about 8 percent of feed and drug field expenditures. Five of the field activities listed in table 12 accounted for about $9 million, or almost 70 percent, of total animal drugs and feeds field expenditures in fiscal year 1999. The feed contaminants activity accounted for about $2.4 million, or about 18 percent, of expenditures. The objective of this activity is to monitor domestic and imported animal feed and feed ingredients to prevent the widespread contamination of the nation’s food supply. To attain this objective, FDA conducts inspections and investigations and collects and analyzes samples of feed and feed ingredients, including chemical and microbiological testing for mycotoxins, pesticides, industrial chemicals, metals, and microbiologicals. The medicated feeds activity accounted for about $2.1 million, or about 15 percent, of expenditures. The objective of this activity is to ensure the marketing of safe and effective animal feeds. To attain this objective, FDA conducts inspections of registered medicated feed establishments, collects and analyzes feed samples, and audits the results of coordinated state inspection efforts. The illegal residues in meat and poultry activity accounted for about $1.8 million, or about 13 percent, of expenditures. The objective of this activity is to ensure a safe food supply by conducting follow-up investigations and inspections when illegal residues are reported to FDA by the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and to initiate regulatory sanctions against those persistently causing residues. To attain this objective, FDA works cooperatively via memorandums of understanding with the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as through agreements or contracts with states to inspect first-time violators. The drug processing and new animal drug inspection activity accounted for about $1.6 million, or about 12 percent, of expenditures. The objective of this activity is to fulfill FDA’s obligation to inspect animal drug establishments that are registered with FDA, ensuring that animal drug products are being manufactured, processed, and controlled under approved conditions. To attain this objective, FDA conducts inspections of registered animal drug establishments and chemical and microbiological examinations to ensure the sterility, purity, identity, and potency of the drugs. Office of Regulatory Affairs/Center directed research projects accounted for about $1.2 million, or about 9 percent, of expenditures. The objective of this activity is to develop new and/or improved methodology in support of regulatory analysis for animal drugs and feeds. To attain this objective, FDA establishes research goals in its workplan; the research results are distributed within FDA and/or published in the scientific literature. CFSAN headquarters operations, which is responsible for FDA’s Foods Program, accounted for expenditures of about $86 million and $96 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 34 percent of total agency food safety expenditures. As shown in table 13, CFSAN’s fiscal years 1998 and 1999 headquarters activities were divided into four major categories: premarket, postmarket, crosscutting, and FDA agencywide support expenditures. CFSAN expenditures for management and administrative support of food safety activities are included in the expenditure amount for each activity. Premarket activities to evaluate the safety of products before they are available to consumers accounted for about 11 percent of CFSAN’s headquarters expenditures in fiscal year 1999. Food and color additive activity expenditures accounted for about $9 million, or nearly 90 percent, of premarket expenditures. In addition to its ongoing review of food additive petitions, CFSAN implemented procedures to expedite the review of food additives intended to decrease the incidence of foodborne illness through their antimicrobial actions against pathogens that may be present in food. Other activities addressed food contact substances and irradiation labeling. Postmarket activities to evaluate the safety of products that are in the marketplace accounted for about 18 percent of CFSAN’s headquarters expenditures in fiscal year 1999. CFSAN’s planning and policy implementation for microbial contaminants, which accounted for $6.7 million, or 39 percent, of postmarket expenditures, included surveillance to assess antimicrobial resistance, microbiological research, and risk assessment to develop science-based solutions to detect and control microbial contamination. Another $3.5 million, or 21 percent, of postmarket expenditures, were for cooperative programs with states addressing the safety of retail dairy and shellfish products. Crosscutting activities that address both premarket and postmarket food safety issues accounted for about 63 percent of CFSAN’s headquarters expenditures in fiscal year 1999. CFSAN’s food safety research and risk assessment, which accounted for $32.3 million, or 53 percent of crosscutting expenditures, included activities such as the completion of draft risk assessments for Listeria, Vibrio parahaemolytics, and methylmercury and food safety research in support of the National Food Safety Initiative. FDA agencywide support accounted for about 8 percent of CFSAN’s headquarters expenditures in fiscal year 1999. These expenditures represent CFSAN’s allocation for its share of central direction and administrative services to ensure that FDA’s efforts are effectively managed and that resources are put to the most efficient use. Functions include agencywide policy, regulatory and legislative development, scientific coordination, planning and evaluation, consumer communication and public information, and management expertise and coordination in financial management, personnel, contracts and grants administration, and procurement. CVM headquarters operations, responsible for FDA’s Animal Drugs and Feeds Program, accounted for about $26 million and $28 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, or about 10 percent of total agency food safety expenditures. As shown in table 14, for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, CVM headquarters activities were divided into three major categories: premarket, postmarket, and FDA agencywide support expenditures.CVM expenditures for management and administrative support for food safety activities are included in the total cost for each activity. Premarket activities to ensure that products are safe before they are available to consumers, accounted for about 46 percent of expenditures each year. CVM’s New Animal Drug Application review and approval process, including associated education, research and risk assessment activities, accounted for $12.8, or 100 percent, of its premarket expenditures. CVM is implementing a phased review process, which will provide drug application sponsors with more timely feedback and early detection of application deficiencies. CVM approved 523 original or supplemental new and generic animal drug applications in fiscal year 1999. Postmarket activities to ensure the safety of products that are in the marketplace accounted for about 46 percent of expenditures each year. CVM’s epidemiological systems and surveillance activities, which accounted for nearly $4.4 million, or about 34 percent, of postmarket expenditures, included collaborative efforts with other federal agencies to monitor nationwide changes in susceptibilities to 17 antimicrobial drugs through the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and efforts to monitor and reduce drug residues in meats. Intramural research to detect microbial and chemical contaminants that may be present in animal feeds and animal food products consumed by humans and research on antibiotic resistance accounted for another $3.6 million, or 30 percent, of postmarket expenditures. This included the development and validation of a test for detecting bovine protein in animal feeds, an important component of its Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy regulatory strategy. Agencywide support accounted for about 8 percent of expenditures. These expenditures represent CVM’s share of central direction and administrative services, as previously described for CFSAN. These expenditures represent CVM’s allocation for its share of central direction and administrative services to ensure that FDA’s efforts are effectively managed and that resources are put to the most efficient use. NCTR, FDA’s center for peer-reviewed scientific research upon which the agency bases its regulatory decisions, was responsible for no more than 1 percent of agency food safety expenditures. In fiscal year 1998, NCTR expended $842,000, including $75,000 from CVM, and 5 staff years on eight food safety research projects. In fiscal year 1999, NCTR expended nearly $1.5 million and 10 staff years on 10 research projects, including $500,000 to expand food safety method development research.The annual expenditures include about $100,000 for agencywide support. NCTR’s expenditures do not include any field activities related to food safety. States (used hereafter to refer collectively to states, territories, commonwealths, federated states, and the District of Columbia) play an important role in overseeing the nation’s food supply. State and local (e.g., county and city) governments conduct the majority of inspections in the United States, including food retailers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors within their state boundaries in accordance with their own laws and authorities. State agriculture departments and health departments are the two primary agencies that are responsible for food safety in states. As shown in table 15, states devoted various amounts of resources for activities to ensure the safety of foods under its jurisdiction in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. State food safety responsibilities can be grouped into four categories that cover a broad range of activities: licensing and inspection, response to food safety problems, laboratory analysis, and training and technical assistance. States reported a high degree of involvement in some activities within each category and little involvement with others. For example: Regarding licensing and inspection activities, more than 40 states reported that they were involved to a great or very great extent in registering and licensing food producers, processors, sellers, and others and inspecting dairy farms and dairy product plants. The number of states engaged in inspection activities at other types of establishments such as meat and poultry slaughter and processing plants, egg and egg product plants, groceries and restaurants varied more widely. Forty-five states reported that they engaged in little or no inspection activity at nondairy food- producing farms. In response to food safety problems, 48 states reported a great or very great involvement in activities to enforce food safety regulations, and 45 states reported a great or very great level of involvement in response to natural disasters that effect food safety, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods. Regarding laboratory analysis, 41 states reported great or very great involvement in analyzing food products for microbial contamination. States were generally involved in laboratory analysis for pesticides and chemical residues, filth, or food labeling accuracy to a lesser extent. Fifty-one states reported providing training and technical assistance to a great or very great extent to staff employed by their own departments, and more than half reported providing such assistance to grocery, restaurant, and other retail food service workers to a great or very great extent. States provided training and technical assistance to farmers, processors, consumers, health professionals, and others to a lesser extent. As shown in table 16, state expenditures reported for these categories of activities, as well as administrative and support, other, and uncategorized activities, were about $292 million in fiscal year 1998 and about $301 million in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 1999, federal funds accounted for 13 percent of state expenditures, other funding sources such as license fees accounted for 18 percent, and state revenues funded the remaining 65 percent of these expenditures. In aggregate, states dedicated 5,617 staff years to food safety activities in fiscal year 1998 and 5,717 staff years in fiscal year 1999. State expenditures for licensing and inspection food safety activities were $142 million in fiscal year 1998 and $144 million in fiscal year 1999. As shown in table 17, states reported over 1 million establishments under their jurisdiction in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This includes over 370,000 restaurants, about 300,000 groceries and other retail outlets, and about 90,000 dairy farms. States also reported their typical frequency of inspection for each type of establishment, which ranged from continuous, meaning that an inspector is onsite at all times during production, to once per year. In total, states reported that they actually conducted about 2 million inspections annually, not counting continuous inspections. As shown in table 18, states reported how much of their expenditures of over $140 million annually for food safety licensing and inspection were allocated to specific activities within the category. The activities that were allocated a large amount of resources by states include inspections at groceries and other retail outlets and restaurants. As shown in table 19, states reported how much of their total expenditures of about $15 million annually to respond to food safety problems were allocated to specific activities within the category. States allocated a moderate amount of expenditures to enforcement of food safety regulations and lesser amounts to other response activities. As shown in table 20, states reported how much of their total expenditures of more than $30 million annually for food safety laboratory analysis were allocated to specific activities within the category. The activity that the states most often allocated a large amount of expenditures was laboratory analysis for microbial contamination. As shown in table 21, states reported how much of their annual expenditures of about $15 million to $17 million for food safety technical assistance and training were allocated to specific activities within the category. The states allocated a large amount of expenditures to training and technical assistance for staff employed by their own agriculture or health department. Although state departments of agriculture and health generally have primary responsibility for overall food safety activities in each of the states, other state departments and local governments also have responsibility for such activities. According to the states we surveyed, these other agencies generally had responsibilities for a specific type of establishment, such as restaurants, jails or prisons, childcare facilities, and nursing homes or for specific food products. For example, in the state of Florida, restaurants are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Business and Professional Regulations. And, in several states—Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—seafood or shellfish products are the responsibility of a state agency other than agriculture or health. States also reported that local governments have an extensive role in food safety inspection activities at certain types of establishments such as restaurants, institutions, groceries, and other retail locations. For example, although Georgia’s health department has jurisdiction over almost 20,000 restaurants and institutions, county staff inspected all of those establishments under contracts with the state. In some cases, state health departments reported that local government inspections were conducted primarily through state contracts or agreements. In a few cases, states reported large expenditures by local governments. For example, the Idaho Department of Health reported that most of the state’s expenditures for food safety were made by local multicounty health districts, which spent about $1 million on food safety in fiscal year 1999, while the state spent about $650,000. 1. The report clearly identifies FSIS’ responsibilities—i.e., ensuring that meat, poultry, and processed egg products moving in interstate and foreign commerce are safe, wholesome, and marked, labeled, and packaged correctly. Regarding nonfood safety expenditures, FSIS officials assured us during the review that the expenditure information that they provided was for food safety or primarily food safety related activities. As such, we believe the FSIS expenditures in this report are sufficiently related to food safety to be appropriately characterized as “food safety” expenditures. 2. We believe the report adequately describes the size and scope of FSIS activities. For example, the report includes information on the number of meat, poultry, egg product, and import establishments FSIS oversees; the number of state and foreign programs it reviewed; and the number and type of inspections it conducted. The level of detail provided on FSIS’ responsibilities and activities is similar to that provided on FDA activities. 3. It was not our intent to analyze or compare the relative risks of products under the jurisdiction of FSIS and FDA. While the relative risk of FSIS-regulated products may be greater in some cases than FDA-regulated products, we believe that the data accurately reflect the proportion of each agency’s expenditures and the proportion of consumer expenditures for foods under each agency’s jurisdiction. The report also clearly identifies the food products for which each agency has responsibility. 4. We modified the report to clearly identify FSIS’ responsibilities under the federal meat and poultry inspection acts and to describe its efforts, with guidance from the courts, to realign the responsibilities and roles of industry and federal inspectors. 1. By design, the scope of this report was limited to FSIS and FDA food safety activities and expenditures. However, the report recognizes that 12 federal agencies conduct food safety activities and cites our testimony Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a Unified, Risk-Based, Inspection System (GAO/T-RCED-99-256, Aug. 4, 1999), which provides the fiscal year 1998 funding and staffing levels for these federal agencies. In addition to those named above, Brad Dobbins, Kathy Colgrove-Stone, John Nicholson, and Carolyn Boyce made key contributions to this report. | The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the state agriculture and health departments spent about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1999. FSIS and FDA spent about $1 billion, and the states reported spending about $300 million. The amounts and proportions of food safety expenditures for fiscal year 1998 were similar. Regarding the $1 billion in federal funds spent in fiscal year 1999, FSIS spent about 70 percent, overseeing about 20 percent of federally regulated foods; FDA spent about 30 percent, overseeing about 80 percent of federally regulated foods. These outlays reflect the regulatory approaches or inspection frequencies contained in the laws under which each agency operates. |
A dismal showing in New Hampshire is a blow for the governor who had hoped to ride a wave of momentum after a strong performance in Saturday’s GOP debate held in Manchester. Christie’s breakout moment arrived when he went after Rubio, accusing the senator of rigidly sticking to script. The critique went viral, with “MarcoBot” videos popping up across the Internet. Christie pointed to the confrontation as a pivotal moment. “Saturday night changed everything,” he gushed to Today after the debate. And CNN reported roughly two-thirds of GOP primary voters were influenced by recent debates. But while Christie may have taken Rubio down a peg, it seems he didn’t do much to improve his own standing with voters.
It wasn’t for a lack of trying. Christie seemingly exhausted every tactic to win the state. He worked hard to appease voters, spending countless hours answering their questions in town halls, playing the retail-politics game long seen as a key to victory in New Hampshire. He talked up the amount of time he has spent in the state. And he even used intimidation to get his way, warning voters that if they reward a candidate like Donald Trump who has spent comparatively less time glad-handing, New Hampshire risks sending a message that candidates don’t have to spend much time on the ground in the state to win. In a dramatic plea, Christie even got down on one knee, as if he were going to propose, to convince a New Hampshire voter to side with him.
Christie swallowed his pride, and congratulated Trump on Tuesday, though he made clear that he doesn’t believe the real-estate mogul has sewn up the GOP nomination. “The race will continue down the road in South Carolina, and other states as we move forward, but for New Hampshire, they have chosen their candidate tonight, and he deserves congratulations for that,” he said.
The governor has already suffered defeat this primary season. A week earlier, at the Iowa caucuses, Christie performed poorly. He captured only a slightly higher percentage of the GOP vote than Rick Santorum, who dropped out of the race a few days later, and Jim Gilmore, who didn’t make the cut for Saturday’s Republican debate and took to Twitter to talk about puppies instead. But that was more or less to be expected in a state where social conservatives hold so much sway. In New Hampshire, Christie’s campaign thought they had a better chance.
There, Christie tried to appeal to voters as a serious candidate, one with the experience and grit to handle the job of commander-in-chief. He also positioned himself as more moderate than some of his Republican rivals.
Still, even as Christie talked himself up, traces of doubt crept in. “We want to do very well, but I don’t think anything is do or die tonight after the performance we had on Saturday night,” he said during his segment on Today in anticipation of the primary. In the end, a breakout debate performance and time spent on the ground weren’t enough to secure a victory. ||||| Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacts to the cheering crowd at his primary night rally Tuesday, Feb. 9, 2016, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/J. David Ake) (Associated Press)
Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacts to the cheering crowd at his primary night rally Tuesday, Feb. 9, 2016, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/J. David Ake) (Associated Press)
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — The Latest developments from the 2016 presidential campaign, with the focus Tuesday on the New Hampshire primary (all times local):
10:35 p.m.
Republican Chris Christie says he's heading home to New Jersey to "take a deep breath" and take stock of his struggling presidential bid.
The New Jersey governor had banked on a strong finish in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, but he's on track to end up far off the pace despite holding more than 70 town halls events over the past few months.
It's a tough blow for a candidate whose campaign had trouble from the start about raising money and building support in a crowded field dominated by another brash East Coaster: businessman Donald Trump.
Christie tells supporters that he'll wait to see the final New Hampshire results before making a decision about the way ahead.
But he says he can do that best from home, and not a hotel room in South Carolina — the site of the next Republican contest.
___
10:21 p.m.
Donald Trump is basking in his victory in Tuesday's Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire and says that America under his leadership will "start winning again."
Trump is telling supporters that he'll be the "greatest jobs president God ever created."
He's promising that if he's commander in chief, he'll "knock the hell" out of the Islamic State group and negotiate what he says would be better trade deals.
A Trump presidency, he says, would mean "nobody is going to mess with us."
___
10 p.m.
She's back in the pack among Republicans in New Hampshire, but the fight isn't going out of Carly Fiorina.
The Republican presidential candidate tells supporters at a country club in Manchester that "I'm not going to sit down and be quiet, and neither are you."
She's taken the stage with her husband, Frank, by her side. And what's playing in the background? "I Won't Back Down," by rocker Tom Petty.
___
9:55 p.m.
Jeb Bush's campaign doesn't think much of rival John Kasich's second-place showing in New Hampshire's Republican presidential primary.
Kasich finished behind Donald Trump. Bush — a former Florida governor — is in a close race with two senators — Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida — for third.
Bush spokesman Tim Miller says Kasich "ran a one-state campaign" in New Hampshire and doesn't have "a viable path" to the nomination.
The next Republican contest is in South Carolina later in February, and Miller says the Bush campaign feels "very confident about our position" in the state.
As for Kasich, Miller contends that the former congressman "doesn't have a constituency past New Hampshire."
___
9:45 p.m.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich has finished second in New Hampshire's Republican presidential primary.
There's a tight race for third among Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. It's still too close to call right now.
Kasich emerged from the pack of candidates to finish behind billionaire businessman Donald Trump on Tuesday night.
Kasich's campaign manager says he expects an increased flow of contributions to the candidate's campaign after the strong showing.
___
9:35 p.m.
He's won in New Hampshire and now Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders plans to meet with Rev. Al Sharpton over breakfast in New York City on Wednesday.
That's according to two people who were briefed on the meeting. They are telling The Associated Press that the get-together is set for the famed Sylvia's Restaurant in Harlem.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because the information had not yet been publicly released.
Sharpton isn't immediately responding to a request for comment.
— Associated Press writer Jonathan Lemire in New York contributed to this report.
____
9:29 p.m.
Hillary Clinton is congratulating Bernie Sanders on his New Hampshire win on Tuesday night.
But for the former secretary of state, it's time to get back to the issues: campaign finance reform, equal pay for women, the lead-tainted drinking water in Flint, Michigan.
Clinton also wants younger voters to support her campaign as the race goes on.
She says she knows she has "some work to do particularly with young people."
___
9:15 p.m.
The fight goes on for Hillary Clinton.
Even after losing to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Clinton is promising to take her fight for the nomination to the rest of the country.
And if she feels spurned by New Hampshire voters, she's not showing it to supporters in Hooksett, New Hampshire.
She tells them: "I still love New Hampshire, and I always will."
___
9:05 p.m.
Exit polls are helping shed some light on the various strands of support among voters in New Hampshire's Republican presidential primary.
Donald Trump is backed by voters looking for an outsider and those who made up their minds a while ago.
John Kasich does best with voters looking for a candidate with political experience — along with moderates, better educated voters and those who made their vote decision in the past few days.
Ted Cruz is supported by many voters who are very conservative and evangelical Christians.
Marco Rubio does best among voters for whom experience and electability is important.
Voters who value experience are also inclined to support Jeb Bush.
___
8:50 p.m.
Thanks to his New Hampshire win, Donald Trump will take the lead in the race for delegates for the Republican National Convention.
It won't be much of a lead.
There are only 23 delegates at stake in New Hampshire's Republican primary, and they are awarded proportionally, based on the statewide vote.
Trump will win at least nine. The final tally depends on how many candidates get more than 10 percent of the vote, the threshold needed to qualify for delegates.
Trump started night trailing Ted Cruz by one delegate.
___
8:45 p.m.
How did Bernie Sanders do it in New Hampshire?
According to exit polls, he won the Democratic presidential primary Tuesday by getting a majority of votes from both men and women, independents and voters under 45.
Rival Hillary Clinton is backed a majority of voters aged 65 and older and those with incomes over $200,000.
Independents make up nearly 4 in 10 voters in the primary, and Sanders is winning nearly three-quarters of their votes.
___
8:34 p.m.
Gratitude for the Granite State — that's the word from Bernie Sanders.
After his New Hampshire victory, the Vermont senator has thanked his supporters with this tweet: "When we stand together, we win. Thank you, New Hampshire!"
___
8:25 p.m.
A big victory for Donald Trump in New Hampshire, a big victory celebration for the billionaire businessman.
When word came just at 8 p.m. that Trump was declared the winner, his supporters at campaign headquarters in Manchester shouted his name and they waved foam fingers emblazoned with the phrase, "You're Hired."
___
8:13 p.m.
Bernie Sanders' victory in New Hampshire means he's assured of a majority of the state's pledged delegates.
With 24 at stake, Sanders stands to gain at least 13. Hillary Clinton will receive at least seven.
Clinton remains ahead in the overall delegate count due to support from superdelegates — the party officials who can support the candidate of their choice.
Including superdelegates nationwide, Clinton has amassed at least 392 delegates and Sanders at least 42.
The magic number to clinch the nomination is 2,382.
___
8:03 p.m.
The New Hampshire primary winners are Donald Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race. Each took the top spot after second-place finishes in the Iowa caucuses.
Trump's first victory of the 2016 White House race means he's no longer a political rookie but the front-runner for his party's presidential nomination.
And the win for Sanders completes his rise from presidential long shot to legitimate challenger for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton.
___
7:50 p.m.
New Hampshire's secretary of state says voter turnout in Tuesday's presidential primary is likely to be slightly higher than in 2008.
Bill Gardner predicted several days ago that roughly 282,000 Republican ballots cast would be and 268,000 Democratic ballots cast.
He says his visits to various polling places Tuesday lead him to believe his predictions are on par.
__
7:40 p.m.
The clock is ticking in New Hampshire: The final polls are set to close at 8 p.m. in the first-in-the-nation primary contest of the 2016 presidential election.
New Hampshire has 1.33 million residents. More than 870,000 are registered to vote.
Polls started opening at 7 a.m., except for a few communities that begin voting just after midnight.
___
7:25 p.m.
Call them the late deciders.
Nearly half of the voters in Tuesday's Republican primary in New Hampshire are saying they made up their mind in the last week. On the Democratic side? More than half say they decided before that.
The findings are among some of the early results of the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for The Associated Press and the television networks.
___
7:15 p.m.
What's at stake on the delegate front in the New Hampshire primary?
For Democrats, 24 delegates are up for grabs. On the GOP side, it's 23.
The GOP count after the Iowa caucuses: eight for Ted Cruz, and seven each for Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination.
Hillary Clinton holds a big delegate lead, mainly due to on endorsements from superdelegates. Those are the party officials who can support the candidate of their choice.
Clinton has 385 delegates and Bernie Sanders has 29.
It takes 2,382 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.
___
7:05 p.m.
Move it along, Mr. Trump. And the entourage with you, too.
That's the message from the moderator at a New Hampshire polling site — the Webster Elementary School in Manchester.
Jim Townsend's in a huff over the commotion caused by Trump's visit — and the reporters, Secret Service members and Trump supporters blocking voters trying to get in and out of the polling place.
Here's how Townsend puts it: "Please, no one can get through to vote thanks to Mr. Trump. Let's move it along."
___
6:55 p.m.
It's not clear yet whether New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary will break for Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. But there's no doubt about where their next showdown will come — it's the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 20.
And now Nevada Democrats say the candidates will participate in a town-hall event on Las Vegas two days before those caucuses.
The state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, says MSNBC and the Spanish-language television network Telemundo have agreed to host the event.
___
6:35 p.m.
An outside group that's helping Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio is spending more than $1.5 million on digital and media advertisements in South Carolina and Nevada — the next states on the 2016 election calendar.
The new expenditures are by Conservative Solutions PAC, a super political action committee that faces no contribution limits.
All but about $200,000 is for South Carolina. That's according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Conservative Solutions is the second-most-active super PAC in the presidential race so far. Only Right to Rise, which is boosting Republican Jeb Bush, has spent more on television and radio.
___
5:59 p.m.
Republican voters in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary are much more negative about their politicians than Democrats are about theirs.
That detail comes from early results of the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for the Associated Press and television networks.
Half of Republicans say they feel betrayed by politicians from the GOP. Fewer than 2 in 10 Democrats say they feel betrayed by Democratic politicians.
___
5:58 p.m.
Early results from exit polling in New Hampshire are showing that voters are deeply unhappy with the way the federal government is working.
Half of Democratic voters say they're dissatisfied, with 1 in 10 saying they're angry. The sentiment is even higher among Republican primary voters: 9 in 10 voters say they're either dissatisfied or angry.
The exit polling is being conducted by Edison Research for the Associated Press and television networks. ||||| NASHUA, N.H. – After I checked into my room Tuesday afternoon at the sprawling Radisson hotel, where Chris Christie had his election-night headquarters, I noticed a guy in a dark suit pacing the hallway.
It turned out the guy was from the State Police. Chris Christie had the room next to mine.
My first thought was, "I hope the neighbors don't keep me up late as they celebrate."
As the results from the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary came in, that didn't look very likely.
But the early results said there'd be parties in the rooms of Jeb Bush and John Kasich.
Those two were locked in a battle among what I have dubbed "the Gang of Four," the candidates who are competing for the role of establishment favorite to take on the big winner last night, Donald Trump.
The other two members of the gang are, of course, Christie and the guy he's been targeting for the past month or so, Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida.
Both were lagging well behind Bush and Kasich as the results rolled in.
Christie was in danger of finishing out of the top five and therefore being kicked off the debate stage for the next primary, which is less than two weeks in South Carolina.
That would likely spell the end of the Christie candidacy. But he had his moments.
In the Saturday debate, Christie lured Rubio into an exchange in which he repeated the same bit of canned rhetoric four times. The resultant videos likely finished off Rubio's candidacy.
If Christie was trying to do a favor for Bush and Kasich, he certainly succeeded.
Rubio was on a roll after his third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. A win here would have made him the consensus favorite.
Christie stopped him in his tracks, probably for good.
But the big question going into Tuesday was whether Christie would go up as Rubio went down.
When I ran into state Senate minority leader Tom Kean at the festivities, he said he'd seen a lot of positive response as he spent Election Day on the governor's campaign bus.
"People understood the message very, very well," Kean said. "He was connecting with the people, whether it was in the diners or the voting places."
The problem was that lots of other candidates were connecting as well.
Trump was the biggest beneficiary. But the other big winner could be Bush.
Earlier in this campaign, when he was under a withering attack from Trump, Bush had been reduced to the low single digits in the national polls.
Last night, Kasich was the clear winner in the establishment lane, but Bush was close behind.
That's evidence of a real comeback, said Ocean County lawyer Larry Bathgate, who is on Bush's national finance committee.
"Many of us have believed that when people get closer to the time when they're pulling the lever in the voting booth, they're going to take it more seriously and decide who they want as president," Bathgate said when I phoned him last night. "Bush has the experience."
Not only that, he's got the money. Bathgate said Kasich doesn't yet have the funding to mount a national campaign. And the Ohio governor is not particularly well-suited to pick up votes in the next primary, which is in South Carolina.
That's Ted Cruz territory. Cruz isn't competing in the establishment lane. He's running against Trump for what looks like a sizable anti-establishment vote.
At the moment, he's 1-for-2. He beat Trump in Iowa but only got one-third the votes Trump did in New Hampshire.
But he lines up well against the Donald in South Carolina, a good chunk of which is in the original Bible Belt.
As for Christie, it's looking like he will go down in history, but not for his sterling finish in New Hampshire. He'll be remembered for having finished off Rubio. It was a nice piece of work and he should be proud of it.
The result is that we now have two races for the Republican nomination for president, Trump vs. Cruz and Kasich vs. Bush.
As for Christie, he performed his role in this drama and he performed it well.
But as for any celebration next door this evening, all I can say is I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it.
UPDATE: Christie just finished what was a pretty classy concession speech -- though he did not yet fully concede.
When Christie got to the floor, he gave what was effectively a concession speech for not just the primary but the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
His schedule had called for the governor to go straight to South Carolina, but he announced instead he and the family were headed back to Jersey to await the final New Hampshire results.
"There's no reason to sit in a hotel room in South Carolina for that, he said. "We'll go home. We haven't been home for two weeks."
He added, "We need a change of clothes" to inject a bit of levity into the situation.
Those results are not likely to change. With 76 percent in, Christie was stuck below the 8 percent barrier.
But Christie went out gracefully. When someone from the audience shouted out an attack on Donald Trump, Christie corrected her and congratulated Trump.
"Winning isn't easy," he said.
You can say that again. | Chris Christie says he's heading home to New Jersey to "take a deep breath" and take stock of his struggling presidential bid. The New Jersey governor had banked on a strong finish in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, but he's on track to end up in 6th place. Christie tells supporters that he'll wait to see the final New Hampshire results before making a decision about the way ahead. But he says he can do that best from home, and not a hotel room in South Carolina—the site of the next Republican contest. At the Atlantic, Clare Foran writes that Christie hadn't just "pinned his hopes on a strong showing" in the state, he worked for it. "Christie seemingly exhausted every tactic ... He worked hard to appease voters, spending countless hours answering their questions in town halls, playing the retail-politics game long seen as a key to victory in New Hampshire." Indeed, the AP reports he held more than 70 town halls events over the past few months. At the Star Ledger, Paul Mulshine sounds the death knell, writing, "It's looking like [Christie] will go down in history, but not for his sterling finish in New Hampshire. He'll be remembered for having finished off Rubio. It was a nice piece of work and he should be proud of it." |
More info
This bill would tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana in Alaska, and make the use of marijuana legal for persons 21 years of age or older. A "YES" vote supports legalizing marijuana. A "NO" vote opposes legalizing marijuana. ||||| Oregon voters said yes to marijuana Tuesday, making the state the third to allow the possession and sale of cannabis for recreational rather than strictly medical use.
The crowd at the Southeast Portland club Holocene, where Yes on 91 held its victory party, erupted into rowdy cheers upon learning Measure 91 had passed. Someone in the audience yelled "Legal cannabis, baby," as longtime legalization advocate Anthony Johnson took the stage. He called the vote "decades in the making."
"We have ended a painful, discriminatory, harmful policy that has terrible consequences for our state," Johnson said. "We replaced it with a policy that is smarter, more humane. ... It's a policy whose time has come."
The closely watched vote on Measure 91 represents a major victory for state and national marijuana legalization advocates. They viewed Oregon, already home to a robust medical marijuana program, as part of a key second wave of states to legalize cannabis for recreational use.
Oregon joins Washington state and Colorado, the first states to legalize pot for recreational use in 2012. Earlier in the night, Washington, D.C., voters approved a measure allowing residents to possess and grow -- but not sell -- marijuana. Alaska voters were also considering legalization Tuesday.
Oregon's Measure 91 took elements from both the Washington and Colorado laws and was primarily financed by out-of-state donors and groups seeking national reform of drug laws. The Yes on 91 campaign collected about $4 million, compared to less than $200,000 raised by the No on 91 effort.
Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis, who opposed marijuana legalization, called the race a "David vs. Goliath." He said Oregonians aren't likely to see much of a difference when it comes to law enforcement, which already views marijuana as a low priority.
"Marijuana was very low on the priority list in Oregon," he said. "And now it will essentially be totally crossed off."
The measure, which will not take effect until July 1, 2015, allows adults 21 and older to possess 1 ounce in public and up to 8 ounces at home, as well as a variety of other marijuana-infused products.
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission will get the job of regulating marijuana production and sales. Tax revenue generated by marijuana will go to public schools; mental health and addiction services; law enforcement; and the Oregon Health Authority. Using marijuana in public or while driving will be prohibited. Current medical marijuana laws won't change.
Oregon voters rejected marijuana legalization two years ago, and sponsors of Measure 91 hoped this year's version would be seen as having more regulatory controls than what was on the ballot in 2012.
Unlike the 2012 marijuana initiative, which failed by six percentage points, Measure 91 had a large advertising budget that featured, among others, a retired judge, a retired deputy sheriff and a former top drug addictions official for the state. The campaign deliberately stayed away from any hints of the marijuana culture, even using colors in their signs that avoided any hint of green.
Opponents seized on the wide array of marijuana products -- ranging from pot-laced gummy bears to sugary sodas containing the drug – for sale in Colorado that they said were aimed at enticing youthful consumers.
The measure is "about creating a big marijuana industry," said Mandi Puckett, a drug education worker who headed the No on 91 campaign.
According to incomplete returns, Measure 91 benefited from overwhelming support in Multnomah County, home to about 20 percent of expected voters statewide.
Ethan Nadelmann, whose organization Drug Policy Alliance was a major funder of the Oregon measure, called the win "fantastic news," particularly since it came during a year when a presidential election wasn't on the ballot.
Conventional wisdom suggested waiting until 2016, but Nadelmann's group pushed ahead this year despite concerns about low voter turnout.
"It's just a fantastic victory, all the more so because it's in a non-presidential election year," Nadelmann said. "I think it bodes very well for 2016 and the years beyond."
Kevin Sabet, a high-profile opponent of marijuana legalization who traveled to Oregon twice this year with an anti-pot message, said the Measure 91 results mean cannabis opponents need to get even more serious in 2016.
"We are going to redouble our efforts," he said. "We can now get very serious with potential donors and supporters about how important 2016 is."
He said opponents will continue to press their case as Oregon drafts rules for the recreational pot industry.
"Even in Oregon the conversation is not over," he said. "We are going to make sure we are watching the marijuana industry and make sure they don't get everything they want. This conversation about marijuana is just beginning. It's certainly not ending."
-- Noelle Crombie and Jeff Mapes ||||| Adam Eidinger, co-owner of Capitol Hemp, is a leader in the push to legalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana in the District. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post) (Reuters)
Adam Eidinger, co-owner of Capitol Hemp, is a leader in the push to legalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana in the District. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post) (Reuters)
(Update: House Republican vows to upend D.C. ballot measure legalizing marijuana )
The District followed Colorado and Washington state into a closely watched experiment to legalize marijuana Tuesday, as voters overwhelmingly backed an initiative 7 to 3 allowing cannabis to be consumed and grown in the nation’s capital. The move to allow the drug almost certainly will take effect unless the next Congress blocks it.
Under a voter-proposed measure, known as Initiative 71, residents and visitors age 21 and older will be allowed to legally possess as much as two ounces of marijuana and to grow up to three marijuana plants at home. Leading candidates for mayor and the D.C. Council have vowed to quickly sign the measure into law. A majority of the council also pledged that if approved by voters, they would submit follow-up legislation to Congress next year establishing a system to sell and tax the drug in the District.
The twin measures will become law, as District bills do, unless Congress vetoes them and the president agrees that the local measures should be halted. That complex layer of federal oversight could thrust Congress — which on Tuesday flipped to Republican control — and President Obama into the middle of a rapidly evolving national debate.
In joining two states to bring marijuana into the mainstream — making it nearly akin to alcohol and tobacco — the District’s vote is the latest sign of growing public acceptance of the drug. Advocates have been trying to give marijuana legal status since the 1960s, losing periodic battles with parent groups and to the war on drugs. But the arguments against weed have lost steam, and public opinion has shifted; about 6 percent of Americans use the drug, including one-third of the nation’s high school seniors.
Unlike the arguments about health concerns elsewhere, the legalization debate in the District became fused with weighty issues of civil rights after a series of studies during the past year showed wide disparities in drug arrests: Eighty-eight percent of people convicted of marijuana possession in the city in recent years were black, even as surveys have shown that whites and blacks are equally likely to use the drug.
“The population in the District is certainly different from that in Colorado and Washington state. Here, this has been cast as a racial-justice issue,” said Malik Burnett, a doctor who delayed practicing to organize support for the measure. “This is huge. We’re talking about ending the prohibition of marijuana as a manifestation of the war on drugs, in the birthplace of the war on drugs: Washington, D.C.”
Adam Eidinger, who is a longtime advocate for legalization in the District and who spent $20,000 of his own money to help put the measure on the ballot, said he was thrilled and confident that any pushback from Congress could eventually be overcome.
“This sends a message to the nation that people are finally ready for change,” he said. “If your job is over at 5 o’clock and you want to have cannabis instead of a glass of scotch, so be it.”
Realtor Tom Bryant, 50, who cast a ballot at the Georgetown public library, said he voted yes because he thinks it is “ridiculous for people to go to jail” for a small amount of pot. Katie Holloran, a 37-year-old teacher, said she, too, voted in favor of legalization: “I guess I’ve really never understood why it’s different from something like alcohol.”
Not everyone agreed. Alizonia Leach, who voted Tuesday at Watkins Elementary School, said she had no doubts: “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no,” she said. “Marijuana is not good for anybody.”
This summer, the District joined 17 states that have decriminalized marijuana. Members of the D.C. Council and Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) said they were moved by studies that showed the District’s marijuana-arrest rate was higher than any of the 50 states and ranked seventh nationally among a study of 1,000 counties analyzed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Such studies also helped fuel a complete reversal in public opinion during the past four years among the District’s black residents, who now account for half the city’s population.
According to Washington Post polls this year, roughly 56 percent of likely African American voters said they planned to back legalization. Four years ago, 37 percent were in favor and 55 percent opposed, with many saying they feared greater access could lead to addiction among black youths.
The D.C. Council measure in March that decriminalized marijuana took a first step toward legalization. It stripped away jail time for possession and made it a $25 fine — cheaper than most city parking tickets — and the lowest fine outside of Colorado, Washington state or Alaska. Penalties for public consumption also were lowered to that of carrying an open container of alcohol, punishable by up to 60 days in jail.
But on the District’s iconic federal land, including the Mall, the monuments and streets surrounding the White House, possession remains a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail.
The District also is home to federal agencies charged with enforcing U.S. drug laws, which still designate marijuana in a class of the most dangerous drugs, worse than cocaine and viewed equal only to the likes of heroin in terms of how addictive they are.
Full legalization of marijuana would set up a conflict with federal law enforcement agencies and Congress. Even advocates of legalization say they can barely imagine a day when the District would resemble Denver, with a proliferation of shops selling marijuana by the bag, in joints or in foods such as cookies or brownies.
Advocates testified at a hearing last week that, given the necessary congressional review and time needed for the D.C. Council to decide how sales would work, the earliest marijuana could be legally purchased in the District would be in early 2016.
Less clear is how Congress will react. After D.C. voters passed a measure allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in 1998, Republicans used amendments to federal budget bills for 11 years to keep the District from enacting the law. ||||| After years of debate -- and decades of semi-legal status -- Alaskans will finally be able to light up legally. On Tuesday, voters approved Ballot Measure 2, an initiative legalizing recreational marijuana in Alaska, by about 52 percent in favor to 48 percent opposed, with 100 percent of the state's precincts reporting.
With the vote, Alaska joins Washington, Colorado and Oregon -- the latter of which also approved a similar initiative Tuesday -- as the first states in the country to legalize pot. Washington and Colorado approved their own initiatives in 2012.
The initiative will not become law until 90 days after the election is certified, which is expected to be in late November. Per the law, the state can then create a marijuana control board -- expected to be housed under the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. That group will then have nine months to craft regulations dealing with how marijuana businesses will operate.
The initiative was years in the making. Alaska voters considered similar measures in 2000 and 2004. Both failed, though each indicated a measure of support for legalization. Measure 5 in 2000 took 40.9 percent of the vote; Ballot Measure 2 in 2004 gained a few more points, with 44 percent of the electorate voting in favor of it.
Supporters expressed relief Tuesday as results streamed in.
"It looks good for us, but there are still a lot of votes to be counted" said Taylor Bickford, spokesman for the pro-legalization Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska, as the results ticked up to 44 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday evening.
But by 2 a.m. Wednesday, with all precincts reporting, the pro-legalization crowd was declaring victory.
"Now that the campaign is over, it's time to establish a robust regulatory system that sets an example for other states," Bickford said in a prepared statement. "A regulated marijuana market will generate millions of dollars in tax revenue and create good jobs for Alaskans. Law enforcement will be able to spend their time addressing serious crimes instead of enforcing failed marijuana prohibition laws."
What had seemed like an easy win earlier in the year appeared to slip in the weeks leading up to the election. Polls showed support for the measure at over 50 percent earlier in the year, but that appeared to decline over the summer and into fall. Dueling polls commissioned by both sides of the campaign showed striking differences between the two, making it anyone's guess which side would ultimately come out ahead in the vote.
The Yes campaign fought vigorously to get out their message of the failures of marijuana "prohibition" across the state. They contended that Ballot Measure 2 would regulate and tax a substance already being used by over 100,000 Alaskans each year. Doing so would begin to eliminate the black market and prevent people from being arrested for possessing or using a substance many argue is objectively safer than alcohol.
The campaign noted that Ballot Measure 2 would allow for regulation of marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol by controlling the types of products sold, prohibiting sales to those under 21 and taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce wholesale.
Proponents also championed the idea of reconciling what co-sponsor Tim Hinterberger, a longtime marijuana legalization advocate, called "illogical" laws.
A resolution to Alaska's complicated marijuana laws
Alaska's relationship with marijuana has long been a complicated one. The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision in Ravin v. State that Alaskans' right to privacy protected the possession of a small amount of marijuana in the home effectively legalized the substance.
Despite that status, the legality of marijuana has remained in question. The Ravin ruling has been interpreted to be narrow, protecting use only in the home. Alaska statutes prohibit the possession of even a small amount of marijuana. Making things more complicated are the state's medical marijuana laws, approved by voters in 1998. Patients can be prescribed the drug, however, with no dispensaries there is no legal way to acquire it.
Opponents of legalization agreed some reform to Alaska's marijuana laws might be appropriate, but that vagaries of Ballot Measure 2 made the initiative inappropriate for Alaska.
Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2, the group opposing the measure, had concerns over the language of the initiative -- specifically that it left too much up to the regulatory process. With so many questions unanswered in the initiative's language, they voiced concerns over possible increases in marijuana use. They argued that more use would lead to more problems related to increased teen access, public health risks, potent marijuana concentrates and additional cost and resource burdens on public safety departments.
Opposition reacts
The No campaign expressed frustration with the results Tuesday night.
"We're disappointed in the numbers right now," said No campaign deputy treasurer Deborah Williams, but added, "We're very proud of the campaign we ran."
"The campaign pointed out a lot of needed areas for amendments and improvements ... the people in this campaign are committed to doing what is best for Alaska," she said.
But as the results continued to arrive and the gap became slightly more narrow as the night wore on, Williams expressed some optimism.
As she left Election Central at 11:30 p.m., Williams had her phone in hand and was refreshing election results every few minutes. "We keep narrowing the gap," she said. "Obviously we have a lot of ground to make up."
That gap never fully closed.
Despite its late start in the campaign cycle, the No campaign gained ground in the lead-up to Election Day. Focusing on a statewide grass-roots effort that included a long list of organizations and individuals opposing the measure, the group surged in fundraising down the home stretch. The No campaign was quick to note that the $148,000 it raised since April is 100 percent Alaska-funded -- a stark comparison to the Yes side, whose primary funding came through the Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project.
The group, a national nonprofit that advocates for marijuana reform across the country and was the primary sponsor behind Colorado's measure, funneled almost $800,000 into Alaska over the course of the campaign.
That funding base allowed the pro-legalization side to outspend their opponents nearly 9-1.
"Alaska is fiercely independent, and I think regardless of how tonight turns out Alaskans understand that we were part of a national strategy" surrounding pot legalization, said No campaign spokeswoman Kristina Woolston.
"I think at the end of the day we were all happy with the group of Alaskans that came together," she said.
What they lacked in spending they made up in notable public support. As the opposition rallied supporters -- from Alaska Native organizations, public safety officials, Alaska mayors, local communities and political leaders on both sides of the aisle -- supporters of legalization struggled against what they perceived as a long-standing stigma against marijuana.
That stigma didn't play out as much behind the voting curtain, with many Alaskans coming out in favor of the measure. Results showed supporters ahead from the start, with a lead they never relinquished as returns continued to stream in.
Tim Hinterberger, co-sponsor of the initiative, said the tide is changing when it comes to marijuana perceptions, for basic reasons. He pointed to wins in other states proving demographics are shifting on the substance, particularly among young voters.
"More people are voting who have experience with marijuana or know someone who uses marijuana," he said. "The older people who don't, they're dying off."
No clear voting bloc
Earlier in the day, one thing was clear: When it came to voting on Ballot Measure 2, party affiliation meant zilch.
In other states, marijuana legalization generally falls along party lines. Democrats tend to favor it, with Republicans opposed. But in Alaska, affiliation didn't seem to matter. Politicians on both sides of the aisle publicly opposed the measure, while supporters actively targeted conservative voters leading up to the election.
That targeting may have worked. Husband and wife Larry and Lauren Larsen of Fairview both described themselves as conservative voters and both voted in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Lauren Larsen thought police did a good job of dealing with violent crime, but didn't do so well when it came to property crimes. She attributes that to being overworked, and thought if marijuana was legalized it would at least free up some police resources.
Larry Larsen said the couple, who do not use marijuana, know people in Barrow who use pot.
"It's everywhere, it's no problem for people to get it," he said outside of his polling place at Anchorage's Central Lutheran Church. "If (marijuana enforcement) isn't working, then the hell with it."
The biggest issue that drove Rebecca DeGoroot to the polls was another ballot initiative, one which would raise the minimum wage and appeared to be winning handily Tuesday. DeGoroot has worked as manager, overseeing low paid workers and would like to see them paid more. She also voted in favor of the Bill Walker-Byron Mallott gubernatorial ticket.
But she didn't support Ballot Measure 2.
"I think there are more important things to worry about," she said in Fairview Tuesday afternoon.
"I wouldn't like to see it pass but I think it will," said Larry Mooney, waving a sign for Democratic Sen. Mark Begich Tuesday morning at the intersection of Minnesota Drive and Benson Boulevard.
Fairview resident Davy Mousseaux voted for conservative candidates straight down the ticket, but voted yes to legalize marijuana.
He said while he doesn't use it now, he has used it in the past and thought that legalization could help communities. |||||
Jars of medical cannabis line the shelves inside a Good Meds medical cannabis center in Lakewood, Colorado, U.S., on Monday, March 4, 2013. (Photo by Matthew Staver/For The Washington Post)
With 56 of 58 precincts reporting, Guam voters appear to have legalized a medical marijuana measure. Fifty six percent of voters tallied so far have supported the measure, with 44 percent opposed.
“That’s great news, and a positive omen, for marijuana reform efforts across the country,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a press release. “Guam is quite conservative politically, and home to a significant U.S. military presence, so this resounding victory is a confirmation of medical marijuana's broad support across the political spectrum."
Tom Angell of the Marijuana Majority agreed. "People all across the world are ready to move beyond failed prohibition laws, especially when seriously ill patients are criminalized just for following their doctors' recommendations," he said in an email.
Over at the liveblog of Project SAM, an organization that opposes medical and recreational marijuana measures, Kevin Sabet wrote that the results aren't a huge surprise. "As we had expected, Guam legalizes medical marijuana. No surprise here... Guam's law is more restrictive than the majority of mainland US laws, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out."
According to an analysis of the bill by Guam lawyer Bill Pesch, Guam's measure doesn't allow patients to grow their own marijuana plants, which most other states allow. Patients would receive a medical marijuana recommendation from a doctor, who would have to attest that "the patient has a debilitating medical condition and the practitioner believes that the potential health benefits of the medical use of cannabis would likely outweigh the health risks for the patient."
This criteria is more restrictive than in California, where patients can receive medical marijuana for any condition that would benefit from marijuana treatment. On the other hand, many other states restrict medical marijuana recommendations to only a handful of specific conditions, like epilepsy, glaucoma or cancer, which Guam's measure does not appear to do. ||||| NEW YORK (AP) — Voters in Oregon and the District of Columbia approved ballot measures Tuesday allowing the recreational use of marijuana by adults, elating legalization activists who hope to extend their winning streak across the country.
FILE - In this Sept. 11, 2014 file photo, a sample of marijuana is shown inside the dispensary at Collective Awakenings on in Portland, Ore. Advocates for legalizing recreational pot have been aggressively... (Associated Press)
Oregon will join the company of Colorado and Washington state, where voters approved the recreational use of pot two years ago. And the District of Columbia is on the same path unless Congress, which has review power, blocks the move.
Still to come were results from Alaska, which also had a marijuana-legalization measure on its ballot Tuesday.
Other volatile issues on state ballots include gambling and abortion. Voters in Washington state, faced with two competing measures on gun sales, approved an expansion of background checks.
The District of Columbia's marijuana measure would make it legal to possess up to two ounces of pot and up to three mature marijuana plants for personal use, but it does not provide for the legal sale of marijuana, leaving that matter up to the D.C. Council. That's different from the measures in Oregon and Alaska, which would follow the example of Colorado and Washington state in setting up systems for regulating and taxing retail sales of marijuana.
The Drug Policy Alliance, one of the leaders of the legalization campaign, said Tuesday's results would bolster its efforts to push through a ballot measure in California in 2016
"The pace of reform is accelerating, other states are sure to follow, and even Congress is poised to wake from its slumber," said Ethan Nadelmann, the alliance's executive director.
Oregon's measure calls for pot legalization by July 1, and requires the state Liquor Control Commission to adopt regulations by Jan. 1, 2016.
Oregon sheriffs were among the law's chief opponents, contending that legalization would give children access to marijuana and could lead to more people driving under the influence.
The campaign in D.C. included a debate about race — the measure's supporters said blacks in the city had been disproportionately targeted for marijuana arrests.
Gary Fulwood, a support staffer for the city's fire and EMS department, voted for the initiative.
"The criminal justice system is getting bogged down by marijuana use, and a lot of the people who use marijuana aren't criminals," Fulwood said. "I don't see it being any worse than alcohol."
In Florida, a measure that would have allowed marijuana use for medical reasons fell short of the 60 percent approval to pass; near-complete returns showed it getting about 57 percent of the vote. Twenty-three states allow medical marijuana.
Some of the other questions before voters Tuesday:
ABORTION
In Colorado and North Dakota, voters rejected measures that opponents feared could lead to bans on abortion.
The Colorado proposal would have added "unborn human beings" to the state's criminal code. It was the third measure on Colorado ballots in recent years seeking to grant "personhood" to the unborn.
North Dakota voters rejected an amendment that would have declared in the state constitution "the inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development must be recognized and protected."
In Tennessee, voters approved a measure that will give state legislators more power to regulate abortion. Opponents fear it will lead to tough new laws that would jeopardize women's access to abortions.
GAMBLING SHOWDOWN
In Massachusetts, voters passed up a chance to say "No" to casinos. They rejected a measure that would have repealed a 2011 law authorizing development of a slots parlor and up to three resort casinos. There are none in the state now, but casino plans have been approved for three cities across the state.
A victory for the anti-casino forces would have marked the first time — at least since the modern era of U.S. gambling began in 1931 — that a state reversed a major legislative decision to expand gambling.
MINIMUM WAGE
Voters in three states approved increases in the state minimum wage. In Arkansas, it will rise from $6.25 an hour to $8.50 by 2017, in Nebraska from $7.25 to $9, and in South Dakota from $7.25 to $8.50. Alaskans also were voting on a minimum wage increase.
GUN SALES
In Washington state, voters approved a measure to expand background checks on gun sales and transfers; the checks will extended to private transactions and many loans and gifts. The rival measure would have prevented the state from expanding checks in that fashion; it was trailing statewide.
Like federal law, Washington law currently requires checks for sales or transfers by licensed dealers but not for purchases from private sellers, like those who sell at gun shows or to friends.
SICK TIME
Massachusetts voters approved a measure that supporters say will establish the nation's strongest requirement for providing paid sick time to workers. Workers will be able to accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick time in a given year, earning one hour for every 30 hours worked. Companies with 10 or fewer employees would be exempt.
CRIME
California voters approved a ballot initiative that will reduce penalties for low-level drug and property crimes. Shoplifting, forgery, fraud and petty theft are among the crimes that will be treated as misdemeanors rather than felonies. Misdemeanors carry a maximum penalty of less than a year in custody. The measure is expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars in prison costs each year, with the savings diverted to school programs, victims' services, and mental health and drug treatment.
TEACHERS TAKE STANDS
In Missouri, voters defeated a measure — bitterly opposed by teachers' unions — that would have tied teachers' jobs and salaries to the performance of their students.
Teachers unions were supporting an initiative in Washington state that would reduce class size and increase staffing support in grades K-12. State financial experts believe the measure would eventually cost the state about $2 billion a year to pay for thousands more teachers and other school staff.
FOOD FIGHT
Colorado voters rejected a measure that would have required labeling of certain genetically modified foods. The proposal would have applied to raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering, but not apply to food served in restaurants.
A similar measure was on the ballot in Oregon.
Opponents of the requirements — including food corporations and biotech firms — said mandatory labels would mislead consumers into thinking engineered ingredients are unsafe, which scientists have not proven.
___
Associated Press writer Ben Nuckols in Washington contributed to this report. | Marijuana legalization advocates are on a roll: Ballot measures loosening pot laws have passed in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, DC. The DC law—which could still be blocked by Congress—will allow residents and visitors to grow and possess marijuana but not sell it, reports the Washington Post, while the measures in Oregon and Alaska allow it to be sold in stores for recreational use, as in Washington state and Colorado. At a victory party in Portland, a prominent legalization advocate hailed the end of a "painful, discriminatory, harmful policy that has terrible consequences for our state," the Oregonian reports. Meanwhile, Guam voted last night to legalize medical marijuana, reports the Post. In other ballot measures rounded up by the AP: Minimum wage: Voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota approved minimum wage increases. Crime: California has voted to save hundreds of millions in prison costs by reducing the penalties for some crimes, treating offenses including shoplifting, forgery, fraud, and petty theft as misdemeanors instead of felonies. Abortion: Voters in Colorado and North Dakota rejected "personhood" measures for the unborn that could have led to tough abortion restrictions, while Tennessee voted to give state lawmakers more power to regulate abortion. Food labeling: Colorado voted against requiring labels on genetically modified foods. A similar measure is on the ballot in Oregon. |
There’s an Eleanor Roosevelt quote that Anita Hill once hung on her office door: “You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face,” it begins. “You must do the thing you think you cannot do.”
In 1991, Hill faced the fearsome ordeal of testifying, on TV, before the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee at Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She accused him of sexually harassing her 10 years earlier, when she’d worked as his assistant at the U.S. Department of Education and then at the EEOC. After the hearings were over—the committee having all but ignored her testimony—Hill’s distinguished legal career took a back seat to the national symbol she’d become: a woman degraded.
"I try to channel anger, whatever is left, into resolve."
Meanwhile, Thomas would be confirmed for his position on the Supreme Court.“I’m sure somewhere in me there’s anger,” Hill admitted from her home in Waltham, Massachusetts (she’s been teaching at nearby Brandeis University since 1998). “But I try to channel anger, whatever is left, into resolve, and especially resolve that this does not happen to other women.” Already the first tenured black professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law at the time of the hearings, she’d go on to write two acclaimed books and inspire a multitude of women to speak out about workplace harassment.
Now, psychologist and professor Christine Blasey Ford stands in the same position Hill once did, having accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when the two were in high school. "In 1991, the phrase 'they just don’t get it' became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence," Hill wrote in a New York Times op ed about the Ford case. "With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, 'not getting it' isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right."
Last year, Hill became the chair of the Commission on Eliminating Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace, an organization cofounded by producer and Lucas film president Kathleen Kennedy in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein allegations. While the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements are welcome watershed moments in the history of sexual harassment, Hill knows that it’s after the waters calm that the work begins.
You testified about sexual harassment 27 years ago. Why do you think we had to wait until now for people to really pay attention?
ANITA HILL: The public was in a position to understand and believe A-list stars. But for the vast universe of us, we don’t have that social and cultural narrative. And [for us], society falls back on myths that women have to look a certain way, be a certain race or sexual identity, or be wealthy [to be believed]. We fall back on the myth that all women are dishonest about this and not to be trusted.
Do you ever get sick of revisiting the past?
It depends on how we talk about it. Twenty-seven years ago, there was a surge in the number of people complaining about sexual harassment, suing on their own behalf, and there was real movement within organizations to establish policies and procedures. And still, 26 years later, we realized that we didn’t get where we needed to be.
"I can’t demand, and I can’t even assure people, that coming forward is the right choice."
If someone came to you and said she’d been harassed, would you unequivocally encourage her to come forward?
The way the law is set up, I’d have to report it if it were a student. But aside from the law, do I think it is safe to say to everyone, “Go report this abuse”? No. I know the horrible statistics on retaliation. As many as 60, or maybe 70, percent of people who file complaints are retaliated against. I can’t demand, and I can’t even assure people, that coming forward is the right choice.
So what can you do?
Inform people: Here are your options, here are your resources, here are the organizations that are responsible for ensuring this doesn’t happen to you.
When did you get interested in civil service?
I was about 13, and in my older sister’s sorority magazine, I read about two women, Yvonne Burke and Patricia Harris, who were both involved in politics and the civil rights movement. I’d seen African American women in leadership positions in our church, but in terms of having those models on a national platform, it was eye-opening.
What was the most critical moment in your life before your testimony against Clarence Thomas?
My decision to go to Yale Law School—to leave Oklahoma, a place where I was comfortable, where most of my family was, and take the chance of feeling like a stranger in a very new, foreign, and at times very challenging place. I am the youngest of 13 children, and my parents raised many of us in a segregated society. They wanted me to avail myself of all the opportunities that were out there.
You struggled with medical issues around the same time as the hearings, having surgery in which tumors were removed from your uterus—making you a physical survivor as well as a psychological one. How do the scars differ?
I don’t wish either on anyone, but you can use physical healing as a reminder that you can also heal from emotional pain. It gives you faith that, you know, I got beyond this surgery—I can also get to feeling better psychologically and spiritually and emotionally.
"It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we’re not expecting company. 'Oh,' we say, 'is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?'
Joe Biden, who served as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the proceedings, has been criticized by many, including you, for allowing hostile questioning. He came forward just last year and sort of apologized.
It’s funny you said “sort of” apologized. He said, “I owe her an apology.” People were asking, “When are you going to apologize to her?” It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we’re not expecting company. “Oh,” we say, “is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?”
So you’re not waiting with bated breath?
There are more important things to me now than hearing an apology from Joe Biden. I’m okay with where I am. ||||| The revisiting of former Vice President Joe Biden’s handling of Anita Hill's allegations in 1991 has offered other potential Democratic candidates a wide opening as they jockey for position ahead of the 2020 campaign. | Patrick Semansky/AP Photo Politics Biden confronts the ghost of Anita Hill ‘It’s not going to be something he can charm out of. I think in 2018, you can’t just smile it away,’ said one Democrat.
Joe Biden began the month by kissing foreheads and preaching unity at a breezy Labor Day march in Pittsburgh. He will end it under question about whether his decades-old record in Congress can withstand the withering scrutiny of the current political moment.
With a sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh roiling Washington, Biden’s handling of a similar matter — the Anita Hill hearings — has erupted back into public view, exposing a rare point of weakness for Biden in the run-up to the 2020 presidential campaign.
Story Continued Below
It’s an issue that can’t easily be sidestepped in the post-Obama era Democratic Party, where the conversation surrounding sexual harassment is light years beyond where it was in the early 1990s when Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the grass-roots energy is in the progressive wing. If the former vice president decides to run, he’ll have to navigate a field that could exceed 20 challengers — almost none of whom will be burdened with the baggage of seemingly ancient political and culture wars.
Toi Hutchinson, president of the National Association of State Legislators and an Illinois Democratic state senator who helped launch a statewide #MeToo awareness effort, said Biden will face a tough road with the 2020 electorate if he doesn’t address the Hill hearings straight on.
“He in particular is going to have to find a way to connect to women voters and say, ‘This is what we have learned [since Biden’s time as Judiciary chairman]’, said Hutchinson, who wasn’t yet born when Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972. “It’s not going to be something he can charm out of. I think in 2018, you can’t just smile it away. I think what [Biden] does best is when he goes straight up the middle, takes it on directly. I don’t think there’s any other way. It offers an opportunity to look people square in the eye and take on this issue directly. And I think women in this country will respond to his directness.”
The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — 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.
Now a front-runner in early Democratic primary polls, Biden was pilloried at the time for his handling of the 1991 confirmation hearings of then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas was accused by Hill of inappropriate sexual behavior, and Biden was criticized for failing to blunt attacks on Hill and for not calling witnesses who could have supported her.
“It certainly was not his best moment,” said former Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), one of seven Democratic women who dramatically marched to the room where Senate Democrats were caucusing in 1991 in an attempt to make their case for why the vote on Thomas should be delayed as a result of Hill's accusations. “To have railroaded that through and not listened to the other three women and let his colleagues absolutely tear her apart was absolutely horrible.”
Schroeder said, “I don’t think people will be happy about it, the more they think about it. A lot of people probably forgot about it, but this brings it all fresh to mind again. We can all say the Republicans are messing up, but guess who messed up first?”
Biden’s management of the Hill testimony in Thomas' confirmation hearings has long loomed in the background of his political biography, viewed as a weakness when he considered a presidential run in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, the eventual nominee. But two years later, the weight of the #MeToo movement has only intensified the spotlight on politicians’ handling of issues related to sexual harassment and misconduct.
In an interview with Elle , published Tuesday, Hill noted that Biden last year acknowledged he owed her an apology. But he never took the next step.
“‘He said, ‘I owe her an apology.’ People were asking, ‘When are you going to apologize to her?’”’ Hill told Elle of Biden. “It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we’re not expecting company. ‘Oh,’ we say, ‘is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?’”
Asked whether she was still waiting for Biden’s apology, Hill said: “There are more important things to me now than hearing an apology from Joe Biden. I’m OK with where I am.”
poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201809/2675/1155968404_5836583488001_5836577152001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true
Patti Solis Doyle, who served as Biden’s campaign chief of staff in 2008, called the former vice president one of the most viable potential 2020 candidates in the Democratic field. Still, she acknowledged that if Biden doesn't apologize directly and put the matter behind him quickly, the issue threatens to hang over him in 2020, when the #MeToo issues are likely to play a prominent role in the presidential debate.
“If Anita Hill believes she’s owed an apology, then she’s owed an apology, without question. And he should give one,” Solis Doyle said. “Certainly, Joe Biden did not do the harassing. Joe Biden ended up voting against Clarence Thomas. But what was done to Anita Hill in those hearings … it was unseemly. And as chair of the Judiciary back then, he probably should have taken a bigger role in making Anita Hill feel safe and comfortable, and clearly, she did not feel that way.”
Solis Doyle said Biden would have an easier time touting his record on women’s issues and connecting with the surge of women voters if he put the matter to rest.
“I don’t think it’s going to be a disqualifying issue for Joe Biden, but he should address it and he should apologize,” she said. “What is happening with the very credible and serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh has brought this to the forefront of our politics. I think if Judge Kavanaugh gets [confirmed], it will be a topic of discussion in the midterm elections … thereby making it a topic of discussion in 2020.”
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who lobbied the Senate on Hill’s behalf along with Schroeder in 1991, said the injustice of the Anita Hill hearings “wasn’t Biden alone” and that while Biden will be “examined for it” in 2020, he will also be credited for his work on the Violence Against Women Act, among other issues.
“I’m not sure the public will hold this against him given his apologies, and his advice from his own experience,” she said.
Norton said the Kavanaugh hearings may signal a broader shift in politics ahead of the 2020 presidential campaign. Following Hill's testimony in the Thomas confirmation hearings, she said, the country “turned on its heel, it became the Year of the Woman … And I must say, I’m seeing a redux of that.”
A Biden spokesman declined to comment Thursday, but pointed to the former Delaware senator’s extensive remarks on the issue in December in Teen Vogue . He told the magazine that month, "I wish I had been able to do more for Anita Hill … I owe her an apology."
That interview is among the clear signs that Biden understands he has not fully put the issue behind him — a necessity given the critical role women and black voters play in a Democratic primary. On Friday, Biden said Kavanagh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, "should not have to go through what Anita Hill went through” if she chooses to testify.
“My biggest regret was I didn't know how I could shut you off if you were a senator and you were attacking Anita Hills’ character,” Biden told NBC’s ‘Today’ show. "Under the Senate rules I can’t gavel you down and say you can’t ask that question although I tried."
The revisiting of Biden’s performance in 1991 has offered other potential Democratic candidates a wide opening as they jockey for position ahead of the 2020 campaign.
A lawyer for Ford has said her client is “prepared” to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, giving two high-profile Democrats, Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey, an opportunity to distinguish themselves from Biden’s performance years ago.
“Everyone’s always wondered whether we were going to see a tail-off of this #MeToo stuff. And it’s not. It’s sticking,” said Amanda Renteria, a former top campaign aide to Hillary Clinton. “I do think anyone, no matter where you are, no matter where you’re running, needs to really think about whatever role they’ve played in the past, and how that will be viewed in a new world.”
If Biden runs for president, Renteria said, “This bucket of issues is obviously going to come up.”
Like many Democrats, however, Renteria suggested the Anita Hill hearings are far from insurmountable for Biden.
“He’s just so real and authentic — I think he’ll figure out that piece, if that’s what he wants to run,” Renteria said.
Biden’s broader record also shows a progression that will enable him to argue that his understanding as an elected official grew over the years, including authoring the Violence Against Women Act and spearheading the “It’s on Us” campaign, which raised awareness about sexual assault on collect campuses.
“I think starting with the crime bill and passage of the Violence Against Women Act, that was his first act of atonement, if you will, for what he did to Anita Hill,” said Christine Pelosi, a Democratic National Committee member from California and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter.
Saying that Biden had exhibited a “series of awakenings,” Pelosi said, “You can draw a line from a disgraceful hearing to seeds of hope in the Violence Against Women Act to ‘It’s on Us’ as vice president.”
Adelaide “Tootsie” Dennis Kline, an attorney and founding member of the South Carolina-based I Believe Anita Hill group, said she, too, believed Biden could overcome the 1991 hearing — but only because she doubted the salience of sexual harassment as a voting issue.
“It’s accepted by a lot of voters without any problems, apparently,” she said.
Of Biden, Kline said, “I don’t know if Sen. Biden has become more mature about these issues since then. … I don’t think a lot of people have gotten it. It’s been a lot of time — 27 years — and I don’t see the landscape changing very much.”
| The Brett Kavanaugh controversy has drawn lots of comparisons to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing of 1991, and as Politico notes, that's not such great news for Joe Biden. The former VP was not only on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, he was actually the chairman, and critics have faulted his handling of the hearing—for not protecting Anita Hill from attacks during questioning and for not calling witnesses who might have supported her accusations of sexual misconduct. The story focuses on the political ramifications for the possible 2020 candidate, but it also takes note of an interesting interview Hill just gave to Elle. The interviewer mentions to Hill that Biden "sort of apologized" last year for how he handled things. In her response, Hill notes that Biden said, "I owe her an apology" but that he has never actually apologized. "People were asking, 'When are you going to apologize to her?,'" she says. "It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we’re not expecting company. 'Oh,' we say, 'is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?'" (Hill has some advice for senators now on the judiciary panel.) |
Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
/ Updated By Maggie Fox
Deaths from Alzheimer’s disease rose by 55 percent over the last 15 years, federal researchers reported Thursday. It’s probably due to a mix of factors — an aging population, better diagnosis, and more willingness by doctors to put Alzheimer’s down as a cause of death, the team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC is putting the numbers into an unusual context — the effect on family members and other caregivers.
Alzheimer’s disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6 percent of all deaths, the CDC said.
“Millions of Americans and their family members are profoundly affected by Alzheimer’s disease,” said CDC Acting Director Dr. Anne Schuchat.
“As the number of older Americans with Alzheimer’s disease rises, more family members are taking on the emotionally and physically challenging role of caregiver than ever before. These families need and deserve our support.”
Related: Can Brain Games Cut Alzheimer's Risk?
The CDC team used death certificate data to calculate that 93,541 people who died in 2014 had Alzheimer’s given as the cause of death.
That’s a rate of 25.4 deaths per 100,000 people, a 54.5 percent increase compared with 16.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 1999, the CDC reported.
“Most deaths occurred in a nursing home or long-term care facility,” the researchers wrote.
Alzheimer’s disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6 percent of all deaths, the CDC said.
Related: Dementia Rate Might be Declining
“Alzheimer’s deaths can be an indicator of paid and unpaid caregiver burden because nearly everyone in the final stages of Alzheimer’s needs constant care, regardless of the setting, as the result of functional and cognitive declines,” the researchers pointed out.
“As Alzheimer’s disease progresses, caregiving becomes very important. Caregivers and patients can benefit from programs that include education about Alzheimer’s disease, how to take care of themselves and their loved one, and case management to lessen the burden of care,” said Christopher Taylor, a CDC epidemiologist who led the study team.
“Supportive interventions can lessen the burden for caregivers and improve the quality of care for people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
Related: Exercise Helps Alzheimer's
There’s no cure for Alzheimer’s and no long-term medical treatment that has been shown to reduce symptoms. But people who think they have symptoms should see a doctor as soon as possible, the CDC said.
“Early diagnosis is important to allow patients and their families to begin planning medical and caregiving needs at all stages of the disease,” the CDC advised. ||||| Given the increasing number of Alzheimer’s deaths and persons with Alzheimer’s dying at home, there is a growing number of caregivers who likely can benefit from interventions like education, respite care, and home health assistance; such interventions can lessen the burden of caregiving and can improve the care received by persons with Alzheimer’s.
Age-adjusted rates of Alzheimer’s mortality significantly increased in 41 states and the District of Columbia from 1999 to 2014. Counties with the highest age-adjusted rates were primarily in the Southeast, plus some additional areas in the Midwest and West. Significant increases in Alzheimer’s deaths coupled with an increase in the number of persons with Alzheimer’s dying at home suggest that the burden on caregivers has increased even more than the increase in the number of deaths.
Alzheimer’s disease (Alzheimer’s) is the most common cause of dementia. It currently affects an estimated 5.5 million adults in the United States and is expected to affect 13.8 million U. S. adults aged ≥65 years by 2050.
Alzheimer’s disease (Alzheimer’s), an ultimately fatal form of dementia, is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6% of all deaths in 2014 (1,2). Alzheimer’s deaths can be an indicator of paid and unpaid caregiver burden because nearly everyone in the final stages of Alzheimer’s needs constant care, regardless of the setting, as the result of functional and cognitive declines (2). To examine deaths with Alzheimer’s as the underlying cause, state-level and county-level death certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System for the period 1999–2014 were analyzed. A total of 93,541 Alzheimer’s deaths occurred in the United States in 2014 at an age-adjusted (to the 2000 standard population) rate of 25.4 deaths per 100,000 population, a 54.5% increase compared with the 1999 rate of 16.5 deaths per 100,000. Most deaths occurred in a nursing home or long-term care facility. The percentage of Alzheimer’s decedents who died in a medical facility (e.g., hospital) declined from 14.7% in 1999 to 6.6% in 2014, whereas the percentage who died at home increased from 13.9% in 1999 to 24.9% in 2014. Significant increases in Alzheimer’s deaths coupled with an increase in the number of persons with Alzheimer’s dying at home have likely added to the burden on family members or other unpaid caregivers. Caregivers might benefit from interventions such as education, respite care, and case management that can lessen the potential burden of caregiving and can improve the care received by persons with Alzheimer’s.
Mortality data for 1999–2014 were analyzed using CDC WONDER (https://wonder.cdc.gov). The data were provided by the National Vital Statistics System and based on information from all resident death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC). The period analyzed represented all of the years with U.S. mortality data available at the time of analysis* using the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code set, which was implemented in 1999. CDC WONDER queries were used to generate the number of deaths with Alzheimer’s reported as the underlying cause of death, along with unadjusted and age-adjusted death rates with 95% confidence intervals and standard errors for groups defined by characteristics including year, sex, age group (≤64, 65–74, 75–84, and ≥85 years), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Hispanic), urban-rural classification, state, and county.
The percentages of Alzheimer’s deaths that occurred in medical facilities, the decedent’s home, hospice facility, or nursing home/long-term care facilities also were obtained. County-level data were examined for the aggregated years of 2005–2014 because the geographic distribution for 1999–2004 data were inconsistent with more recent data and would have obscured any current geographic patterns. ICD-10 codes G30.0, G30.1, G30.8, and G30.9 were used to identify Alzheimer’s as the underlying cause of death. These codes are used by CDC to describe Alzheimer’s as a leading cause of death (1). Other forms of dementia were not examined in this analysis.
Mortality rates were calculated using population estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau in collaboration with CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. Age-adjusted mortality rates were calculated using the 2000 U.S. standard population. The z-statistic (assuming a normal approximation for the distribution of rates) was used to compare rates at a statistical significance level of p<0.05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Joinpoint regression was used to test the significance of trends in age-specific rates for the period 1999–2014.
From 1999 to 2014, age-specific rates of deaths attributed to Alzheimer’s increased among adults aged 75–84 years from 129.5 to 185.6 per 100,000 population and among adults aged ≥85 years, from 601.3 to 1,006.8. The largest increase in the rates of Alzheimer’s deaths among adults aged ≥85 years occurred from 1999 to 2005, compared with 2005–2014 (p<0.001) (Figure 1). Since 2005, although the mortality rate has continued to increase, the rate of increase was not as large as 1999–2005.
The age-adjusted Alzheimer’s death rate per 100,000 population increased from 16.5 (44,536 deaths) in 1999 to 25.4 (93,541 deaths) in 2014, an increase of 54.5% (Table). In 2014, rates were higher compared with 1999 among all age groups; also in 2014 rates were higher among women compared with men and among non-Hispanic whites compared with other racial/ethnic populations (Table). In 2014, death rates for Alzheimer’s were lower among residents of large central metropolitan areas and large fringe metropolitan areas compared with residents in other urban-rural classifications.
From 1999 to 2014, rates of Alzheimer’s deaths significantly increased for 41 states and DC (Table). Only one state, Maine, had a significant decrease in age-adjusted Alzheimer’s deaths. Age-adjusted rates for all 50 states and DC ranged from 7.0 to 29.8 per 100,000 in 1999 and from 10.7 to 43.6 per 100,000 in 2014.
Using average annual county-level data for the period 2005–2014, age-adjusted rates of Alzheimer’s deaths ranged from 4.3 to 123.7 per 100,000 (Figure 2). Counties with the highest age-adjusted rates were primarily in the Southeast, plus some additional areas in the Midwest and West.
Most Alzheimer’s decedents died in a nursing home or long-term care facility in 1999 (67.5%) and 2014 (54.1%). The percentage who died in a medical facility declined from 14.7% in 1999 to 6.6% in 2014. In contrast, the percentage who died at home increased from 13.9% in 1999 to 24.9% in 2014, with an additional 6.1% who died in a hospice facility in 2014. ||||| Deaths from Alzheimer's disease have risen dramatically in recent years, new government health data shows, and more Americans are dying from the illness at home.
Over a 16-year period, between 1999 and 2014, death rates from Alzheimer's disease increased almost 55 percent, according to findings published Thursday in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
"We've known for some time that the number of Alzheimer's disease deaths have been going up and that can in some way be attributed to the fact that we have a growing number of aging adults in America. Age is the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer's disease," report author Christopher Taylor, an epidemiologist with the CDC, told CBS News.
The Alzheimer's Laboratory
During that same time period, Taylor said an increasing percentage of people with the illness died at home instead of in medical facilities, a shift from years past.
The majority of Alzheimer's deaths took place in a nursing home or longterm care facility, but that figure declined from 67.5 percent in 1999 to just over 54 percent in 2014. Alzheimer's deaths in hospitals dropped from 14.7 percent to just 6.6 percent.
About a quarter of Alzheimer's patients spent their final days at home in 2014, up from about 13.9 percent in 1999.
"Caregiving for someone with Alzheimer's disease, especially in the late stages, it's very intense. We believe there is a need for more caregivers and they should be getting more resources for such intense caregiving," Taylor said.
According to the Alzheimer's Association, 5.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease today, and that number has been increasing over the past decade as the U.S. population ages, said Keith Fargo, director of scientific programs at the Alzheimer's Association.
"This is a continuation of a trend that's been going on for quite some time. It didn't happen in one year, it's been a steady trend over time, this increase in the death rate. This is not a surprise, but it's alarming," Fargo told CBS News.
How fast the disease progresses varies from person to person. The illness may follow a rapid course or progress more slowly over five or more years. For families and friends caring for a patient, it can take a huge emotional and financial toll, and the new findings reflect an increased burden on those caregivers, said Fargo.
"For every person with Alzheimer's disease, there are three unpaid caregivers, usually family members, sometimes friends as well. We know that it's bad for their own health. We can see that in Medicare data, across the U.S., Alzheimer's caregivers have $9 billion more in Medicare claims for their own health. It takes a toll on caregiver health," said Fargo.
Alzheimer's physician Dr. Paul Wright, chair of neurology at North Shore University Hospital and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New York, told CBS News that many of his patients come in with family and friends who are helping to care for them.
"When I see my patients, it's not just them, but their children who have to take off work. Their spouses. We have to be able to have more of an ability to provide resources to the caretakers – from helping with the distribution of medications, to bathing, to helping them perform activities of daily living. The patients' spouses are often elderly too and have ailments of their own. They need assistance at home," Wright said.
Resources could include more education services to help caregivers understand the disease and how it progresses from mild to severe stages, said Wright, as well as what's called "respite care," when a professional caregiver stops in to give a full-time caregiver time to rest and recharge.
"This is so mentally fatiguing and emotionally draining and there is a guilt component. If a spouse takes time off to go to a movie or for a walk, the spouse may feel guilty doing that. Respite care allows them to step away from what might be full-time caregiving duties," said Wright.
The experts said they'd also like to see more federal funding funneled into Alzheimer's, to help support families, but also for research to discover a cure.
"This is a tidal wave of Alzheimer's disease that is now upon us. We've been saying baby boomers are getting older and we have to be ready. Now it's here. It's here. And it's not going away unless we do something serious about it. Ultimately we want to eradicate this disease. That is possible," said Fargo, of the Alzheimer's Association.
He said the country has made great strides fighting HIV/AIDS and many cancers, but when it comes to dementia, "I think people have a tendency to take a pessimistic view. The way we're going to eradicate Alzheimer's disease is through a research commitment, primarily at the federal level." ||||| The rate of deaths related to Alzheimer's disease jumped by 54.5 percent over 15 years, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There were 93,541 deaths related to Alzheimer's disease in 2014, a rate of 25.4 deaths per 100,000 population, up from 44,536 deaths in 1999, a rate of 16.5 death per 100,000 people, according to the report.
The disease currently affects an estimated 5.5 million people in the U.S. but that number is expected to rise dramatically in people over the age of 65 to 13.8 million in 2050. The researchers examined death certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System to reach their findings.
Keith Fargo, director of the scientific program at the Alzheimer's Association, said that the study highlights the need for support and research into therapies to treat Alzheimer's disease.
"It's the only cause of death in the top 10 that does not have a way to prevent it or stop it," Fargo told ABC News.
CDC researchers did not study why there was in an increase but reported one likely factor is that more people were surviving to old age. They found from 1999 to 2005 the greatest increase in mortality rate related to Alzheimer's disease was in people over the age of 85.
Fargo said he was dismayed to see in the report that 24.9 percent of people with Alzheimer's disease were dying at home rather than in a medical facility.
"Before you die people become completely bed bound," said Fargo. "It requires and intense level of caregiving to the end."
Fargo said the fact that more people were dying at home indicated that people did not have the resources to get appropriate help at long-term care facilities like nursing homes. Fargo said providing that level of care can take a severe toll emotionally and physically. The CDC estimates caregivers provided 18.2 billion hours of unpaid care to dementia patients in 2015.
"The caregivers for Alzheimer's disease have $9 billion more in Medicare claims of their own," in addition to the claims of their loved ones Fargo said. Caregiving is "so stressful it takes a physical toll on the bodies."
The CDC researchers point out that increasing rates of Alzheimer's disease will mean more people need support to care and treat these patients.
"Until Alzheimer’s can be prevented, slowed, or stopped, caregiving for persons with advanced Alzheimer’s will remain a demanding task," the authors wrote. "An increasing number of Alzheimer’s deaths coupled with an increasing number of patients dying at home suggests that there is an increasing number of caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s. It is likely that these caregivers might benefit from interventions such as education, respite care, and case management that can lessen the potential burden of caregiving." | "A tidal wave of Alzheimer's disease" is now upon us and "it's not going away unless we do something serious about it," a rep for the Alzheimer's Association tells CBS News. That after a CDC report notes that the rate of deaths from Alzheimer's disease jumped 55% in 15 years. In 1999, Alzheimer’s was linked to some 44,500 deaths, or 16.5 deaths per 100,000 people. By 2014, those figures had jumped to 93,500 deaths and a rate of 25.4 per 100,000 people, reports ABC News. The CDC researchers used data from death certificates in the study, with NBC News noting that a number of factors are probably at play, including better diagnosis and an increased willingness of doctors to list it as the cause of death. But perhaps most importantly, people are living longer. "Age is the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer's disease," so the alarming rate of deaths will only continue with an aging population, a researcher explains. While finding a cure for Alzheimer's is still a priority, researchers say attention must also be given to patient care. The CDC report notes a quarter of deaths from Alzheimer's in 2014 occurred at home, up from 14% in 1999, suggesting many patients and their families can't afford professional care. "Nearly everyone in the final stages of Alzheimer's needs constant care," which can be emotionally and physically draining for a healthy person, say researchers. But "patients' spouses are often elderly, too, and have ailments of their own," a doctor adds. |
DOE’s responsibility for contractors’ litigation costs has its roots in the early nuclear programs. Since the inception of these programs in the 1940s, the federal government has relied on contractors to operate its nuclear facilities. However, because of the high risk associated with operating these facilities, the agencies responsible for managing nuclear activities—from the Atomic Energy Commission to DOE—included litigation and claims clauses in their management and operating contracts. These clauses generally provide that litigation expenses are allowable costs under the contracts. In addition, judgments against the contractors arising from their performance of the contracts are reimbursable by DOE. Over the past several years, class action lawsuits have been filed against past and present contractors responsible for operating DOE’s facilities. In general, these suits contend that the operation of the facilities released radioactive or toxic emissions and caused personal injury, emotional distress, economic injury, and/or property damage. These suits have been filed against the current and former operators of certain DOE facilities throughout the country, including the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Rocky Flats Site in Golden, Colorado; and, most recently, the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. DOE has the option of undertaking the defense against such class action litigation on its own, but it has generally opted to have the contractors defend these cases. As standard practice, DOE has authorized the contractors to proceed with their defense and has limited its own involvement to approving the hiring of outside counsel, reviewing billings, and agreeing upon settlement amounts. The cognizant DOE field office is responsible for funding each contractor’s litigation and overseeing the litigation effort. DOE’s outside litigation costs exceeded $25 million in fiscal year 1995. On July 13, 1994, we testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on our review of DOE’s management of its outside litigation costs. As we indicated at that hearing, and subsequently reported, we found that DOE had little control over litigation-related expenses. DOE (1) did not know how much it was spending to defend contractors in litigation, (2) had not established cost guidance or criteria for allowable costs, and (3) had not instituted effective procedures for reviewing the legal bills. At that time, DOE’s General Counsel acknowledged that the Department’s management of outside litigation costs had been inadequate and said that DOE was initiating actions to strengthen its controls over these costs. DOE, in August 1994, issued cost control guidance and established detailed procedures for reviewing contractors’ legal bills. Furthermore, DOE has recognized that major savings can be realized by reducing the number of law firms representing its contractors and it has begun efforts to consolidate cases involving multiple contractors and law firms. The General Counsel said that case consolidation was one of his office’s highest priorities because it would allow DOE to improve its case management and greatly reduce costs. Since we first reviewed DOE’s litigation costs, the Department has made considerable efforts to improve its procedures for controlling these costs, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, in certain instances, the guidance is not being consistently applied or not followed. Furthermore, headquarters’ oversight has not been as effective as it could be. Consequently, DOE is still being charged—and is paying—more than it should for litigation expenses. As a result of our July 1994 testimony, DOE issued detailed interim guidance in August 1994 setting forth policies for contracting officers to consider in determining whether particular litigation costs are reasonable. This guidance—which became effective for all ongoing class action suits on October 1, 1994—establishes limits on the costs that DOE will reimburse contractors for outside litigation. For example, the guidance specifies that the cost of duplicating documents should not exceed 10 cents per page; the charges for telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, and computer-assisted research are not to exceed the actual costs of providing these services; airfare is not to exceed the coach fare; and other travel expenses must be moderate, consistent with the rates established in the Federal Travel Regulations. The new guidance also sets forth DOE’s policy for reimbursing attorneys’ fees, profit and overhead, and overtime expenses, and it designates specific nonreimbursable costs. In addition, as part of its efforts to improve controls over litigation expenses, DOE has instituted detailed procedures for reviewing bills. DOE now requires contractors to submit copies of bills and accompanying supporting documentation to the responsible field offices for their review. Copies are also sent to headquarters so that if questions come up in the field, the Office of General Counsel’s staff can review the charges in question. Staff in each field Chief Counsel’s office are required to develop procedures for reviewing the bills each month to ensure compliance with the guidance. At headquarters, the Office of General Counsel hired an attorney with expertise in litigation management to coordinate DOE’s efforts to control costs. As a separate audit function, the Office of General Counsel established a team to audit each Chief Counsel’s office annually to ensure compliance with the guidance for managing litigation. As a result of these initiatives, DOE has questioned and/or disallowed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary and/or undocumented costs. Such costs have appeared in many of the bills reviewed by DOE. For example, DOE has disallowed time charges for attorneys when the work is clearly for other cases or when the description of work was vague or incomplete. DOE has also questioned charges for work such as “document management,” “filing,” and entertainment expenses. Finally, charges for long-distance telephone calls, overnight delivery, special messenger services, computer database research and other disbursements have been denied for lack of supporting documentation. We reviewed the bills associated with the Cook v. Rockwell/Dow and In re Hanford cases for fiscal year 1995, and found problems in many of them. Specifically, we identified additional expenses—over and above those disallowed by DOE—that should not have been approved according to the guidance. These examples show that the existing guidance is not being consistently applied or not being followed in certain instances. The following examples illustrate some of the most frequently occurring problems: DOE’s guidance directs that the legal fees be reasonable. Following this guidance, the Richland Chief Counsel’s staff—who manage the In re Hanford case—routinely question if an attorney charges more than 8.5 hours per day unless they are in trial, and charges exceeding this limit have been disallowed. However, staff at Rocky Flats—managing the Cook case—made no effort to question these charges even though several attorneys and paralegals from one law firm have frequently billed more than 8.5 hours per day—including one attorney who billed 17 hours for one day. DOE’s guidance says that the costs for meals and lodging for personnel while on travel should be billed at moderate rates using the Federal Travel Regulations as a guide. Nevertheless, the Rocky Flats office allowed lawyers to bill $28 for in-room breakfasts and for lodging that exceeded the government’s per diem rates. For example, one law firm was reimbursed in full for hotel charges of $221 per night in Washington, D.C. (where the federal maximum allowance for hotel rooms was $113), and $177 per night in Denver (where the federal maximum allowance for hotel rooms was $77). DOE’s guidance states that the cost controls are applicable to charges billed by consultants who work on the litigation. However, at Rocky Flats this criterion is not being adhered to. Consultants and expert witnesses are being reimbursed for expenses that are significantly higher than the guidance allows. For example, consultants and expert witnesses are being reimbursed for their administrative expenses at rates higher than their actual costs. They are being reimbursed for overhead at a rate of 140 percent of the administrative and secretarial support costs. Additionally, the mileage charged by some consultants is 133 percent of the federal limits. DOE’s guidance specifies that certain costs are nonreimbursable. However, some nonreimbursable expenses are being paid at both Rocky Flats and Hanford. Staff from these field offices are reimbursing purchases of reference materials, such as books and articles; costs for conference meals in excess of $10 per person; and overtime charges for secretaries—all of which are nonreimbursable under the guidance. DOE’s guidance requires certain costs to be approved in advance. However, we found that expenses requiring advance approval, such as the costs of hiring temporary personnel, were reimbursed even though the advance approval had not been obtained. Finally, we found that headquarters provided inadequate oversight of the field’s review of the bills. Bills are being forwarded to headquarters at the same time as the field office receives them, yet the Office of General Counsel’s staff was not aware of many of the problems we have identified. The Office of General Counsel’s staff said that they had not reviewed the bills to ensure uniformity and consistency with the guidance because they had devoted their limited resources to other efforts. However, they now intend to examine the bills more closely and oversee the field offices’ work. In fact, after learning of our findings, DOE headquarters staff clarified the applicability of the guidance to consultants and expert witnesses. On April 23, 1996, the Office of General Counsel issued a memo to all field office Chief Counsels stating that consultants, experts, and all other outside firms retained by the law firms are subject to the Department’s cost control guidance. These actions should help tighten controls over litigation costs. While DOE has taken a number of actions to institute cost controls over its outside litigation expenses, the dollar savings resulting from these actions are relatively small compared with DOE’s overall costs for outside litigation. Other issues have a far greater impact on the costs associated with the class action suits. These include the number of law firms representing DOE contractors, responding to discovery requests, and database development. DOE’s General Counsel is bringing more management attention to these issues in order to further reduce the costs of the class action litigation. Officials in DOE’s Office of General Counsel believe that consolidating the law firms and contractors in a case gives the department its greatest cost-saving potential. This alleviates potential duplication of work, reduces the number of legal staff billing on the case, and helps the staff in the field streamline their management of the litigation expenses. Since we completed our 1994 work, DOE has consolidated its largest class action case—In re Hanford—which had six codefendants, each represented by at least one law firm and some by as many as three firms. The Office of General Counsel acknowledged in 1994 that duplication of effort was likely occurring and, with it, unnecessary costs. Today, only two law firms are handling the litigation. DOE originally estimated that consolidating the defense for its lawsuits would significantly reduce its annual expenses for outside litigation. In 1995, DOE reduced its legal expenses by $1 million by consolidating the In re Hanford case. DOE explained that the savings at Hanford were less than expected this first year because the law firms experienced difficulties in reviewing and consolidating the voluminous work product of the former law firms. In future years, DOE expects the savings to be higher. To achieve further cost savings, DOE has considered consolidating the Cook case—which has two contractors as defendants. However, DOE has decided not to consolidate in light of the circumstances of this case. To avoid future situations where multiple contractors each hire individual law firms to represent them, DOE instituted a policy requiring contractors to select joint counsel. Staff from the Office of General Counsel cited several recent cases filed against several current and former DOE contractors involved in human radiation experimentation in which the contractors were encouraged to select common counsel to represent them. In addition, the General Counsel has directed that all new management and operating contracts contain a clause that will allow DOE to require that contractors serving as codefendants select common counsel. In both the Cook and the In re Hanford cases, DOE incurred high costs in responding to plaintiffs’ discovery requests—requests to obtain facts from DOE. In the Cook case DOE failed to meet deadlines in a court order and the judge issued a contempt order against DOE in November 1995. Consequently, DOE has rededicated staff and funds to identify, declassify and prepare hundreds of thousands of pages for review by the plaintiffs. After the contempt order was issued, DOE assigned as many as 82 people to the discovery effort. As of March 31, 1996, DOE had spent over $3 million for discovery efforts in Cook in fiscal year 1996. The Rocky Flats Chief Counsel estimates that DOE may spend as much as $11 million before discovery is completed. Discovery matters in the In re Hanford case have also proven costly for DOE. To comply with a court discovery order and avoid a contempt order in that case, DOE temporarily suspended cleanup activities at its Richland facility for a week in February 1996 so that all staff could identify and index documents requested by the plaintiffs. DOE estimates that this effort alone cost over $2.3 million. Ongoing efforts to declassify and catalog discovery documents have cost DOE an additional $4.7 million in this case. DOE recognizes that discovery is costly and that, in the past, it has lacked a coordinated approach for responding to discovery requests. To address this issue, the Office of General Counsel, in March 1996, began circulating draft guidance setting forth procedures for dealing with discovery issues, including procedures for assigning responsibility for contesting discovery requests. DOE’s General Counsel issued this guidance in final form on May 3, 1996. The Office acknowledged that if these procedures had been in place during the initial stages of discovery in the Cook case, they would have helped DOE avoid the contempt citation and the additional discovery costs it entailed. The final area that is driving costs is the development and maintenance of litigation databases. Since 1989, DOE has spent over $27 million to develop a litigation support database—maintained at Los Alamos National Laboratory—to be used to provide assistance to ongoing and future cases involving DOE and its former and current contractors. In addition, DOE contractors have developed their own litigation databases at DOE’s expense—that may be redundant and ineffective. In one instance, DOE allowed a law firm to get a copy of the scanned document tape from Los Alamos to search and organize on its own. The law firm maintained that this would be more cost-effective than its using the Los Alamos database directly. However, the final costs were double the amount estimated and the scanned documents were not as easily searchable as the law firm thought. We identified seven databases used in support of the Cook case. In fiscal year 1995, DOE spent over $600,000 on these databases. When we questioned Rocky Flat’s Chief Counsel about the purpose and need for these databases, she indicated that she was aware of only one database that DOE had developed in support of the Cook case. DOE’s Attorney for Litigation Management acknowledges that the functions of the various Cook databases may overlap and she has begun to identify the databases and their functions in order to minimize or reduce costs. For In re Hanford, we identified over 20 databases that had been developed by the contractors and their law firms before the case was consolidated. These databases are now being reviewed and combined by the lead law firm. In addition, DOE has reimbursed the contractors over $6.6 million for developing a separate database—the Westlake database—that serves as a repository for the plaintiffs’ medical records. DOE has recently undertaken efforts to reduce the costs associated with this database by, first, relocating to a less expensive location and, second, scaling down the number of documents being entered into the database. DOE has no formal written policy on developing databases. However, DOE’s Office of General Counsel is looking closely at the number of databases for each class action case intending to consolidate as many as possible and eliminate those that are duplicative. Officials from this office told us that with the new policy encouraging contractors to select common counsel and the cost controls now in place, it is unlikely that a large number of databases will be generated in the future for any one case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. That concludes our testimony. We would be happy to respond to any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | GAO discussed the Department of Energy's (DOE) controls over the litigation costs of defending lawsuits against its management and operating contractors. GAO noted that: (1) DOE outside litigation costs were over $25 million in fiscal year 1995; (2) DOE has improved its control over outside litigation costs by issuing guidance for reimbursable costs and specifying unreimbursable costs, which has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars; (3) DOE cost control guidance is not consistently applied or followed nor is headquarters oversight of field office billing procedures as effective as it could be; (4) other issues that have a greater impact on overall DOE litigation costs include the number of law firms representing DOE contractors, the handling of discovery requests, and database development; and (5) DOE is taking action to address these issues, such as consolidating law firms and contractors in one lawsuit, requiring future codefendants to hire common counsel, issuing guidance on responding to discovery requests, and developing plans to combine litigation case databases. |
This report focuses on the transformation of U.S. naval forces—the Navy and the Marine Corps, which are both contained in the Department of the Navy (DON). For an overview of defense transformation in general, see CRS Report RL32238, Defense Transformation: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. Table 1 summarizes several key elements of U.S. naval transformation. Each of these elements is discussed below. In late 1992, with the publication of a Navy document entitled ...From the Sea , the Navy formally shifted the focus of its planning away from the Cold War scenario of countering Soviet naval forces in mid-ocean waters and toward the post-Cold War scenario of operating in littoral (near-shore) waters to counter the land- and sea-based forces of potential regional aggressors. This shift in planning focus has led to numerous changes for the Navy in concepts of operation, training, and equipment over the last 12 years. Among other things, it moved the focus of Navy planning from a geographic environment where it could expect to operate primarily by itself to one where it would need to be able to operate effectively in a joint manner, alongside other U.S. forces, and in a combined manner, alongside military forces of other countries. It also led to an increased emphasis on amphibious warfare, mine warfare, and defense against diesel-electric submarines and small surface craft. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the DDG-1000 (formerly DD(X)) destroyer are key current Navy efforts intended to improve the Navy's ability to operate in heavily defended littoral waters. The Navy in mid-2005 began implementing several initiatives intended to increase its ability to participate in what the administration refers to as the global war on terrorism (GWOT). These initiatives include the establishment of the following: a Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (ECC); a riverine force; a reserve civil affairs battalion; a maritime intercept operations (MIO) intelligence exploitation pilot program; an intelligence data-mining capability at the National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC); and a Navy Foreign Area Officer (FAO) community consisting of officers with specialized knowledge of foreign countries and regions. The concept of network-centric operations, also called network-centric warfare (NCW), is a key feature of transformation for all U.S. military services. The concept, which emerged in the late 1990s, involves using computer networking technology to tie together personnel, ships, aircraft, and installations in a series of local and wide-area networks capable of rapidly transmitting critical information. Many in DON believe that NCW will lead to changes in naval concepts of operation and significantly increase U.S. naval capabilities and operational efficiency. Key NCW efforts include the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) network, the Naval Fires Network (NFN), the IT-21 investment strategy, and ForceNet, which is the Navy's overarching concept for combining the various computer networks that U.S. naval forces are now fielding into a master computer network for tying together U.S. naval personnel, ships, aircraft, and installations. A related program is the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). Many analysts believe that unmanned vehicles (UVs) will be another central feature of U.S. military transformation. Perhaps uniquely among the military departments, DON in coming years will likely acquire UVs of every major kind—air, surface, underwater, and ground. Widespread use of UVs could lead to significant changes in the numbers and types of crewed ships and piloted aircraft that the Navy procures in the future, in naval concepts of operation, and in measurements of naval power. The LCS is to deploy various kinds of UVs. Unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned combat air vehicles, or UCAVs (which are armed UAVs), if implemented widely, could change the shape naval aviation. Unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and UAVs could significantly expand the capabilities of Navy submarines. Naval forces are inherently sea-based, but the Navy is currently using the term sea basing in a more specific way, to refer a new operational concept under which forces would be staged at sea and then used to conduct expeditionary operations ashore with little or no reliance on a nearby land base. Under the sea basing concept, functions previously conducted from the nearby land base, including command and control, fire support, and logistics support, would be relocated to the sea base, which is to be formed by a combination of amphibious and sealift-type ships. The sea basing concept responds to a central concern of transformation advocates—that fixed overseas land bases in the future will become increasingly vulnerable to enemy anti-access/area-denial weapons such as cruise missiles and theater-range ballistic missiles. Although the sea basing concept originated with the Navy and Marine Corps, the concept can be applied to joint operations involving the Army and Air Force. To implement the sea basing concept, the Navy wants to field a 14-ship squadron, called the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F) squadron, that would include three new-construction large-deck amphibious ships, nine new-construction sealift-type ships, and two existing sealift-type ships. Additional "connector" ships would be used to move equipment to the MPF(F) ships, and from the MPF(F) ships to the operational area ashore. Some analysts have questioned the potential affordability and cost effectiveness of the sea basing concept. The Navy in the past relied on carrier battle groups (CVBGs) (now called carrier strike groups, or CSGs) and amphibious ready groups (ARGs) as its standard ship formations. In recent years, the Navy has begun to use new kinds of naval formations—such as expeditionary strike groups, or ESGs (i.e., amphibious ships combined with surface combatants, attack submarines, and land-based P-3 maritime patrol aircraft), surface strike groups (SSGs), and modified Trident SSGN submarines carrying cruise missiles and special operations forces —for forward presence, crisis response, and warfighting operations. A key Navy objective in moving to these new formation is to significantly increase the number of independently deployable, strike-capable naval formations. ESGs, for example, are considered to be formations of this kind, while ARGs generally were not. The Navy in 2006 also proposed establishing what it calls global fleet stations, or GFSs . The Navy says that a GFS is a persistent sea base of operations from which to coordinate and employ adaptive force packages within a regional area of interest. Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission. From its sea base, each GFS would serve as a self-contained headquarters for regional operations with the capacity to repair and service all ships, small craft, and aircraft assigned. Additionally, the GFS might provide classroom space, limited medical facilities, an information fusion center, and some combat service support capability. The GFS concept provides a leveraged, high-yield sea based option that achieves a persistent presence in support of national objectives. Additionally, it complements more traditional CSG/ESG training and deployment cycles. The Navy is implementing or experimenting with new ship-deployment approaches that are intended to improve the Navy's ability to respond to emergencies and increase the amount of time that ships spend on station in forward deployment areas. Key efforts in this area include the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) for emergency surge deployments and the Sea Swap concept for long-duration forward deployments with crew rotation. The FRP, Navy officials say, permits the Navy to deploy up to 6 of its 11 planned CSGs within 30 days, and an additional CSG within another 60 days after that (which is called "6+1"). Navy officials believe Sea Swap can reduce the stationkeeping multiplier—the number of ships of a given kind needed to maintain one ship of that kind on continuously station in an overseas operating area—by 20% or more. The Navy is implementing a variety of steps to substantially reduce the number of uniformed Navy personnel required to carry out functions both at sea and ashore. DON officials state that these actions are aimed at moving the Navy away from an outdated "conscript mentality," under which Navy personnel were treated as a free good, and toward a more up-to-date approach under which the high and rising costs of personnel are fully recognized. Under the DOD's proposed FY2008 budget and FY2008-FY2013 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), active Navy end strength, which was 365,900 in FY2005, is to decline to less than 325,000 by FY2010. Reductions in personnel requirements ashore are to be accomplished through organizational streamlining and reforms, and the transfer of jobs from uniformed personnel to civilian DON employees. Reductions in personnel requirements at sea are to be accomplished by introducing new-design ships that can be operated with substantially smaller crews—a shift that could lead to significant changes in Navy practices for recruiting, training, and otherwise managing its personnel. Current ship-acquisition programs related to this goal include the LCS, the DDG-1000, and the Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier (also known as the CVN-21 class). DON is pursuing a variety of initiatives to improve its processes and business practices so as to generate savings that can be used to help finance Navy transformation. These efforts are referred to collectively as Sea Enterprise. Many DON transformation activities efforts take place at the Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC), which is located at the Naval War College at Newport, RI, and the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL), which is located at the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, VA. These two organizations generate ideas for naval transformation and act as clearinghouses and evaluators of transformation ideas generated in other parts of DON. NWDC and MCWL oversee major exercises, known as Fleet Battle Experiments (FBEs) and Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWEs), that are intended to explore new naval concepts of operation. The Navy and Marine Corps also participate with the Army and Air Force in joint exercises aimed at testing transformation ideas. Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following: Are current DON transformation efforts inadequate, excessive, or about right? Are DON transformation efforts adequately coordinated with those of the Army and Air Force? Is DON striking the proper balance between transformation initiatives for participating in the global war on terrorism (GWOT) and those for preparing for a potential challenge from improved Chinese maritime military forces? Is DON achieving a proper balance between transformation and maintaining near-term readiness and near-term equipment procurement? How might naval transformation affect Navy force-structure requirements? Will the need to fund Army and Marine Corps reset costs in coming years reduce funding available for Navy transformation? | The Department of the Navy (DON) has several efforts underway to transform U.S. naval forces to prepare them for future military challenges. Key elements of naval transformation include a focus on operating in littoral waters, increasing the Navy's capabilities for participating in the global war on terrorism (GWOT), network-centric operations, use of unmanned vehicles, directly launching and supporting expeditionary operations ashore from sea bases, new kinds of naval formations, new ship-deployment approaches, reducing personnel requirements, and streamlined and reformed business practices. This report will be updated as events warrant. |
According to Postal Service figures, of the 177 billion pieces of mail it processed in 1994, over 118 billion pieces, or 67 percent, were categorized as bulk business mail. In fiscal year 1994, the Service recorded revenue from bulk business mail of $23.1 billion—48.4 percent of its total mail revenue. The Postal Service began offering postage discounts to mailers who presorted their mail in 1976, and in 1988 it began offering discounts for barcoding. Presort and barcode discounts are to compensate mailers for performing work that otherwise would have to be done by the Postal Service. In fiscal year 1994, about 34 percent of all First-Class mail and 92 percent of all third-class mail was discounted. According to Postal Service studies, the value of these discounts, during that year, totaled about $8 billion. Most bulk business mail is entered at Business Mail Entry Units (BMEU) and Detached Mail Units (DMU), located throughout the Postal Service’s 85 districts. DMUs are postal acceptance units located at mailers’ mail preparation facilities. BMEUs are often located in or adjacent to mail processing plants, which are postal facilities that process mail for distribution to both local and national destinations. Bulk mail is also entered at many of the 40,000 post offices located throughout the country. The Postal Service’s mail acceptance clerks are the gatekeepers for accepting bulk business mail into the mailstream. Their job is to ensure, before mail enters the Postal Service’s processing and distribution facilities, that mailers have prepared their mail in accordance with postal requirements and that discounts given for presorting and barcoding have, in fact, been earned. This is a difficult task given the time constraints and the wide variation in the way bulk business mail can be prepared and still meet Postal Service standards. If mail barcoded by a mailer is accepted by clerks but later fails to run on postal barcode sorters, the Postal Service incurs additional costs. This is because the Postal Service must rework the mail at its own expense even though it gave the mailer the barcoded rate to perform that work. Bulk mail acceptance clerks are to perform cursory verifications on all mailings and in-depth verifications on randomly selected mailings. For every in-depth verification completed, mail acceptance clerks are required to prepare a written verification report (Form 2866). Postal facilities that receive 100 or more bulk mailings during a 4-week accounting period are to prepare a consolidated bulk mail acceptance report (Form 2867) documenting the results of their in-depth verifications. Summary reports of Forms 2867 are to be used by postal managers at various times to monitor, among other things, mail volume and revenue generated through the bulk mail acceptance system. Mail acceptance supervisors are to regularly verify the work of the clerks and report the results to postal management. At Postal Service headquarters, management responsibility for the bulk business mail program resides with the Vice President of Marketing Systems, who reports to the Chief Marketing Officer and Senior Vice President. Area Vice Presidents and district managers are responsible for ensuring that bulk mail acceptance activities conform to prescribed standards within their geographic spans of control. Appendix I contains additional background information on the Service’s bulk mail acceptance system. Our objective in this report was to determine whether the current system of controls for accepting bulk business mailings reasonably assures the Postal Service that mailer-claimed discounts are granted only when earned. The scope of our review was limited primarily to the Service’s BMEUs and DMUs, which account for the majority of the bulk mail accepted by the Service. We did not review controls at other acceptance units, such as post offices and branches. To evaluate bulk mail acceptance controls, we (1) obtained and analyzed policies and procedures affecting bulk business mail acceptance; (2) visited 7 district offices located in 6 of 10 Postal Service area offices, and interviewed postal staff assigned to 17 business mail acceptance units in those districts; (3) collected and analyzed bulk mail acceptance reports that were available from 77 of 85 district offices for fiscal year 1994; and (4) interviewed various Postal Service managers and operations personnel at Postal Service headquarters and selected field locations. We selected field locations judgmentally primarily on the basis of management reports submitted by acceptance units. We also interviewed officials from eight commercial bulk business mailers at the field locations visited. Additionally, we interviewed a Postal Service contractor who is studying the feasibility of utilizing risk assessment as a means of targeting high-risk mailings, and we interviewed and obtained written information from IRS and Customs Service officials about verification methods employed by their respective agencies. We interviewed the Executive Director of the National Association of Presort Mailers to obtain information on the presort industry’s views regarding the Service’s bulk mail acceptance system. We obtained and analyzed documentation on proposed and ongoing Postal Service initiatives to improve bulk mail acceptance practices—although we did not evaluate the effectiveness of those initiatives because they are not yet fully implemented. Finally, we reviewed recent Postal Inspection Service audits on bulk mail operations and discussed ongoing work with cognizant postal inspectors. The work done for this report was part of our broader revenue protection survey that began in November 1993. In May 1994, as part of our revenue protection work, we reported on postage meter fraud. For the most part, our review of the Service’s bulk mail acceptance controls was done at Postal Service headquarters and selected field locations between February 1995 and February 1996. We did all of our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the Postal Service. Its comments are discussed at the end of this letter and are reprinted as appendix III. The Postal Service also provided additional technical comments on the draft, which were incorporated where appropriate. It is inevitable that some revenue losses will occur in a program of this magnitude, and, as with any business enterprise, the risk of revenue losses must be weighed against the cost of establishing controls to prevent and detect such losses. The Postal Service, however, is hindered in its ability to make data-driven decisions about the adequacy of bulk mail acceptance controls. For example, the Service does not know the full extent of losses resulting from mailer preparation errors, and, furthermore, it has not sought to develop a means for identifying such losses. Rather, the Postal Service operates under the premise that since the Inspection Service and managers in charge of bulk mail acceptance have not reported large dollar losses, then such losses must not have occurred. We did not attempt to estimate the extent to which revenue losses have occurred. However, we believe that sufficient evidence exists for the Postal Service to be concerned that substantial revenue losses may have occurred and gone undetected in the bulk business mail program. In 1989 and 1990, to address what it acknowledged to be a “seat of the pants” approach to bulk mail acceptance, the Postal Service developed and implemented new management guidelines and verification requirements designed to give it reasonable assurance that significant amounts of bulk mail revenue were not being lost. Those guidelines contained specific procedures and approaches for bulk mail acceptance and provided guidance to supervisors and managers for more analytical and effective management of acceptance employees. Available documentation shows that during fiscal year 1994, the bulk business mail control system identified mailer preparation errors totaling $168 million. However, the control system fell short of providing the Postal Service with the assurance it needs that significant amounts of revenue are not being lost in the bulk business mail program, as discussed below. Available Service documentation and our interviews with Service officials indicated that a large amount of bulk mail was accepted without proper verification. This occurred because clerks often skipped required in-depth verifications of bulk mail. Additionally, supervisors frequently failed to do required follow-up verifications of acceptance clerks’ work. The Postal Service’s failure to ensure that required verifications were done, and done properly, left it vulnerable to revenue losses. Postal Service figures show that during fiscal year 1994, the Service accepted over 16.2 million bulk business mailings of various sizes, classes, and levels of preparation nationwide. Typically, over 50,000 mailings were accepted daily, and the mailings averaged about 6,900 mail pieces. According to Postal Service requirements, all of the mailings should have received a cursory review, and between 2.3 and 2.9 million should have received an in-depth verification. The Postal Service estimated that given the criteria for selecting mailings for in-depth verification, each acceptance location should have done in-depth verifications on 14 to 18 percent of the mailings received. However, available documentation shows that only about 1.7 million in-depth verifications were done—about 60 to 75 percent of the required verifications. The remaining verifications were either not done or not documented. Available documentation for fiscal year 1994 shows that about 30 percent (23 of 77) of the postal districts reporting the results of their in-depth verifications did less than the estimated minimum-required 14 percent. Among the 77 districts, the percentage of mailings verified in-depth ranged from less than 2 percent to more than 30 percent. Because acceptance procedures are not implemented uniformly throughout the United States, Postal Service managers and acceptance employees, as well as individuals in the business mail industry, said that some mailers “shop around” for the “best” acceptance unit. The Executive Director of the National Association of Presort Mailers cited inconsistencies among acceptance units as a concern of the mailing industry. At almost half of the locations we visited, officials said that heavy workloads and unscheduled leave were frequently the reasons that required in-depth verifications were not being performed. They also said that balancing the goals of doing required mail verifications and improving customer service further complicated the situation. Some acceptance unit managers we spoke with said that the verification function is secondary to the Postal Service’s goal of increasing the level of customer satisfaction. One said that this conflict makes it difficult to do all required verifications because mailings that fail verification are more likely to miss dispatch times and delivery schedules and are, therefore, likely to decrease customer satisfaction. Another reason why some of the required verifications were not done is that the Postal Service allows acceptance clerks to skip verifications without higher level approval. For example, certain mailings are designated by computer program software as requiring an in-depth verification. However, clerks can override the system and enter mail directly into the mailstream without performing the required verification. Two acceptance unit managers told us that such overrides frequently occur but that they do not keep records on the extent of this practice. They said the overrides can generally be attributed to time pressures to “keep the mail moving.” Test mailings initiated by headquarters program officials also raised questions about the adequacy of the verifications. To develop some baseline information on the quality of bulk mail presented at entry units, the Inspection Service, at the request of headquarters bulk mail acceptance program officials, agreed to submit 36 test mailings at selected bulk mail acceptance locations. Each test mailing was to be submitted as a first-time mailing and therefore required to undergo an in-depth verification. Each test mailing was to consist of about 11,000 to 12,000 pieces of third-class mail—about 25 sacks—and each sack was to contain mail preparation errors that the inspectors believed should have easily been caught by acceptance clerks. The Inspection Service completed only three test mailings before the project was discontinued at the direction of the headquarters bulk mail acceptance program officials. For the first test mailing, acceptance clerks at that location did not identify any of the errors. Moreover, although the erroneously prepared test pieces were presented as lower, third-class bulk rate mail, they were processed as First-Class mail—giving them priority over other third-class bulk business mailings. Test results were not any better for the next two mailings—the “planted” errors were not detected in the verification process. Bulk mail acceptance program officials explained that they discontinued the test mailings because they provided little useful information for improving bulk mail acceptance controls. They believed audits of mailings deposited by mailers would provide better data to assess the types of preparation errors that are slipping through the acceptance process. Accordingly, program officials replaced the test mailings with audits of mailer-deposited mailings. These audits were led by bulk mail acceptance program officials. In February 1996, bulk mail acceptance program officials said that they were still reviewing data from the audits. They said about 930 mailings were audited at 8 locations in November and December 1995. The results of those audits were not available at the time of our review. To help ensure that the required verifications are done, and done properly, the Postal Service requires that supervisors do at least four Quality Presort Verifications (QPV) every 4-week postal accounting period. The QPV entails a supervisor rechecking an in-depth verification performed by a clerk to assess performance and also identify training needs. Analysis of Postal Service data showed, however, that such verifications are frequently either not done or not reported. For example, 67 of 74 postal districts reported doing fewer than the required number of verifications—including 4 that reported doing none. The 74 districts should have done at least 111,000 QPVs but reported doing only 44,000—about 40 percent. The manager of one of the acceptance units we visited said QPVs are not being done because of a lack of supervisory staff and inadequate supervisory training on verification of mailing statements. The Service does not require supervisors directly responsible for BMEU and DMU activities to have any training relating to verification activities. In contrast, the Service requires that BMEU and DMU acceptance clerks receive 120 hours of classroom training. Our interviews at selected acceptance units showed that clerks had generally received the required training. According to Service officials, under the current system of controls, previously failed mailings can enter the mailstream at a later time or at a different BMEU or some other Service acceptance unit without the errors being corrected. Acceptance clerks do not have a reliable way of tracking failed mailings to ensure that when those mailings are resubmitted for entry into the mailstream, they can be identified and rechecked. The ability to identify and recheck previously failed mailings is necessary for clerks to verify that errors have been corrected. However, following a failed verification, mailings can lose their identity and be entered into the mailstream without the problems being identified, corrected, or additional postage being paid. To help guard against this, some acceptance locations were keeping informal records of failed mailings. Several bulk mail acceptance managers, however, believe that the effectiveness of such records, while better than nothing, is limited because the records are informal and not shared with other acceptance units. Officials from the bulk mail acceptance program office and Inspection Service provided us the following examples, which demonstrate several ways that failed mailings can be entered into the mailstream without problems being corrected or without additional postage being paid by the mailer. A mailing that failed verification at one location can enter the mailstream at another location. Mailers sometimes have permits to enter bulk mail at more than one location, which can work to their advantage since there is no exchange of information between locations concerning failed mailings. Overall, according to the bulk mail acceptance managers and postal inspectors we spoke with, the chance of a failed mailing being subjected to an in-depth verification at a second location is heavily weighted in the mailer’s favor. A mailing that failed verification at one location during one shift can enter the mailstream at the same location during a different shift. Informal records of failed mailings may help prevent some of this, but not all acceptance locations we visited kept informal records of failed mailings. A failed mailing may be combined with another mailing, thus losing its original identity. It could then enter the mailstream without further verification. Since 1988, the Postal Service has granted postage discounts for mailer-barcoded mail. However, it has been slow to provide the tools necessary to ensure that when accepted, barcoded mail meets the Service’s standards for claimed discounts. Generally, the Service’s approach to ensuring accurate, machine-readable barcodes has been to work with bulk mailers to ensure that when the mail is prepared, it meets the Service’s standards and requirements. Nevertheless, acceptance clerks are responsible for verifying that barcoded mail meets Postal Service standards. With the volume of mailer-barcoded mail increasing yearly, the Postal Service recognized the need to try to ensure more standardization of mailer-applied barcodes. In the mid-1980s, the Postal Service developed the Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS) as a quality control measure that, among other things, is intended to help ensure that mailer-applied barcodes (1) are produced using current address information and (2) match the address printed on the mail piece. To encourage mailers to have their software CASS certified, in 1991 the Postal Service began allowing barcode rates only on mailings produced using CASS-certified software. While the purpose of CASS is to ensure that mailers apply barcodes that reflect the right addresses, it does not ensure that the barcodes meet the Postal Service’s technical standards for height, width, spacing, placement, and clarity and thus can be processed on the Service’s automated barcode sorters. Bulk mail acceptance clerks are to help ensure that mailer-applied barcodes meet the Postal Service’s technical standards and can be read by its sorters. However, because of the precision required of machine-readable barcodes, acceptance clerks need special equipment, such as electronic scanners that can read barcodes, so that they can objectively verify the readability of barcodes. Postal management recognized the need for such equipment 5 years ago. For example, in a memo to regional managers in 1990, a senior Postal Service headquarters management official acknowledged that the Postal Service had a problem because it was accepting discounted, barcoded mail even though it did “. . . not have the mechanisms or capability in the Bulk Mail Acceptance Units or Detached Mail Units to properly verify the accuracy and readability of customer applied barcodes. . .” Although the Postal Service has recognized the need for special equipment to verify barcodes, at the BMEUs and DMUs we visited, clerks and managers did not have such equipment. Officials at many of the BMEUs and DMUs we visited said they check barcode readability by visual inspection, which they sometimes referred to as “eyeballing.” Many said they supplement visual inspections with such equipment as eyepieces, templates, and gauges. However, a cognizant official at Postal Service headquarters told us that such procedures are very time consuming. Available data suggest that significant losses may be occurring because of unreadable barcodes. Through fiscal year 1992, the Postal Service systematically reported some data on the amount of barcoded mail that could not be read by its automated barcode sorters. The last report produced, which covered fiscal year 1992, showed that 7.4 percent of barcoded mail sent to its sorters could not be read. In fiscal year 1992, the Service accepted 25.9 billion pieces of First-Class and third-class mailer-barcoded letter mail. If the rejection percentage for fiscal year 1992 were applicable to the mail pieces, the Service could have lost revenue ranging from $30.4 to $74.1 million on lower rate First-Class and third-class barcoded mail that could not be sorted on the Service’s sorters—depending on the method (mechanized or manual) used for processing the rejected mail pieces. During fiscal year 1994, the Service processed about 47.6 billion pieces of First-Class and third-class letter mail with mailer-applied barcodes, compared to 25.9 billion pieces just 2 years earlier—an 84-percent increase. The volume of all classes of barcoded mail processed by the Service had increased to about 70 billion by fiscal year 1995 and is expected to increase to more than 100 billion letters by fiscal year 1997 as the Postal Service offers greater incentives for barcoded mail under its mail classification reform initiative. Some of the key data needed by Postal Service management to assess the adequacy of controls and related risks do not exist. The current acceptance system does not produce information on (1) the extent to which improperly prepared mailings are entering the mail stream and the related revenue losses associated with improperly prepared mailings—including mailer-applied barcodes that do not meet the Postal Service’s standards; and (2) the amount of rework required for the Postal Service to correct improperly prepared mailings that enter the mailstream. Postal managers told us they had no way of producing historical estimates of mailer errors and related revenue losses or the rework time associated with such errors. Additionally, our work showed that reports that were to be prepared by bulk mail acceptance units and summarized for management were not always prepared or were missing key data, such as verification results. Managers at Postal Service headquarters and two district offices questioned the usefulness of the reports because of concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the data they contain. Information required in verification and acceptance reports, if properly gathered and used, could provide management at each level some measure of the effectiveness of bulk mail acceptance controls. A key element of the control system put in place in 1990 was the requirement for a revised Bulk Mail Acceptance Report (Form 2867), which was to summarize the bulk mail acceptance and verification activities of BMEUs and DMUs. This report was designed to provide management at local, regional, and Postal Service headquarters levels with consolidated information that could be used to assess the adequacy of controls over the bulk business mail acceptance system and to monitor related risks. For example, at the Postal Service headquarters level, a “critical factors report” was to be prepared to assess whether required verifications were being done, whether staffing of acceptance units was adequate, and to provide other necessary management information. During our review, management officials at several levels said that the 1992 Postal Service reorganization significantly altered postal employees’ views about bulk mail acceptance. Some district managers said they did not use information from the reports for decisionmaking purposes because the data had become unreliable. An area office official said that after the reorganization, the Postal Service ceased to regard bulk mail acceptance reports as mandatory. He stated that Postal Service headquarters did not drop the reporting requirements; rather, it never told the newly created district offices where to send the reports. Another area official said that following the 1992 restructuring, Postal Service headquarters conveyed to area offices that it no longer wanted to receive reports on bulk mail acceptance. Some area offices told their district offices that bulk mail management reports were no longer required. Postal Service headquarters program managers said that the information derived from reports that were received was of so little value that at one time they had considered eliminating them altogether. When we asked each of the Postal Service’s 85 district offices to provide us with all acceptance reports (Forms 2867) for fiscal year 1994, we found that 7 did not prepare consolidated acceptance reports for their districts. When we compared the bulk business mail revenue and volume reported on the reports with Postal Service headquarters’ estimates of total bulk business mail revenue and volume, we found that the volume and revenue reported on the acceptance reports represented only about one-half the revenue and volume estimated by Postal Service headquarters. Management was also not receiving other required information that would allow it to assess the adequacy of staffing and training at mail acceptance units. This missing information was to have been provided each quarter to management in Quality Presort Verification reports, which mail acceptance supervisors are required to fill out for consolidation and use at each successive management level, including Postal Service headquarters. Although the Postal Inspection Service has long considered bulk business mail acceptance to be a high-risk activity and has reported on a number of control weaknesses, top postal management has not provided sustained attention to ensuring that adequate controls exist for accepting bulk business mail. Required information about bulk mail acceptance that was to help management oversee the program has not been received at Postal Service headquarters or some area offices since the 1992 Postal Service reorganization. In the November 1995 issue of the Postal Bulletin, which is widely distributed to the mailing public and within the Postal Service, the Postmaster General announced that preventing revenue loss is a top priority of the Postal Service. He stated that “no business [including the Postal Service] can afford to lose thousands of dollars in uncollected revenue daily and expect to remain fiscally viable for very long.” He announced that “efforts are under way to make improvements in mail acceptance and revenue collection areas.” The Postmaster General’s sentiments, especially as they apply to bulk mail acceptance, were repeated to us by numerous postal officials, including inspectors with first-hand knowledge of the weaknesses in the bulk mail acceptance system. At the completion of our review, postal management was taking a number of actions that have the potential to significantly improve bulk mail acceptance. Postal officials told us that in October 1995, they notified all area and district offices that completing Forms 2867 was mandatory and that the forms were to be completed and forwarded to the Rates and Classification Center in Northern Virginia for summarization. In turn, summary reports are to be forwarded to Postal Service headquarters for information purposes. After the reports are reviewed, irregularities are to be referred back to the areas responsible for oversight. However, officials stated in February 1996 that even with the renewed emphasis on the Forms 2867, compliance has been spotty. They noted, for example, that for accounting period 4 (December 9, 1995, to January 5, 1996), only 51 of 85 districts submitted Forms 2867 as required—fewer than the number we obtained for fiscal year 1994. The officials suspected that compliance has been incomplete because many area and district officials came into their jobs following the 1992 reorganization and did not know or understand the significance of bulk mail reporting. Postal Service headquarters had not explained the significance. Postal officials attributed some of the problems now occurring with bulk mail acceptance to outdated manuals. Officials told us they have been working on a new manual to replace the old bulk mail acceptance manuals—DM102 and DM108. As an interim measure, officials told us that they planned to issue, in March 1996, laminated cards for bulk mail acceptance clerks to use that would include instructions on changes to bulk mail acceptance procedures that the Postal Service is ready to make immediately. Additionally, the Postal Service has recently tested, and plans to soon deploy, what it believes to be a better tool for verifying barcodes—the Automated Barcode Evaluator (ABE). According to postal officials, ABE will assist acceptance clerks in evaluating barcoded mail pieces and objectively determining whether the barcodes meet Postal Service technical standards designed to ensure that the mail piece can be sorted on the Postal Service’s automated processing equipment. In February 1996, Postal officials said they were in the process of purchasing about 260 ABEs for deployment to units that accept the most barcoded mail, and officials said they will later assess the need for additional ABEs. The Postal Service was also testing equipment, called Barcoding, Addressing, Readability Quality Utilizing Electronic Systems Technology (BARQUEST), to help its customer service representatives identify bad barcodes and work with mailers to increase and improve their barcoding. BARQUEST is used to read and electronically store images of mail pieces rejected by the Postal Service’s automated equipment at mail processing centers. It is also supposed to allow better monitoring of rejected mail and enable the Postal Service to know if mailers’ barcoding problems have been resolved. As of February 1996, the Service had deployed BARQUEST to 55 sites. It expects to deploy BARQUEST to 77 more sites by September 1996 and to 55 more sites during fiscal year 1997. Postal Service officials stated that to address the problem of failed mailings being resubmitted and accepted without correction, the Service is modifying bulk mail control system computer software to capture information, by mailer, on failed mailings. They stated this change should enable the Service to identify mailings that have failed verification and were not later identified as such when resubmitted—a situation Service officials believed would suggest that the mailer could have reentered the mail without correcting the errors. In acknowledging the need for information on the extent of losses associated with accepting improperly prepared mailings, the Postal Service said in May 1996 that it would conduct an investigative review to determine what methodologies might be applied in identifying such losses. We recognize there are a number of methodologies that the Postal Service could use to determine the extent of revenue losses. We do not know of any one particular methodology that would work best. However, we believe there are a number of possibilities that could be used, including (1) statistical sampling, (2) ad-hoc studies, (3) cooperative studies with the Inspection Service, (4) a systematic method for documenting and reporting mailings that failed to meet Postal Service standards, and (5) various combinations of these methods. Other acceptable methodologies may also exist. Nevertheless, regardless of the methodology the Postal Service employs, emphasis on identifying losses resulting from accepting barcoded mail that does not meet the Service’s standards for automation compatibility is particularly important because, with the rate reclassification initiative that becomes effective in July 1996, the vast majority of discounts granted are to be for barcoded mail. Furthermore, producing such information should not be a daunting task for the Postal Service since, until the 1992 reorganization, it routinely captured and reported the amount of barcoded mail that it was unable to process on its automated equipment. Also, in late 1994, the Chief Financial Officer/Senior Vice President of the Postal Service chartered a new revenue assurance organization and charged it with ensuring that all revenue due the Postal Service is collected. This organization is to take a leadership role in the coordination and development of effective internal controls over mail acceptance and revenue collection. The organization, which includes a Postal Service headquarters manager, 4 staff, and 1 field coordinator from each of the Postal Service’s 10 areas, was given $10 million to identify and recover $100 million in potentially uncollected revenue by the end of fiscal year 1996. While the Postal Service may be able to gain reasonable assurance that all revenue from bulk business mail is being received by modifying and more closely following the requirements in its current acceptance system, a better long-term solution may lie with the adoption of a risk-based targeting system. The Postal Service’s primary procedure for selecting bulk business mailings for in-depth verification is to randomly sample 1 in 10 of each mailer’s statements. This selection procedure for in-depth verification applies to every mailer and does not differentiate the risk associated with certain types of mailers or mailings and does not selectively target high-risk mailers or mailings for closer scrutiny. As discussed earlier, acceptance clerks often have not done the in-depth verifications called for by the Service’s random sampling plan. They often disregarded the sampling plan and entered mail directly into the mailstream without doing the required in-depth verification. Other federal agencies that collect revenue and require employees to selectively verify financial data, such as IRS and the U.S. Customs Service, have dealt with large workloads by developing more selective, risk-based sampling plans. IRS and Customs are more selective than the Postal Service in their sampling approaches. Both IRS and Customs place more emphasis on auditing those returns and inspecting imports that offer the highest potential for yielding the most significant results. IRS officials told us that prior to the early 1960s, income tax returns were chosen for audit through a costly process that relied on the agency’s most experienced revenue agents to manually “eyeball” returns to ensure taxpayers paid the correct amount of tax. Later, IRS refined this process by computerizing criteria used in the manual process. In the late 1960s, IRS began developing the system currently in use—discriminant function analysis (DIF). This multivariate statistical selection technique allows IRS to differentiate among tax returns on the basis of each return’s probability of containing errors. Instead of using a system that selects randomly from the entire universe, as the Postal Service does, IRS uses DIF to screen all individual income tax returns received annually and identify those more likely to result in a tax change. According to IRS, its system decreases the number of returns audited that produce no tax changes and reduces the amount of IRS staff and computer time needed to screen returns. IRS believes that the DIF system has significantly increased its efficiency by allowing it to concentrate its limited audit resources on those tax returns with a high probability of error, thereby helping ensure that taxpayers who might otherwise underpay, in fact, pay their fair share. Further, IRS does not have to inconvenience as many taxpayers with audits that produce no change in the tax due, which is a benefit that the Postal Service might also achieve because in-depth verifications can inconvenience mailers. Like the Postal Service and IRS, the U.S. Customs Service must balance the requirements of its mission with the expectation that enforcement will not disrupt the normal flow of business. Customs must determine whether goods entering the United States are properly classified and correctly valued. From 1842 to the early 1980s, Customs’ policy for enforcing import laws was to examine a portion of all cargo shipments, although most of those examinations were cursory. Recognizing in the early 1980s that it had to contend with increasing levels of imports, numerous demands, and limited resources, Customs shifted its trade enforcement efforts from a strategy of checking all imports to one of selecting and inspecting only high-risk imports. Customs said that it is continuing to refine and improve this system to meet present-day challenges. The Customs system focuses on compliance measurement, enhanced targeting, and trend analysis. According to the Customs Service, fiscal year 1995 marked the first year that Customs implemented a national compliance measurement program. According to Customs, it now has a compliance baseline across a multitude of importing areas, such as industry, importer, consignee, and country. Using this data, Customs said that it is targeting its fiscal year 1996 trade enforcement efforts toward the most important areas of noncompliance. Customs also is randomly selecting shipments to examine in order to monitor compliance rates and adjust its targeting of high-risk areas, as necessary. As a consequence, Customs said that it expects to increase its targeting efficiency, which will result in more productive use of its resources, and to reduce attention to areas of high compliance, thereby facilitating the flow of imports into the United States. In March 1994, the Postal Service awarded a contract to a university professor to study the feasibility of using a risk assessment approach to sampling bulk mailer statements. The professor was to determine whether the Postal Service could identify and quantify factors that could be used to select mailings or types of mailings on the basis of the relative risk of mail preparation errors. Additionally, the contract called for the professor to explore other means of improving verification procedures and is scheduled to be completed in July 1996. Postal Service officials also stated that as part of a benchmarking effort, they had contacted IRS and Customs in late 1995 regarding their methodology for targeting cases for audit/inspection. In February 1996, postal officials told us they expect to put a completely redesigned bulk mail acceptance system into place by December 1996 that incorporates a risk-based targeting system. In their comments on this report, they also said they plan to do a staffing requirements analysis as soon as design decisions are made on the new acceptance system. Additionally, they said they plan to issue a new bulk mail acceptance manual when the new acceptance system is put in place. In fiscal year 1994, the Postal Service derived 48 percent ($23 billion) of its total mail revenue from bulk business mail. Yet, weaknesses in the Postal Service’s controls for accepting bulk business mail prevent it from having reasonable assurance that all significant amounts of postage revenue due are received when mailers claim presort/barcode discounts. Postal Service headquarters recognized in the late 1980s that it needed to manage its bulk mail acceptance system more effectively and took steps to do so in 1989 and 1990. However, according to officials we spoke with, the system deteriorated after the 1992 reorganization. With an estimated $8 billion in discounts allowed in fiscal year 1994, and larger amounts expected as the Postal Service reclassifies its postage rates and moves closer to full automation in 1997, sustained top-level management attention is needed to establish and maintain adequate controls over bulk business mail acceptance. This attention can help ensure that required verifications of bulk mailings, including barcodes, are done and that any errors noted are corrected before bulk mail is accepted into the U. S. mail system. Recently, the Postal Service launched a number of initiatives to improve the bulk business mail acceptance system. It is too early to know whether these initiatives will eventually correct the internal control problems detailed in this report. However, because they do address many of the problems, we believe that if they are implemented as planned and monitored appropriately, the initiatives can improve bulk mail acceptance operations. Because it is too early for us or the Postal Service to reasonably predict the outcome of its many initiatives to improve bulk mail acceptance, we are making several recommendations. We recognize that the Service’s initiatives offer the promise of correcting many of the concerns raised in this report. However, we believe recommendations are warranted as a means of fostering sustained management attention until the bulk mail acceptance system is operating effectively and providing the Postal Service with reasonable assurance that all significant amounts of bulk mail revenues are being collected. Specifically, we recommend that the Postmaster General direct bulk mail acceptance program supervisors and managers to periodically report to appropriate Service levels on operation of the bulk mail acceptance system, initiatives, and the progress and effectiveness of related improvements so management can be reasonably assured that required mail verifications, including supervisory reviews, are done and that the results are documented as required; mailings resubmitted following a failed verification are reverified and acceptance clerks and supervisors are provided with adequate, up-to-date procedures, training, and tools necessary to make efficient and objective verification determinations; information on the extent and results of verifications, including supervisory reviews, is regularly reported to appropriate levels, including Postal Service headquarters, and that such information is used regularly to assess the adequacy of controls and staffing, training needs, and acceptance procedures; and risk becomes the prominent factor in determining mailings to be verified. Also, we recommend that the Postmaster General direct bulk mail acceptance program managers to develop methodologies that can be used to determine systemwide losses associated with accepting improperly prepared mailings. In its written comments on a draft of this report, the Service acknowledged that many long-standing problems exist with bulk mail acceptance, and it expressed confidence that the initiatives it has under way, which were cited in our report, will remedy acceptance weaknesses in the bulk mail program and address the report’s recommendations. The Postal Service said that almost all of the remedies will be in place later this year or early 1997. The Service’s written comments are included as appendix III. Only after sufficient time has elapsed can we or the Postal Service tell if these initiatives will correct the problems. The initiatives cited by the Service appear to offer promise, but they can easily falter unless there is strong and continuing top-down commitment to improving bulk mail acceptance. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Postal Service said it is putting increased emphasis on management oversight of the bulk mail acceptance function at all levels of the organization. As arranged with the Subcommittee, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will distribute copies of the report to the Postmaster General and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. If you have any questions about the report, please call me on (202) 512-8387. Of the 177 billion pieces of mail processed in 1994 by the Postal Service, over 118 billion pieces, or 67 percent, were categorized as bulk mail. This mail typically arrived at Postal Service mail entry units in sacks, trays, or on pallets and was mostly business-generated. In fiscal year 1994, the Service recorded revenue from bulk business mail of $23.1 billion—48.4 percent of its total mail revenue. In 1976, the Postal Service began offering postage discounts to mailers who presorted their mail, and in 1988 it began offering discounts for barcoding. The presort and barcode discounts are to compensate mailers for performing work that otherwise would have to be done by the Postal Service. The amount of discount depends on the depth of work performed by the mailer, e.g., barcoded mail sorted in delivery point sequence receives a larger discount than nonbarcoded mail sorted to a 3-digit ZIP Code level. Over the years, the total dollar value of business mailer discounts for presorting and barcoding has grown, and is expected to continue growing, as the Postal Service moves closer to achieving its goal of having about 90 percent of all letter mail barcoded by the end of 1997. The Postal Service estimates that by 1997, 14,000 pieces of automated equipment costing about $5 billion will have been deployed to sort the mail. In fiscal year 1994, about 34 percent of all First-Class mail was discounted, and 92 percent of all third-class mail was discounted. According to Postal Service studies, the value of these discounts totaled about $8 billion. One of the Postal Service’s major long-term strategies is to fully automate mail processing by barcoding almost all letter mail and processing it on automated barcode sorting equipment. Processing letters using automation is more cost-effective than mechanized or manual processing. According to the Service, the comparative costs of processing letters are $3 per thousand using automation, $19 using mechanized letter-sorting machines, and $42 when done manually. Thus, if the Service receives a barcoded letter that must be sorted by mechanized or manual methods, its processing cost will be about 6 or 14 times the automated cost. Under a mail reclassification initiative, in which the Postal Rate Commission recommended in January 1996 new postage rates for certain mail, the discount for automation-compatible mail will increase and the discount for presort-only will decrease. For example, as recommended by the Commission, the discount for a First-Class barcoded letter sorted to a 5-digit ZIP Code level will increase from 6.2 to 8.2 cents, and the discount for a presorted-only letter will decrease from 4.6 to 2.5 cents. Similarly, the discount for a third-class barcoded letter sorted to a 5-digit ZIP Code level will increase from 15.4 to 16.5 cents, and the discount for a presorted-only letter will decrease from 13.2 to 11.1 cents. The Postal Service expects that adoption of this change, most of which was approved by the Board of Governors and will become effective July 1996, will increase the First-Class and third-class barcoded mail volumes by 7 and 12 percent, respectively. Most bulk business mail is entered at Business Mail Entry Units (BMEUs) and Detached Mail Units (DMUs), located throughout the Postal Service’s 85 districts. DMUs are postal acceptance units located at mailers’ mail preparation facilities. BMEUs are often located in or adjacent to large mail processing plants, which are postal facilities that process mail for distribution to both local and national destinations. Bulk mail is also entered at many of the 40,000 post offices located throughout the country. BMEUs typically include a parking/staging area for large trucks and other vehicles that transport mail from mailers to the BMEU facility. They also include a dock for unloading the mail; an area where acceptance clerks can inspect the mail; and a counter area where paperwork, such as mailing statements, can be examined and other business transactions can be completed. Once the mail has been accepted by a BMEU mail acceptance clerk, it moves inside the plant for processing. The Postal Service’s mail acceptance clerks are the gatekeepers for accepting bulk business mail into the mailstream. It is their job to ensure, before mail enters the Postal Service’s processing and distribution facilities, that mailers have prepared their mail in accordance with postal requirements and that discounts given for presorting and barcoding have, in fact, been earned. This is a difficult task given the time constraints and the wide variation in the way bulk business mail can be prepared and still meet Postal Service standards. If mail barcoded by a mailer is accepted by acceptance clerks but later fails to run on postal barcode sorters, then the Postal Service incurs additional costs. This is because the Postal Service must rework the mail at its own expense even though it gave the mailer the barcoded rate to perform that work. Additional processing costs incurred by the Postal Service are ultimately reflected in higher postage rates, unfairly penalizing those mailers who properly prepare their bulk business mailings. Verifications performed by mail acceptance clerks fall into two categories: (1) cursory reviews of all mailings, and (2) in-depth verifications of randomly selected mailings. In performing a cursory review, acceptance clerks are to randomly check some sacks, trays, or pallets to verify that (1) the mail is prepared as stated on the mailer’s mailing statement, (2) the number of mail pieces indicated on the mailing statement is accurate, and (3) the mailer applied the appropriate postage rates. In-depth reviews are to be performed on at least 1 in every 10 mailings submitted by each mailer. The mailing chosen for an in-depth review is to be selected at random, and, in most cases, three sacks, trays, or pallets are to be rigorously inspected to ensure that the mail was prepared correctly and that all discount qualifications were met. A mailing may fail verification for a number of reasons. For example: Mail pieces do not meet minimum or maximum size standards. Addresses are not in the Optical Character Reader’s scan area. Fonts cannot be read by the Postal Service’s automated equipment. Barcodes do not meet technical specifications. The contrast between paper and ink is insufficient. There are less than three lines used for the address block. The spacing between city, state, and ZIP Code is improper. The barcode/address can shift out of the viewing area in window envelopes. Presort mail is not labeled correctly. When verifying mailings, if the acceptance clerk determines that more than 5 percent of a mailing is not prepared correctly, then the mailing is failed. The mailer then has two options: (1) rework the mail so that it meets postal specifications and qualifies for the bulk postage rate applied for or (2) pay the additional single-piece postage rate for that percentage of the entire mailing estimated to be in error. For every in-depth inspection completed, mail acceptance clerks are required to prepare a written verification report (Form 2866). This report is used to (1) document the results of the verification, (2) notify mailers of the types of errors found, and (3) aid supervisors in performing quality presort verifications (QPV). A QPV entails a supervisor rechecking an in-depth verification performed by a clerk. Postal facilities that receive 100 or more bulk mailings during a 4-week accounting period are to prepare a consolidated bulk mail acceptance report (Form 2867) documenting the results of their in-depth verifications. At Postal Service headquarters, management responsibility for the bulk business mail program resides with the Vice President of Marketing Systems, who reports to the Chief Marketing Officer and Senior Vice President. Area Vice Presidents and district managers are responsible for ensuring that bulk mail acceptance activities conform to prescribed standards within their geographic span of control. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Postal Inspection Service reported to postal management, on several occasions, that existing bulk mail acceptance controls were inadequate for preventing revenue losses. In 1986, following a national audit of the Postal Service’s revenue protection program, the Inspection Service reported that procedures for mail acceptance, verification, and classification were not being effectively administered. It noted that few of the employees it interviewed felt that revenue protection was part of their job and that this lack of awareness and commitment was resulting in millions of dollars in postage not being collected. In November 1991, following a national operational audit of the bulk mail acceptance system, the Postal Inspection Service observed that bulk mailings posed a serious risk to Postal Service revenue. It concluded that Postal Service organizational changes in 1986 and 1990 had adversely affected the management oversight necessary to ensure that bulk mail acceptance programs operated as intended. The Inspection Service also concluded that this condition had increased the risk of revenue loss through noncollection of postage and unnecessary mail processing costs due to acceptance of improperly prepared bulk mailings. The Inspection Service found that internal controls at plant load operations had been allowed to deteriorate and become unreliable. It stated that this exposed the Postal Service to serious risk by allowing situations to exist where large mailings could enter the mailstream without payment of postage. In early 1993, the Inspection Service conducted a nationwide review of the Plant Verified Drop Shipment Program. The Inspection Service reported that internal controls were not effectively or consistently applied and that there was a significant risk that mail could be entered into the mailstream without payment of postage and that mailers could claim unearned discounts. Although losses were not the primary focus of its audits, the Inspection Service did document and report to management some losses during this period. For example, in fiscal year 1994, the Inspection Service documented losses totaling about $8 million. These losses, however, should not be considered all-inclusive because they were not identified in any systematic manner. Rather, they were identified as the Inspection Service was following through on customer complaints, anonymous tips, management requests, leads developed during financial audits, and leads provided by other sources. The losses resulted from mailers not paying full postage for reasons varying from understating the number of pieces being mailed to manipulating the computer software used for generating mailing statements so that the mailing statements misrepresented, in the mailer’s favor, the make-up of the mailing. In 1993, to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of the losses resulting from mailer preparation errors, the Inspection Service established a task force that is taking a more systematic long-term approach to identifying fraudulent mailings that have resulted in revenue losses in the bulk business mail program. According to Inspection Service officials, this approach is being taken in order to demonstrate to postal management the need to improve controls over bulk mail acceptance. Additionally, as of May 1996, the Inspection Service was conducting a National Coordination Audit on the topic of bulk business mail. The objectives of the audit are to (1) conduct a corporate-level review and evaluation of the alignment of the goals and objectives of bulk business mail acceptance with the CustomerPerfect!sm initiatives, and (2) provide an economic value added assessment of bulk business mail in relation to the corporate goals of the Postal Service. According to the Inspection Service, this audit will include and address the following issues: inconsistencies among acceptance units, balancing the goals of unit operations and improving customer service, conflicts between dispatch and delivery times with customer satisfaction, inability to do a “good job” due to time pressures, adequacy of training, understanding of national instructions at the local level, and identification of new initiatives affecting bulk business mail. James S. Crigler, Evaluator-in-Charge Robert W. Stewart, Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) controls over postage paid on presorted and barcoded mail, focusing on whether USPS controls ensure that mailer-claimed discounts are earned. GAO found that during fiscal year 1994: (1) 40 percent of required bulk mail verifications were not performed and postal supervisors did less than 50 percent of required follow-up verifications; (2) rejected mailings were resubmitted and accepted into the mail stream without proper corrections or postage; (3) mail acceptance clerks were not given adequate tools to determine whether increasing volumes of mailer-applied barcodes met USPS standards; and (4) postal management was unable to make informed decisions concerning the adequacy of bulk mail acceptance controls or determine the amount of revenue lost through improperly prepared mailings. GAO also found that: (1) USPS needs to determine the management strategy and financial investment necessary to minimize revenue loss; (2) the random method of selecting bulk business mailings for in-depth verification may not result in the best use of available staff; (3) USPS could better target its verification efforts based on risk by considering such factors as mailer histories and the postage value of mailings; (4) postal managers are developing a bulk business mail acceptance system, updating acceptance handbooks, acquiring barcoding verification equipment, and requesting field units to submit verification reports; and (5) USPS is also exploring a new risk-based approach for in-depth verification, improving revenue controls, and planning to install its new bulk mail system by 1997. |
CLOSE The White House says the chairman of the House intelligence committee will brief President Donald Trump on the possible monitoring of Trump associates. (March 22) AP
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif, speaks with reporters outside the White House in Washington, March 22, 2017, following a meeting with President Donald Trump. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that communications involving members of President Trump's transition group — possibly including the president's — were "incidentally collected'' by U.S. intelligence officials following the November election.
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., did not identify other transition members swept up in the surveillance, adding that he has viewed "dozens'' of such intelligence reports that appeared "legal'' but perhaps "inappropriate.''
“What I’ve read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because some of it appears to be inappropriate,'' Nunes told reporters at the White House after briefing the president on the findings.
The chairman said the intelligence reports were not part of a criminal investigation or the FBI's ongoing investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election. Rather, he said the collection was related to broader intelligence gathering activities.
Nunes made the announcement without consulting with the House panel's ranking Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, R-Calif., who angrily asserted Wednesday that the information should have been shared with other committee members, who are engaged in a review of Russia's election interference.
"The chairman also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation,'' Schiff said, adding that Nunes' actions cast doubt on the committee's ability to conduct an impartial investigation.
He said the chairman's actions support the formation of an "independent commission'' to conduct the inquiry into Russian intervention into the American political system.
CLOSE The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee is accusing the Republican committee leader of creating doubt about the committee's ability to conduct an independent investigation about Russia and President Trump's campaign. (March 22) AP
.Extraordinary hearing
Nunes' disclosure comes two days after an extraordinary House hearing where FBI Director James Comey rejected Trump's prior claims that the Obama administration had wiretapped the president's New York offices in advance of the 2016 election.
At the same hearing, Comey confirmed for the first time publicly that the FBI is in the midst of an investigation into Russia's interference in the election, including whether any activities were coordinated by Trump associates and Russian officials.
Nunes also has rejected the president's claims that Trump Tower had been wiretapped. And he said "none'' of the newly disclosed surveillance was related to "any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team.''
Nevertheless, Trump, while meeting Wednesday with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, told reporters that he felt “somewhat” vindicated by Nunes’ statements.
"I must tell, you I somewhat do,'' the president said. "I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found, I somewhat do."
Before briefing the president, Nunes said he also notified House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., of the information.
"Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration — details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value — were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting,'' Nunes told reporters Wednesday.
Proper channels
Nunes suggested that the information came from one or more whistle-blowers.
“It came through the proper channels and the proper clearances,” Nunes said. “This was information that was brought to me that I thought the president needed to see.” He said the National Security Agency has been cooperative, but the FBI so far has not.
Nunes said the surveillance itself appeared to be legal — presumably through a warrant from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — but that the concern was what intelligence agencies did with that information.
He would not rule out that senior Obama administration officials received the intelligence or that they were involved in the “unmasking” of the citizens identified in the reports.
But he also re-stated his belief that Obama did not order the wiretapping of Trump Tower, as Trump himself has suggested in a series of March 4 tweets and subsequent public remarks.
“From what I’ve read, there seems to be some level of surveillance action — perhaps legal, but I don’t know that it’s right,'' he said.
Nunes said nothing he shared with the president was within the scope of the FBI’s investigation into ties between Russia and Trump associates.
"The reports I was able to see did not have anything to do with the Russia investigation,'' the congressman said. “The president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out there, and I have a duty to tell him that.”
Nunes said the new intelligence reports go "beyond'' U.S. intercepts of pre-inaugural conversations between former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Flynn who repeatedly denied raising the issue of sanctions imposed against Russia during his conversations with Kislyak, was forced to resign last month after intercepts of his conversations with the ambassador were presented to the White House, indicating that sanctions were discussed.
Read more:
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nDkSB7 ||||| (CNN) House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes set off a stunning new political controversy Wednesday by revealing that communications of President Donald Trump and associates may have been picked up after the election by intelligence agencies conducting surveillance of foreign targets.
Nunes hurried to the White House to personally brief Trump on the revelations, after talking to the press but without sharing the information with Democrats. His Democratic counterpart on the committee -- Rep. Adam Schiff of California -- warned that his colleague had cast a "profound cloud" over their effort to investigate Russian attempts to interfere in the election.
A Republican source with knowledge of the situation claimed the information that Nunes talked about was from the intelligence community and not the White House. The source said Nunes was "steaming" about what he read.
That source said Nunes met with Republican members of the Intelligence Committee before his news conference, and several tried to convince him not to do it before he spoke with Schiff. But Nunes didn't take the advice, with the news conference already called by the time he met with the GOP committee members. Nunes was too mad, the source said.
The comments by Nunes do not appear to support Trump's claims, debunked by FBI Director James Comey , that he was wiretapped by his predecessor President Barack Obama. Rather, they appear to relate to conversations between Trump or associates and people who were targeted by FISA warrants -- that Nunes said did not appear to be illegal.
But the President was asked by reporters if he feels vindicated by the visit from Nunes and answered: "I somewhat do. I must tell you I somewhat do, I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found."
Another day of shocking drama intensified the intrigue and uncertainty sparked by Trump's feud with intelligence agencies, his accusations of shady practices by his predecessor and the wider question of the Trump campaign's links with Russia that are currently the focus of an investigation by the FBI.
Nunes told reporters the conversations were "incidentally" collected as part of intelligence sweeps focusing on other people and implied that Trump was not the target of the surveillance operation.
He said he discovered accounts of conversations related to Trump and his associates when he was reviewing intelligence reports brought to him by an unidentified person -- and said the information was not related to Russia.
"This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect," Nunes said. "This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Nevertheless, Nunes said he alerted House Speaker Paul Ryan about the collection before he headed to the White House, adding: "I'm actually alarmed by it." Democrats on the committee said they were not informed of Nunes' finding before he spoke with the media.
Generally, American citizens who are caught up in surveillance of foreign targets are not identified by name in intelligence reports. But Nunes' announcement raises the question of whether the President-elect or associates were identified in intelligence reports circulating in the covert community.
A House member on the Intelligence Committee told CNN the communications in question were senior-level people talking about Trump, not Trump himself.
Nunes later told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" that "President-elect Trump and his team were put into intelligence reports."
"Clearly there is a lot of information in the reports that I've seen, which were dozens, that would lead me to believe that the last administration and numerous agencies had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with," Nunes told Tapper.
Democrats in the dark
In a news conference, Schiff expressed deep concern that committee members were not told by Nunes about the revelations before he briefed the press or went to the White House.
"If the chairman is going to continue to go to the White House instead of his own committee, there is no way we can continue to conduct this investigation," he said.
"It does underscore the importance of establishing an independent commission," Schiff said.
Schiff said that he and other members of the committee had still not seen the documents that Nunes was referring to. He also said from a conversation with Nunes that there did not appear to have been any "unmasking" of any of the US people mentioned in the intercepts.
"All of us are in the dark."
Nunes defended rushing to brief the President because the reports he read have nothing to do with Russia, but he said the investigation he is conducting into Russian interference in the election would look at how Trump's name got into the intelligence reports.
"Because what I saw has nothing to do with Russia and has nothing to do with the Russian investigations, (and) has everything to do with possible surveillance activities ... the President needs to know these intelligence reports are out there and I have a duty to tell him that," Nunes said.
But in an interview with CNN's Kate Bolduan on "Erin Burnett OutFront," Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier slammed Nunes as a "presidential whisperer" undermining the committee's investigation and accused the White House of planning the day's events.
"This was pure theater," Speier said. "I think in many respects it was probably orchestrated by the White House."
Still no sign of wiretapping
Two weeks ago, Trump asked Congress to investigate whether Trump Tower was wiretapped by his predecessor.
On Monday, Nunes' committee held a hearing featuring Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. At that hearing, Comey confirmed for the first time that his agency is investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether any crimes may have been committed during last year's election campaign as part of a wider probe into the hacking of Democratic servers and the Clinton campaign.
Also at that hearing, Comey said he had seen no evidence so far of the specific allegation of wiretapping Trump Tower.
Nunes at his news conference said he did not know whether the "incidental collection" happened at Trump Tower, and could not say for certain whether Trump's communications were directly collected. He said the collection included Trump transition officials and that it happened after the election.
UPDATED CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated whom Nunes met with before his news conference. He met Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee. ||||| For example, Nunes said that all of the information that was collected legally, as part of “incidental collection” that occurs when U.S. citizens are captured speaking with lawful non-U.S. targets of surveillance under FISA orders. Nunes also reiterated that there had been no “wiretap” on Trump Tower, as the president has alleged and continued to assert, despite disavowals by top Republicans in Congress and the intelligence community.
Yet Nunes’s announcement offered Trump a lifeline, presenting him—intentionally or not—with a way to claim he really had been surveilled. Trump quickly seized it, saying he felt “somewhat” vindicated during a brief pool spray at the White House.
Nunes charged that while the collection was entirely legal, the fact that Trump team staffers’ names were unmasked and information was shared is “inappropriate.”
“It looks like it was legal, incidental collection that then made its way into intelligence report,” Nunes said. “Nothing criminal at all involved.”
The problem is that there’s no way to assess the truth of Nunes’s claims. He says he has full faith in his source, suggesting it’s someone within the intelligence community, but it’s not clear that anyone besides Nunes has seen the “reports” to which he referred: Adam Schiff, the Democratic ranking member on the committee, has not, and while Nunes briefed both Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan, there’s no indication he showed them the report.
This is troubling because, as my colleague Conor Friedersdorf reported Wednesday morning, Nunes’s statements so far in the investigation make it difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt on truthfulness. The Washington Post also previously reported that the White House had asked Nunes to help tamp down stories about Trump team ties to Russia.
Moreover, Nunes repeatedly said he did not have all the information he needed, raising the question of why he felt it was worthwhile to go public immediately. As Republicans including Nunes complain about unauthorized leaks of classified information to the press, he has come forward to publicize anonymously obtained intelligence community materials.
His choice to take it to the White House is even more perplexing, especially without having discussed the matter with Schiff. Trump accused Obama of having surveilled him despite offering no evidence for the claim. No evidence has appeared since. Pressed to explain why it can’t simply provide the proof, the White House—rather than admit, as appears indisputable, that it has no evidence—has claimed that because of “separation of powers,” Congress should investigate without executive-branch interference. By taking his information to Trump on Wednesday, Nunes has driven a bulldozer through that wall of separation.
In leaving Schiff out of the process, meanwhile, he has blithely poisoned his cooperation with the Democratic member on the committee. Monday’s committee hearings with FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers showed that there were already effectively two separate House intelligence committees, a Democratic one worried about Russian meddling in the election and a Republican one worried about leaks about Michael Flynn. Nunes’s sidestepping of Schiff, though, could doom any remaining prospects for cooperation on the committee. | On Wednesday, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee dropped the kind of bombshell that raises more questions than it answers. USA Today reports Rep. Devin Nunes says he's seen intelligence reports that show communications between President Trump's team and unnamed others were "incidentally collected" by US intelligence officials. Incidental collection is what happens when US citizens happen to be recorded talking to foreign targets of surveillance, according to the Atlantic. Nunes says the surveillance in the reports, which were apparently brought to him by an unnamed source, was not directed at Trump or his team and was both normal and completely legal, CNN reports. "Nothing criminal at all involved," Nunes says. But that didn't stop Nunes from immediately informing the White House and holding a press conference, saying he was "actually alarmed by" the reports. Democrats immediately accused Nunes of blowing "what little credibility he had left" by going to the White House before sharing the reports with the rest of the House Intelligence Committee. In fact, it's unclear if anyone besides Nunes has even seen the reports. Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, says Nunes' actions represent a "profound irregularity" and questions whether Nunes is working for the Trump administration. And while Nunes himself reiterates there was no wiretapping of Trump Tower—by Barack Obama or anybody else—Trump says he now feels "somewhat" vindicated. |
I've got to hand it to him: Kanye West did well. We all know the man can afford to get fiance Kim Kardashian any diamond whatever she could possibly want in order to show his appreciation to her on her very first Mother's Day. And, as dandy as jewels are, sometimes it's not about the bling. Sometimes you have to be more thoughtful than that. Well, the rapper certainly delivered!
Kim woke up this morning and got the surprise gift of her life -- in her own backyard.
If you've been following this power couple, you may recall that Kanye sent Kim 1,000 roses this past Valentine's Day. What does one do with all of those flowers, you may ask? I'm wondering the same thing. Did she spread them out around her house? Place them all in one room and pass out from the overwhelmingly sweet aroma every time she walked into it?
His Mother's Day gift builds upon the floral theme (guess Kim loves flowers?) but is slightly more practical. He had a wall of pink, white, and green roses, hydrangeas, and peonies erected for her in the yard! Have a look:
Is it, quite literally, a block of flowers? Sure. But I think it's thoughtful -- and definitely interesting.
Well, whatever we may think, Kim loves it. Here's what she had to say about her gift on Instagram: "I have the best fiance in the world! I love you so much baby!!!! #HappyMothersDay."
Awww. Good for them. If you think we have a difficult time finding gifts for our loved ones, can you imagine what Kanye has to go through every time a holiday comes around? Kim already has everything. This wall of flowers is a perfectly sweet way for him to thank little North's mommy.
Not that Kim seems to need a gift. She also posted a separate message on Instagram today that pretty much sums up how she feels about being a mom:
This little girl has changed my world in more ways than I ever could have imagined! Being a mom is the most rewarding feeling in the world! Happy Mothers Day to all of the moms out there!
What do you think of Kim's Mother's Day gift?
Image via Instagram ||||| Courtesy of Vogue, Getty
Are Kim and Kanye trading in French romance for the Tuscan sun? A new report claims that rumors of a Paris wedding have been a diversion, and that the couple actually plans on holding their wedding in Italy.
After hearing for months that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West had been planning on getting married at an opulent location near Paris, France on May 24, a new report claims that the romantic country will only be the location for the pre-wedding festivities, and that Florence, Italy is really where the couple will say “I do.”
Kim Kardashian & Kanye West’s Wedding Location: Florence, Italy?
Kim and Kanye will be traveling to Paris in the coming weeks before the wedding, but not for the ceremony, according to Entertainment Tonight. After reportedly holding a dinner on May 23, the night before the wedding, the couple will then allegedly fly their guests to Florence on private planes.
Wow, talk about an elaborate plan! And how many private planes is that going to take!?
Technically, this plan does still jive with the wedding invitation that was revealed by Us Weekly on May 9. That invite only stated that there would be a dinner the night before the wedding in Paris. As for the actual ceremony and plans for the day of the wedding, the invite did not specify a location.
This would seriously redefine the term “destination wedding.”
It might all be smokescreens though, as another insider says that Kim and Kanye are purposely keeping their guests in the dark. “Kim and Kanye have told all guests different info,” the source tells Us Weekly. “No one knows all of the details.”
Jay Z & Beyonce Attending Kimye Wedding
Regardless of where the wedding takes place, we finally know that Jay Z and Beyonce will be in attendance! After the couple spent a week ducking the drama caused by the video that showed Beyonce’s sister Solange attacking Jay Z, they’re ready to go on a vacation and have the attention focused on someone else, a source told HollywoodLife.com exclusively.
“B is going to Kim’s wedding,” the source said. “Especially now, to change the attention from the fight to her presence at the wedding, since there have been so many reports speculating that she wouldn’t show.”
So will Queen B be traveling to Italy or France, HollywoodLifers? Tell us what YOU think.
— Andrew Gruttadaro
Follow @AndrewGrutt
More Kim Kardashian Wedding News:
JavaScript is required to load the comments. ||||| Kim Kardashian and Kanye West will marry in Florence, Italy on May 24th, a source close to the couple confirms to ET.
Despite multiple reports that the power couple is marrying in Paris, France, ET has learned that the two are actually having a dinner in Paris before the wedding, but will actually fly their guests to Italy on private planes for the ceremony.
RELATED VIDEO: Kris Jenner Talks Kim and Kanye Wedding
On Saturday, the Kardashian family threw a bridal shower for Kim, 33, at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif.
Kim and Kanye, 36, got engaged in October 2013, and have been dating since 2012. They have one child together -- daughter North West.
RELATED: Kardashian Family Hosts Bridal Shower for Kim
"I have this best friend who understands me and helps me through all my tough experiences, and vice versa, you know?" Kim told Cosmoplitan magazine last February about the controversial rapper. "It just feels like this is it for me." ||||| Vogue editor Anna Wintour turns down invite to Kim and Kanye's European wedding extravaganza despite plans to feature photos from event in fashion bible
Legendary Editor-in-Chief invited to exclusive, intimate wedding on May 24
Despite 'politely declining' the invite, Ms Wintour plans to feature their wedding pictures in upcoming issue
Entertainment Tonight now reports the wedding will be in ITALY, with a dinner the night before in PARIS
Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour has declined an invite to Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's wedding - just weeks after controversially putting them on the cover of the fashion bible.
Ms Wintour HAS received an invitation to the exclusive affair, with Entertainment Tonight today reporting there will be a dinner in Paris on May 23 before guests are flown to the wedding in Florence in Italy on May 24.
A source close to the editor confirmed she would not be attending. However, she is believed to be in talks to feature their wedding pictures in an upcoming issue.
Scroll down for video
Leaving on a jet plane: Kim Kardashian yesterday arrived at LAX before jetting to New York, where she is believed to attending E!'s Upfronts
Sisters flying high: Kim Kardashian was joined by her sibling Khloe at the airport en route to the Big Apple
Sisterly love: The pair both looked in focused mood as they strolled through the terminal
A source told MailOnline: 'Anna politely declined Kim and Kanye's kind invitation.'
The trio remain close and Kim and Kanye joined Ms Wintour at the Met Gala in New York last week.
When asked about the wedding photos being featured in Vogue, a Vogue spokeswoman said: 'We never comment on future issues'.
Kim and Kanye appeared on the April cover of Vogue, shot by legendary Annie Leibovitz.
Golden ticket: Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's surprisingly elegant wedding invite
Standing in a strapless Lanvin gown, Kim looked the blushing bride with her Lorraine Schwartz engagement ring, valued at over $ 5million, as Kanye stood with his arms wrapped around her. The hashtag #worldsmosttalkedaboutcouple was emblazoned beneath them on the cover.
The cover led to around 250,000 sales - about 20 percent more from the previous issue featuring Rihanna.
The wedding of the reality star and the rapper is said to be so intimate that even Keeping up with the Kardashians executive producer and family friend Ryan Seacrest did not score an invite.
Speaking on Monday at the FOX Upfronts in New York, American Idol star Seacrest, 39, told Access Hollywood: 'Here's what I would guess. It would be one of the most amazing ceremonies that has ever been had.
'I think that we'll all sort of smile and love that fact that you can see how much he adores her and she adores him.'
And Kim, 33, who will be on her third marriage, told Seacrest on his KISS FM radio show in February: 'We're having a super, super small, intimate wedding. As we go along, we're realizing we want it to be smaller and more intimate than people are imagining and thinking.'
The invitations, revealed last week, feature a simple design: gold lettering on a neutral background. Information is scarce; all that's included are a few lines about the date and dress code for the ceremony and rehearsal dinner.
The bride-to-be, who today was on her way to New York for the E! Upfronts with her sister Khloe, recently tweeted about the upcoming event, noting that the vows would not be filmed for her E! reality show, but 'everything leading up til and after' would be. 'We've decided to keep this close to our heart and share thru photos,' she wrote.
Politely declined: Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour has turned down Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's invitation to their wedding, now believed to be in Florence, Italy, on May 24- just weeks after controversially putting them on the April cover of the fashion bible
Friendship: Anna Wintour has forged a close friendship with rapper Kanye and reality star Kim - defending her decision to put them on the April cover of Vogue
For months it was rumored that music millionaire Kanye had been 'begging' Ms WIntour to put his fiancée on the cover of Vogue .
But Ms Wintour put those rumors to rest in her April 2014 Editor's Letter for Vogue's Shape Issue, calling the cover shot: 'both charming and touching'. 'You may have read that Kanye begged me to put his fiancée on Vogue’s cover,' wrote the 64-year-old Editor In Chief. 'He did nothing of the sort. The gossip might make better reading, but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t true.'
Ms Wintour applauded Kim's 'strength of character', writing: ' There’s barely a strand of the modern media that the Kardashian Wests haven’t been able to master, and for good reason.
'Kanye is an amazing performer and cultural provocateur, while Kim, through her strength of character, has created a place for herself in the glare of the world’s spotlight, and it takes real guts to do that.'
This is such a dream come true!!! Thank you @VogueMagazine for this cover! O M GGGGGG!!! I can't even breath [sic]!' Kim tweeted when the cover was released on Vogue's website
Ms Wintour, who has been editing the magazine since 1988 says a long held tradition of Vogue is 'being able to feature those who define the culture at any given moment, who stir things up, whose presence in the world shapes the way it looks and influences the way we see it.
'I think we can all agree on the fact that that role is currently being played by Kim and Kanye to a T. (Or perhaps that should be to a K?),' she writes with tongue in cheek.
Rumors that Kim may have secured herself a spot on Vogue's cover went into overdrive in June last year after the couple was spotted dining at Ms Wintour's West Village home in Manhattan. Four months later, in October 2013, the couple announced their engagement.
Hello NYC: Kim Kardashian leaves LAX en route to New York for the E! Upfronts
Then in early February it was widely reported that Kanye wanted Ms Wintour to put his fiancée on Vogue's cover wearing a wedding dress by Valentine’s Day, in order to 'present his lady love with the ultimate gift!'
While sartorially speaking those rumors were spot on, Ms Wintour emphasized in her Editor's Letter that 'It was, I should add, entirely our idea to do it'.
Meanwhile, Kim was so overwhelmed, she tweeted: 'This is such a dream come true!!! Thank you @VogueMagazine for this cover! O M GGGGGG!!! I can't even breath [sic]!'
||||| ROME (AP) — A spokeswoman at the Florence mayor's office says Kim Kardashian and Kayne West will get married at Florence's 16th-century Belvedere Fort on May 24.
Spokeswoman Elisa Di Lupo says the couple rented the fort, located next to Florence's famed Boboli Gardens, for 300,000 euros ($410,000). Di Lupo said a Protestant minister will preside.
The 36-year-old rapper proposed to the reality star on her 33rd birthday in October, renting out San Francisco's AT&T Park for the occasion.
This is the first marriage for West, who was previously engaged to designer Alexis Phifer. It's the third trip down the aisle for Kardashian.
In an interview with Florence's La Nazione newspaper Friday, West extolled the beauty of Florence and said he was "very excited" about the May 24 nuptials. ||||| Ciao, Kanye! Chart-topping rapper Kanye West has been making the most of his final few days as a bachelor, enjoying the romance of his favorite Italian city, Florence.
In an exclusive interview with Florence's La Nazione newspaper on Friday, May 16, West revealed why he and fiancee Kim Kardashian love the city, and said that baby North was likely conceived there.
PHOTOS: Kimye—the perfect match
"I adore Florence," he shared. "I love Italy and the Italian lifestyle. To tell you the truth, I already came to the banks of the Arno [river] with Kim last year, just the two of us, incognito."
"I think that our daughter North was conceived here among the Renaissance masterpieces," he continued. "It was our first honeymoon. It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world—for me the most beautiful in Europe.”
PHOTOS: Celebrity wedding dress predictions
West's outpouring of love for the Italian city adds fuel to reports that Florence will be at least one of the locations for his wedding next weekend, May 24, one of the most anticipated celebrity nuptials of the year.
And the Yeezus hitmaker revealed he's very excited for his big day. "[I'm] very happy," he said. "I am a romantic: for Mother’s Day I gave Kim a wall of flowers. Family is everything for me, the antidote to the pressure of fame. Family and creativity relax me. I am happy to create for my family.”
PHOTOS: Kim and Kanye's love timeline
While in Florence, West has been studying with fashion designer Ermanno Scervino, whom West describes as an "inspiration." The excited husband-to-be says Kardashian is his muse.
"I consult her on elegance and what I wear," he revealed. "And she does the same for me. Today as a musician I like to dress in a less showy way than in the past.”
As well as studying with Scervino, West has been making music in the ancient Italian city and is working on an album which will serve as a permanent memento of this exciting time in his life.
"I am composing a whole album, Made in Florence," the rapper said. | That excitement you're feeling? That's because in just eight days, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West will marry. Their wedding date (reportedly) remains May 24, but sources told ETOnline they're getting married not in Paris as was originally reported, but in Florence, Italy—and now the mayor's office has confirmed it. A rep says they're getting hitched at the 16th-century Belvedere Fort, which they rented for $410,000, the AP reports. But don't count Paris out: The couple will host a pre-wedding dinner there first, then fly their guests to the ceremony location on private planes, ET's sources say. Why Florence? Maybe because baby North West was probably conceived there "among the Renaissance masterpieces," as Kanye recently told a Florence paper, Us reports. Meanwhile, sources tell Hollywood Life that, despite rumors to the contrary, Beyonce and Jay Z will attend the wedding—"especially now," the source says, to divert attention away from sister Solange fighting Jay in a hotel elevator. However, Vogue editor Anna Wintour "politely declined" her invitation, sources tell the Daily Mail. West probably isn't too upset, since he has Jay Z as his best man. For more on Kimye, click to see Kanye's insane gift to Kim for her first Mother's Day. |
This report is an overview of the FY2010 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs that are designed to provide assistance to state and local governments, and public and private entities, such as ports. These programs are primarily used by first responders, which include firefighters, emergency medical personnel, emergency managers, and law enforcement officers. Specifically, the appropriations for these programs provide for grants, training, exercises, and other support to states, territories, and tribal and joint jurisdictions to prepare for terrorism and major disasters. The programs are administered by two different organizations within the Federal Emergency Management Agency: the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) and the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD). This report will be updated to reflect appropriated funding for these programs in FY2010. GPD is responsible for administering the State and Regional Preparedness Program and the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Preparedness Program. The State and Regional Preparedness Program includes seven programs intended to provide resources to support preparedness projects and activities that build state and local homeland security capabilities as outlined in the National Preparedness Guidelines, the Target Capabilities List, and the National Strategy for Homeland Security of 2007. The State and Regional Preparedness Program includes: State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP); Firefighter Assistance Grants Program (FIRE); Driver's License Security Grants Program (DLSGP, formerly known as REAL ID); Citizen Corps Grant Program (CCP); Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP); Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP); Medical Surge Grant Program (MSGP); and Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). The Metropolitan Statistical Area Preparedness Program is specifically designed to provide assistance to high-threat, high-risk urban areas, and critical infrastructure (primarily transportation infrastructure). The Metropolitan Statistical Area Preparedness Program includes: Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI); and Transportation Infrastructure Protection (including port, rail/transit, bus, and Buffer Zone Protection security programs). NPD is responsible for administering the Training, Measurement, and Exercise Programs, which fund state and local preparedness exercises, training, technical assistance activities and evaluations. In FY2010 this account funds the National Exercise Program (NEP), State and Local Training Programs, Technical Assistance (TA) Programs, and Evaluations and National Assessments. Congress appropriated approximately $4.2 billion for DHS programs for state and locality homeland security in FY2010. Conferees also established limits on the amount FEMA and grantees can use funding for management and administration costs. See Table 1 below for FY2009 and FY2010 funding levels. Additionally, Table 1 provides information on the Administration's FY2010 budget request, and the House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2010 DHS appropriations. Even though Congress has appropriated funding for FEMA's grant programs, Congress could elect to address three issues when considering appropriating future funds for DHS's state and local assistance programs. The first issue is the overall reduction in funding for state and local assistance programs, the second issue is the allocation method DHS uses to determine state and local grant awards, and the third issue is the reduction in appropriations for the Assistance to Firefighters Program. One issue that has been debated annually by Congress is the overall amount to be appropriated for these programs. In FY2010, the Administration proposed to reduce the overall funding for these programs by $909 million. The House-passed version of H.R. 2892 proposed to reduce the overall funding for these programs in FY2010 by $817 million and the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 proposed a reduction of $559 million. With the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, Congress determined to fund FEMA programs with an approximate appropriation total of $4.2 billion, which was a reduction of $610 million from the amount appropriated in FY2009. As stated earlier in this report, this reduction is either the result of the elimination of funding for some grant programs or through the reduction of funding for others. In the past eight years, Congress has appropriated an approximate total of $33 billion for state and local homeland security assistance with an average annual appropriation of $3.7 billion. In FY2009 Congress appropriated a high total of funding of $4.78 billion; the lowest appropriated amount was $1.43 billion in FY2002. Some might argue that since over $33 billion has been appropriated and allocated for state and local homeland security, jurisdictions should have met their homeland security needs. This point of view could lead one to assume that Congress should reduce funding to a level that ensures states and localities are able to maintain their homeland security capabilities, but doesn't fund new homeland security projects. Additionally, some may argue that states and localities should assume more responsibility in funding their homeland security projects and the federal government should reduce overall funding. This, however, may be difficult due to the present state and local financial circumstances. Another argument for maintaining current funding levels is the ever changing terrorism threat and the constant threat of natural and accidental man-made disasters. As one homeland security threat (natural or man-made) is identified and met, other threats develop and require new homeland security capabilities or processes. Some may also argue that funding amounts should be increased due to what appears to be an increase in natural disasters and their costs. Another potential issue of debate is how grant program funding is distributed to states and localities. Specifically, Congress may want to continue to address the funding distribution methodologies to ensure states and localities meet their homeland security needs. This issue has garnered Congress' attention the most over the past eight years, with the issue addressed in P.L. 110-53 in January 2007. Specifically, P.L. 110-53 required that SHSGP and UASI allocations be based entirely on risk; however, SHSGP recipients were guaranteed a minimum amount annually through 2012. This funding debate has been primarily focused on SHSGP and UASI; funding allocation methodologies for the majority of GPD and NPD programs have not been discussed during this debate. Some observers have criticized the guaranteed minimum allocation for SHSGP and the continued use of population as a key variable for other grant program distribution methodologies (for such grant programs as Emergency Management Performance Grants and Citizen Corps Programs). For example, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) recommended that all homeland security assistance be allocated based only on risk. Since P.L. 110-53 required DHS to guarantee a minimum amount of SHSGP funding to states, it could be argued that the law did not meet the 9/11 Commission recommendation. On the other hand, some might contend that the statue requires funds to be allocated on the basis of risk but with a floor that provides a guaranteed minimum. While the 9/11 Commission criticized the allocation of federal homeland security assistance and recommended that the distribution not "remain a program for general revenue sharing," commissioners acknowledged that "every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response." The 9/11 Commission also recommended that state and local homeland security assistance should "supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support." In a policy document published prior to his inauguration, President Obama stated, in what arguably is in agreement with the 9/11 Commission, that homeland security assistance should be based solely on risk. Due to this criticism, Congress may wish to consider conducting oversight hearings on how DHS allocates homeland security funding to jurisdictions. Instead of guaranteed minimums, Congress could require that DHS allocate funding based solely on risk. This option, however, might result in some jurisdictions receiving no or limited allocations. Arguably, a risk assessment process used to allocate homeland security assistance would determine that every state and locality has some risk, whether terrorism or natural disaster related, and needs some amount of funding. Such a process, however, would require DHS to evaluate state and local capabilities (currently DHS relies primarily on grant recipient self evaluations), vulnerabilities, and risk in a manner that accurately reflects the nation's current homeland security environment. For FY2010, the Administration proposed $170 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG), a 70% decrease from the FY2009 level, and $420 million for SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters), double the amount appropriated in FY2009. The total amount requested for firefighter assistance (AFG and SAFER) was $590 million, a 24% decrease from FY2009. The FY2010 budget proposal stated that the firefighter assistance grant process will give priority to applications that enhance capabilities for terrorism response and other major incidents. AFG grants are used primarily for firefighting equipment, while SAFER grants are used for hiring (by career departments) and recruitment/retention (by volunteer departments). The $170 million request for AFG would have been the lowest level for the program since FY2001, the program's initial year. On the other hand, the proposed doubling of the SAFER budget to $420 million would have been the highest level for this program since its inception. In evaluating the budget proposal, Congress may assess whether there is an appropriate balance between funding for firefighter equipment and hiring/recruitment. House-passed H.R. 2892 provided $800 million for firefighter assistance, including $390 million for AFG and $420 million for SAFER. Although the SAFER level matches the Administration's request, the AFG level is more than twice what the Administration proposed. According to the House committee report, the Administration's request of $170 million for AFG "is woefully inadequate given the vast needs of fire departments across the nation for equipment." The committee directed FEMA to continue granting funds to local fire departments, include the United States Fire Administration in the grant decision process, and maintain an all-hazard focus while granting eligibility for activities such as wellness. Senate-passed H.R. 2892 provided $810 million for firefighter assistance, including $390 million for AFG and $420 million for SAFER. The committee directed DHS to continue funding applications according to local priorities and priorities established by the United States Fire Administration, and to continue direct funding to fire departments through the peer review process. P.L. 111-83 provided $390 million for AFG and $420 million for SAFER, identical to the levels in both the House and Senate-passed bills. The Conference Agreement directed FEMA to continue the present practice of funding applications according to local priorities and those established by the USFA, to maintain an all-hazards focus, to grant funds for eligible activities in accordance with the authorizing statute, and to continue the current grant application and review process as specified in the House report. | Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated more than $33 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. The Grant Programs Directorate and the National Preparedness Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administer these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. These programs are primarily used by first responders, which include firefighters, emergency medical personnel, emergency managers, and law enforcement officers. Specifically, the appropriations for these programs provide for grants, training, exercises, and other support to states, territories, and tribal and joint jurisdictions to prepare for terrorism and major disasters. This report provides information on enacted FY2009 and FY2010 funding for these grant programs. It also identifies potential issues Congress may wish to address. The report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant. |
Visiting the grave of Ana Mladic
The grave of Ratko Mladic’s daughter Ana lies in a well-trafficked section of the Topcider cemetery on the outskirts of Belgrade. A well-known Serbian gangster, killed in the internecine political squabbles of the post-Communist era, is buried just across the way. Around the corner is the last resting place of Ivan Stambolic, a former president of Serbia murdered by thugs allied to his protégé and later rival Slobodan Milosevic.
Like the politician and the gangster, Ana met a violent death, testimony to a dark decade in Serbian politics. On March 23, 1994, at the height of the Bosnia war, she killed herself with a ceremonial pistol that had been presented to her father when he graduated from his military academy. Her suicide was a major event in Mladic’s life that is key to understanding his dark and complicated personality.
By all accounts, the Bosnian Serb commander never quite recovered from Ana’s death. According to his lawyer and family friend, Milos Saljic, Mladic "worshipped his daughter, and she worshipped him." He made several secret visits to Ana’s grave during the years that he was on the run, after being indicted by the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal for genocide and mass murder. After his arrest last May, the Serbian authorities permitted Mladic to make one final visit to the grave site before his extradition to The Hague.
The precise circumstances of Ana’s death have always been mysterious. The general himself has always insisted that she was murdered by his political enemies, but that version makes little sense, and is discounted by all but a handful of Mladic loyalists. What is known for sure is that she had just returned from a visit to Moscow with her graduating class from the Belgrade University medical school. According to Saljic, while Ana was in Moscow, she talked with Bosnian Muslim students for the first time, and was shocked to learn that they considered her father a war criminal.
"When she came back from Russia, she was a different person," Saljic told me.
This version — or something close to it — seems plausible to me. I am very skeptical of a claim by the German news magazine Der Spiegel last September that Ana killed herself following an argument with a former boyfriend, identified only as "Goran M." According to Der Spiegel‘s account, Goran was a human rights activist in Belgrade who worked as a doctor in a local hospital. Other Belgrade human rights activists (a tight-knit circle) say they never heard of such a person, and doubt that he exists. Saljic confirms that Ana had a boyfriend, but says he was close to the Mladic family, had nothing to do with her death, and was neither a doctor nor a human rights activist.
The conspiracy theory preferred by Mladic — that his daughter was murdered — is undermined by the pathologist who carried out the official autopsy. Now Serbia’s minister of health, Zoran Stankovic told me that he was eager to do a full investigation into the circumstances of Ana’s death, but Mladic refused permission. Had Mladic suspected foul play at the time, it seems most unlikely that he would have declined Stankovic’s request to carry out an investigation.
Whatever Ana’s real motivation for killing herself, her death had a shattering effect on Mladic. Video taken at the time shows him struggling to control his emotions in public, only to weep inconsolably over his daughter’s coffin (at 1:35 in the YouTube video below).
According to Saljic, Mladic suffered a serious stroke several weeks after his daughter’s death, and was unable to work for at least two months. His aides managed to conceal the general’s illness, and his disappearance from public view. It was reported at the time that Mladic had fallen out with the Bosnian Serb political leadership. When he reappeared in August 1994, journalists noted that he looked pale and tired.
As Mladic’s defense lawyer, Saljic has an obvious interest in painting a picture of his client’s reduced mental capacity at the time of the Srebrenica massacre a year later, in July 1995. His claims will have to be tested in court. The larger mystery is why a man who had known such tragedy in his own life was so cavalier in condemning thousands of others — fathers, husbands, sons, wives — to their deaths. ||||| He ordered many thousands of deaths and spent 14 years as a fugitive, then portrayed himself in court as a victim of conspiracies
Ratko Mladić had vowed never to succumb to the humiliation he suffered on Wednesday morning, of being judged by a foreign court. He told his officers he would not be taken alive and carried a duffel bag of guns through all his years on the run to ensure he would be as good as his word.
When the critical moment came however, the man who ordered many thousands of deaths could not bring himself to take his own. On 26 May 2011, when plainclothes officers from the Serbian interior ministry turned up at his final hiding place – a room in his cousin’s house in a remote northern village – the old general, enfeebled by two strokes and a heart attack, left his Heckler & Koch machine gun where he had stashed it, among his socks at the bottom of a cupboard.
“I suppose people will ask why I didn’t kill myself,” he grumbled to one of his supporters weeks later in jail. “But I was not psychologically able to, and I didn’t want them to say we are family of suicides.”
Play Video 1:55 Ratko Mladić, the 'butcher of Bosnia' – video profile
Some 17 years earlier, in February 1994, when the Bosnian conflict was mired in a bloody stalemate, Mladić’s daughter, Ana, used his favourite pistol to shoot herself. She was in love with a doctor, who was appalled at the slaughter in Bosnia being committed in the name of the Serb nation. He would only marry her if she renounced her father. She resolved the dilemma by removing herself.
Mladić never accepted that his own actions had anything to do with Ana’s death. Instead, he invented conspiracy theories which projected the blame outwards, on the historical enemies of the Serbs. His thirst for revenge redoubled. In a lifetime surrounded by death, Ana’s was one of the very few that mattered to him.
14 years a fugitive: the hunt for Ratko Mladic, the Butcher of Bosnia | Julian Borger Read more
Mladić was born into conflict. His name can be translated as “warlike youth”. His father, a partisan, was killed in battle in 1945, when he was two. His mother, Stana, raised three children on her own.
As a teenager, Ratko had a go at being a tinsmith’s apprentice before giving it up and dedicating his life to the Yugoslav national army. At the end of it all, after fighting in Croatia to keep a Serb-run Yugoslavia together and losing, and then fighting for a Serb-dominated Bosnia, and losing again after the death of 100,000 people, Mladić spent 14 years as a fugitive before finally losing that battle too.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Protesters hold posters, including one of Radovan Karadžić, the Bosnian Serb former politician and convicted war criminal, as they wait for the verdict against Ratko Mladić. Photograph: Michel Porro/Getty Images
“You have found who you’re looking for,” he told the officers from the war crimes unit who had come to find him. Mladić sat in a rumpled black peaked cap in the back of the car on the drive south back to Belgrade. Once there, he had two requests for the judge. He wanted to go to his mother’s grave in Bosnia, and to Ana’s grave in Belgrade. The judge granted the second request. While government officials stood waiting to fly him to The Hague, he stood before her gravestone mumbling words to his daughter.
In his six years in detention in the seafront Hague suburb of Scheveningen, and through his more than 500 days in court at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Mladić has portrayed himself as a victim of foreign conspiracies to do down the Serb people. It is this cult of victimhood that powered his brand of aggressive nationalism. It proved a rocket fuel for sadism.
He repeatedly portrayed his “ethnic cleansing” campaign in Bosnia, targeted overwhelmingly against Muslim Bosniaks, as revenge for the Ottoman empire. In July 1995, when he strode with his military aides into Srebrenica, which had supposedly been a “safe haven” under UN protection which failed to materialise, he declared his “victory” as vengeance for an ancient massacre of Serbs at the hands of “the Turks”. He was filmed patting eight-year-old Izudin Alić on the head, handing the hungry Bosniak boy a chocolate bar and assuring the people of Srebrenica they would be safe. Within a few days, the boy’s father would be tracked down and killed by Mladić’s troops, along with more than 7,000 Bosniak men and teenage boys.
Srebrenica genocide: worst massacre in Europe since the Nazis Read more
For more than seven years, long after the bones of the dead had been dug out of mass graves, and the crimes of Mladić’s army had been laid out for the world to witness, Serbia’s army looked after him in the name of ethnic solidarity in the face of a hostile world.
The fragile fiction in Bosnia, as in eastern Ukraine today, was that Bosnian Serb forces were freedom fighters thirsting for their independence. In fact, they operated with the guidance and support of a stronger neighbour, Slobodan Milošević’s regime in Belgrade.
Mladić and other Bosnian Serb officers were paid by the 30th Personnel Centre of the Yugoslav army, run from Belgrade. And when Nato peacekeepers and western intelligence agencies operating in Bosnia began to get serious about tracking down war crimes suspects in 1997, Mladić was sheltered and catered for in army recreation compounds across Serbia.
“The Serbian government and army were clearly protecting Mladić,” said John Sipher, a former CIA officer who took part in the hunt for war crimes suspects when he was stationed in the Balkans.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ratko Mladić in the court of the UN tribunal in 2014. Photograph: ICTY / HANDOUT/EPA
“I remember Montenegrins telling us about trips he made down there to see old friends in the military. He was clearly being protected and felt comfortable living in Serbia.”
The CIA was aware Mladić spent some of his time as one of Europe’s most wanted men in his own house in a wealthy Belgrade suburb where some US embassy employees lived. There was nothing the agency could do.
After Milošević fell in 2000, the country’s new prime minister, Zoran Đinđić, offered the US and the UK the option of going to grab Mladić with their own troops. But Đinđić did not control the army, and the allies declined the offer rather than risk a gunfight on the strength of an uncertain tip-off from a precariously positioned politician. Đinđić himself was assassinated in 2003.
Timeline Ratko Mladić: the long road to justice Show Hide The breakup of the former Yugoslavia The breakup of the former Yugoslavia formally begins when Slovenia and Croatia declare independence. The Serb-led Yugoslav army withdraws from Slovenia after a 10-day conflict, but the war in Croatia that followed would last until 1995. War breaks out in Bosnia Bosnian Serbs swiftly take control of more than two-thirds of Bosnia and launch the siege of Sarajevo, headed by Ratko Mladić, who becomes the Bosnian Serb army commander a month later. The siege lasts 1,460 days, during which more than 11,500 people die. Srebrenica massacre Mladić's troops capture Srebrenica, where more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed. Nato bombs Bosnian Serb positions following reports of the slaughter. The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia indicts Mladić and Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadžić on charges including genocide. Dayton agreement signed The Dayton agreement is signed, ending the war and creating two mini-states in Bosnia: a Bosnian-Serb one and a Muslim-Croat one. Mladić goes into hiding Nato peacekeepers and western intelligence agencies operating in Bosnia step up attempts to track down war crimes suspects, but Mladić is sheltered by loyalists in Serbia. He is seen attending football games and eating at Belgrade restaurants. Mladić arrested Following intense pressure from the international community on Serbia, Mladić is arrested in Serbia. He appears in court at the UN tribunal for the first time in June but refuses to enter pleas to the charges against him. At a second hearing in July, judges enter not guilty pleas on his behalf. Trial hears closing statements The trial in The Hague is arguably the most significant war crimes case in Europe since the Nuremberg tribunal, in part because of the scale of the atrocities involved. Over 530 days, the UN tribunal hears from 591 witnesses and examines nearly 10,000 exhibits concerning 106 separate crimes. During closing statements, prosecutors urge judges to convict Mladić on all counts and sentence him to life in prison. Defence attorneys call for acquittal.
Mladić convicted More than 20 years after the Srebrenica massacre, the now 74-year-old Mladić is sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Delivering the verdicts, the judge said Mladić’s crimes “rank among the most heinous known to humankind and include genocide and extermination”.
Eventually, even the army had to bow to control from elected civilian governments, and Mladić was forced to rely on an ever dwindling circle of loyalists. He took refuge in anonymous apartments and rural family plots. Even then however, he stayed beyond his enemies’ reach.
“If you got a report that Mladić was at some place near the border where it might even be possible to go in, we had no sources that we had tested over a long time, so it would have been a complete gamble,” Sipher recalled.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Bosnian woman prays near a grave of her relative at the memorial centre of Potocari near Srebrenica. Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images
In the end, Mladić was handed over by his fellow Serbs, weary of sanctions and isolation. But even with the culmination of his five-year trial and his conviction, the triumph of international justice over impunity is far from complete.
Nationalism is very much back in the saddle in Serbia and the Bosnian Serb republic, along with blanket denial of war crimes. The Serbian government announced last month that a convicted war criminal, Vladimir Lazarević, released from jail in 2005 after serving two-thirds of his sentence, would be lecturing at the country’s military academy.
One of the investigators in The Hague tribunal’s tracking team, which played a coordinating role in the hunt for Balkan war criminals, said he took a nostalgic motorcycle tour through Bosnia this summer and decided to make a detour to Mladić’s birthplace in the Serb-run municipality of Kalinovik. As he got off his bike, he was greeted by a two-word message spray-painted on a wall: “Mladić – Hero.”
Julian Borger is the Guardian’s world affairs editor. His book on the pursuit and capture of the Balkan war criminals, The Butcher’s Trail, is published by Other Press. | Former Bosnian Serb military chief Gen. Ratko Mladic will spend the rest of his life in prison following his conviction on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. That he's alive to head to prison contrasts with the imagined end he spoke of to his officers during Bosnia's 1992-1995 war. He vowed to commit suicide rather than be arrested and tried, and the Guardian reports that during his 14 years as a fugitive, he had a "duffel bag of guns" with him so that he could make good on his promise. After his May 26, 2011, arrest, he reportedly said "I was not psychologically able to [kill myself], and I didn't want them to say we are family of suicides." More on the "butcher of Bosnia": Ana: The latter is a reference to his daughter Ana, who used Mladic's own gun to shoot herself in February 2014, in the Guardian's telling, after being forced to choose between loyalty to her father and the doctor she loved (this is debated). In 2011, Foreign Policy visited her grave, as Mladic did in secret while a fugitive. A friend says he "worshiped his daughter," and after he was caught he was allowed to go to her grave once before being extradited to the Hague. |
Effective November 30, 1998, under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act), licensed gun dealers are required to obtain background checks on purchasers before transferring (i.e., selling) a firearm. These background checks generally are to be conducted using NICS, a computerized system which is managed by the FBI. Under NICS, firearms are not to be transferred until a background check determines that the transfer will not violate applicable federal and state laws. However, if the background check is not completed within 3 business days, the transfer is allowed to proceed by default. A NICS background check provides an automated search of criminal and noncriminal records—including records in both state and national databases—to determine a person’s eligibility to purchase a firearm. Specifically, a NICS check queries the following three information sources: (1) the National Crime Information Center, which provides access to fugitive arrest warrants and protective orders and information about deported felons; (2) the Interstate Identification Index, an index-pointer system that provides access to state criminal history records and FBI criminal history databases; and (3) the NICS Index, which maintains records about other persons’ ineligible to possess firearms, including mental defectives, illegal and unlawful aliens, and persons dishonorably discharged from the military. In practice, however, most NICS decisions about eligibility to purchase firearms are based on state criminal history records. During the first 3 years of NICS operations, over 90 percent of all firearms purchase denials were due to a disqualifying criminal history— primarily felony convictions (64 percent) and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions (14 percent). Because the vast majority—about 95 percent—of all criminal history records are state records, the capability of NICS to effectively screen firearms purchasers depends largely on the ability to access and interpret these state records. As part of interpreting state criminal history records, NICS background check examiners consider post-conviction actions that may affect gun ownership rights. For example, persons prohibited from possessing firearms due to state criminal convictions may subsequently apply to the states for relief from these disabilities, and state actions to provide such relief may be recognized under federal law as restoring gun ownership rights. This avenue of relief arises out of the meaning of the term “conviction,” which is found within the federal definitions of felony and domestic violence misdemeanor. Federal firearms law generally provides that a conviction will not be considered for purposes of determining firearms eligibility if the conviction “has been expunged, or set aside or [is an offense] for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored … unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not … possess, or receive firearms.” Prior to October 1992, relief from firearms disabilities imposed by federal laws could be granted, based on a petition to the Treasury Department, under provisions enacted at 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). However, beginning with the fiscal year 1993 Treasury appropriations act, Congress has prohibited Treasury from expending any appropriated funds to act upon such applications for relief. The Brady Act, in general, provides that any transaction in which a person presents to a licensed gun dealer a valid state permit that allows the purchaser to possess or acquire a firearm is exempt from a NICS check when purchasing firearms. Specifically, a firearms purchase is exempt from NICS if the purchaser presents a state permit that (1) allows the permit holder to possess or acquire a firearm and (2) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the state in which the transfer is to take place. NICS regulations specify further that the purchaser must present a valid permit that was issued only after verifying that the permit holder was not ineligible to possess firearms under federal, state, and local law. In addition, after November 30, 1998, permits would qualify as exempt only if the information available to the state authority that issued the permit included NICS. In developing the NICS regulations, ATF concluded that a “permit to possess” a firearm would include a permit to carry concealed weapons. Thus, if a concealed carry permit meets the criteria described above, the permit holder would be exempt from a NICS background check when purchasing firearms, unless state law otherwise required such a check. As noted previously, NICS denials are based largely on criminal history records—not only felonies but certain misdemeanors as well. Most notably, in the so-called Lautenberg amendment, Congress banned the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. As defined in the law, a domestic violence misdemeanor involves the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon by any of the following: a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; a person with whom the victim shares a child in common; a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian; or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. Implementing regulations provide that such definition includes any federal, state, or local misdemeanor that meets the criteria, irrespective of whether it is defined or labeled as “domestic violence.” Federal law further provides that a person generally is not considered convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor under the following circumstances: (1) if the person was not represented at trial by counsel (unless he or she waived the right to counsel); (2) if the person was entitled to a jury trial, but the case was not tried by jury (unless he or she waived the right to a jury trial); or (3) if the conviction was expunged or set-aside, or the person was pardoned or had civil rights restored; and the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms. Appendix II presents more information about the categories of persons ineligible to purchase firearms and the extent to which criminal history records are used to determine an individual’s eligibility to purchase firearms. Also, more details on NICS implementation and operation may be found in our February and April 2000 reports. As mentioned previously, while federal restoration of firearms rights is no longer readily available, persons who are ineligible to possess firearms because of state criminal convictions may be able to have their gun ownership rights restored by the state. Following a state restoration action, such persons would generally be recognized by the states and the federal government as once again being eligible to possess firearms. Each of the four restoration methods recognized in federal firearms law can have a different effect on the underlying disqualifying record and the extent to which rights are restored. For example: Pardon – A pardon is, in general, an executive action that typically mitigates the punishment the law demands for an offense and restores any or all of the rights and privileges forfeited on account of the offense. Generally, the original criminal record is to be retained, with the pardon being noted on the record. Expungement – An expungement is a procedure in which the record of a criminal offense or conviction is typically destroyed or sealed. For example, arrest records may be expunged where the arrested person is acquitted at trial or the arrest is found to be unlawful; or expungement may be allowed after the passage of time. In some cases, expunged records may be retained and used by the state for certain limited purposes. Set-aside – A set-aside is an action that annuls or revokes a previously issued court judgment or order—such as a criminal conviction. To set aside a judgment is to make it void or of no effect and to deprive it of all force and operation as to future transactions. Set-asides are generally noted in the criminal record, which is retained. Restoration of civil rights – States may have procedures to restore any civil rights or other privileges that were lost upon a criminal conviction. These rights may be restored automatically upon completion of sentence or the passage of time; or restoration of rights may require an administrative or judicial process. Generally, restorations of civil rights are noted in the criminal record, which is retained. Each of the six states we visited provided for one or more of the four methods described above for restoring gun ownership rights lost as a result of a state criminal conviction. Differences among the states primarily involved the number of such methods available, the conditions under which a person would be eligible for relief, and the process of applying for and receiving relief. Pardons were universally available in all six of the states we visited, while expungements were readily available in only one state—Utah. The states’ criteria for restoration typically required a certain waiting period before being eligible to apply for relief. In Florida, for example, applicants had to wait 10 years following completion of sentence to apply for a full pardon or 8 years to apply for a restoration of firearms authority. Also, persons convicted of some prior offenses— felonies involving a firearm, for example, in California—were not eligible for any restoration at all. In some states—such as Florida and Michigan— certain individuals are required to petition the state or a county agency for relief; other states—such as California and Massachusetts—have laws that automatically restore certain lost firearms rights after completion of sentence. Appendix III presents more information about the states’ laws and procedures dealing with restoration of gun ownership rights. To determine if persons who had their gun ownership rights restored subsequently committed crimes, we obtained and analyzed available data on restoration actions in the six selected states. Our analysis was largely dependent on the availability of state data for each method of restoration and, as such, was generally based on limited data or data on small numbers of cases. On the basis of our limited review, we found that few persons whose gun ownership rights had been restored by the states were later convicted of additional crimes. Summary information for the six states is as follows. (See table 1.) In California, 71 persons received pardons between 1990 and 2000 that restored gun ownership rights. Of these, none had subsequently been convicted of a crime. In Florida, 79 persons received pardons (78 full pardons, 1 conditional pardon) between 1999 and 2001 that restored gun ownership rights. Of these, 1 person was subsequently convicted of a felony. In addition, 1 other person was arrested, but the record did not reflect whether the charge was a felony or a misdemeanor and no disposition was found. Another 51 persons received restorations of firearms authority between 1999 and 2001. Of these, none was subsequently convicted of a crime. In Massachusetts, 49 persons received pardons between 1990 and 2000 that restored gun ownership rights. Of these, none was subsequently convicted of a crime. In Michigan, 26 persons received pardons between 1969 and 1995 that restored gun ownership rights. Our review of 9 of these individuals found that none had subsequently been convicted of a crime. Another 2,006 persons had convictions set aside during 2000 and 2001. Our review of 200 of these individuals found that 1 person had subsequently been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; 1 other person was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, but no disposition was found. Also, 378 persons received restorations of gun ownership rights by county gun licensing boards between 1992 and 2001. Our review of 38 of these individuals found that 1 person was subsequently convicted of a crime—in this case, a misdemeanor. In Texas, 54 persons received pardons between 1992 and 2001 that restored gun ownership rights. Our review of 35 of these individuals found that none had subsequently been convicted of a crime. However, 3 of the individuals had subsequently been arrested—2 of the arrests involved misdemeanor charges and 1 involved felony charges. No dispositions were found for any of these cases. In Utah, 7 persons received pardons between 1990 and 2001 that restored gun ownership rights. Our review of 6 of these individuals found that none had subsequently been convicted of a crime. As mentioned previously, our analysis was largely dependent on the availability of state data for each method of restoration and, as such, was generally based on limited data or data on small numbers of cases. In some cases, statewide data were not available, and in other cases only certain time periods were covered. Where selected cases were analyzed—in Michigan, Texas, and Utah—the cases we reviewed were not randomly generated. As a result, this analysis is intended solely to illustrate what we found from the data we reviewed in each of the six states, and the results cannot be generalized beyond the timeframes and locations from which the data were collected. ATF has periodically reviewed each state’s concealed carry permit program to determine whether it meets the criteria laid out in the Brady Act and NICS regulations for exempting permit holders from NICS background checks. As indicated below, as of January 2002, ATF determined that 26 states issued concealed carry permits that qualify to exempt permit holders from NICS background checks when purchasing firearms: In 16 states, all concealed carry permit holders are exempt from NICS background checks. Texas and Utah fall into this category. In 8 states, only certain permits issued before the implementation of NICS exempt permit holders from NICS background checks. In these states, permits issued after NICS was implemented (Nov. 30, 1998) do not qualify as exempt. Permits issued prior to NICS are “grandfathered” as exempt because, under interim provisions of the Brady Act, ATF had recognized these permits as a valid alternative to the interim Brady background check. Florida and Massachusetts fall into this category. In 2 states, only grandfathered permits were initially considered exempt. However, these states later made changes to their permit programs, bringing them into compliance with NICS regulations, and permits issued after the date of these program changes are now exempt from NICS. In the other 24 states, no concealed carry permits are exempt from NICS background checks. In some cases, ATF has determined the state program does not qualify as exempt under NICS regulations (Michigan); in other cases, the permits do not qualify as exempt under state law (California). The six states we visited had several similarities in their background screening and processing of concealed carry permit applicants. In each state, for example, permit applicants were subject to a screening process involving a review of criminal justice and other data in federal and state databases. This screening process included both name-based and fingerprint-based checks performed by the states and the FBI. In addition to federal and state sources of data, Texas and Michigan routinely reviewed local records as part of the screening process. Some of the states were limited in the amount of time allowed to complete the background check and issue or deny the concealed carry permit. In Florida, a concealed carry permit must be issued within 90 days unless the applicant is determined to be ineligible or has a potentially disqualifying arrest without disposition information. In addition to screening concealed carry permit applicants, the states monitored active permit holders to determine if and when any of them became ineligible to have a permit. For example, five of the six states (all except Massachusetts) had formal mechanisms in place for detecting whether permits holders had committed a disqualifying criminal offense. These methods included electronic matching of permit holders’ names against state criminal records databases (Utah and Florida), as well as manual notifications to the state’s permit authority by the courts when a concealed carry permit holder is convicted of a crime (Michigan). Once a permit holder is determined to be ineligible, all of the states have procedures in place for revoking the permit. But in only two states— California and Massachusetts—do authorities actively seek out permit holders and seize revoked permits if the individuals do not surrender their permits to the issuing agency. Appendix IV presents more information about the states’ laws and procedures involving issuing, monitoring, and revoking concealed carry permits. The six states we visited reported that some concealed carry permit holders subsequently committed crimes that resulted in permit revocation, as shown in table 2. When compared to the total number of permits issued, the revocation rate of permit holders ranged from 0.02 percent in Michigan to 2.3 percent in Massachusetts—with the two “may-issue” states (California and Massachusetts) revoking a higher percentage of permits than the four “shall-issue” states (Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Utah). In the states where data on offense type were available (Michigan, Texas, and Utah), the vast majority of offenses that led to revocation were misdemeanors. Some states (Florida, Texas, and Utah) also reported a significant number of revocations due other disqualifying factors—such as mental disability (in Florida and Utah) and delinquent taxes (in Texas). Only Florida and Utah tracked the number of revocations that involved firearms—specifically, firearms-related offenses accounted for about 9 percent (145 out of 1,593) of Florida’s revocations and about 7 percent (39 out of 584) of Utah’s revocations. More significant than the number of revocations, some states had no assurance of recovering permits from permit holders after revocation. As a result, revoked permits could be used by ineligible persons to purchase firearms without a NICS background check. As mentioned previously, among the six states, only California and Massachusetts actively seek out permit holders to recover revoked permits that have not been voluntarily surrendered. In addition, only Massachusetts has criminal penalties available for use against permit holders who do not surrender revoked permit. Regarding the other states, we noted the following issues regarding revoked permits: In Florida—a state where grandfathered permits exempt permit holders from NICS background checks when purchasing firearms— state officials acknowledged they did not recover all revoked permits and the state had no civil or criminal authority to force the surrender of revoked permits. Between October 1987 and December 2001, Florida revoked 1,593 permits, the vast majority because of crimes committed by permit holders after the permits were issued. Another 461 permits were revoked because of crimes committed before the permits were issued. Because permits issued prior to the implementation of NICS exempted permit holders from NICS background checks, permits that were revoked and not recovered could have been used by ineligible permit holders to purchase firearms without a NICS check. To illustrate the extent to which revoked permits are not recovered by the state, Florida officials provided data on permits revoked in fiscal year 2001 as a result of crimes committed before the permits were issued. Of the 18 permits that were revoked for that reason, state officials told us that 7 of the 18 permits were not recovered. In Texas—a state where all concealed carry permit holders are exempt from a NICS check when purchasing firearms—state officials also acknowledged they do not recover all revoked permits and have no civil or criminal authority to force the surrender of revoked permits. State officials estimated that about 2 out of every 10 revoked permits are not voluntarily surrendered back to the state. Thus, based on the total number of revocations reported (1,659) between January 1996 and October 2001, this represents an estimated 332 revoked permits that were not recovered upon revocation. These ineligible permit holders could have used their revoked permits to purchase firearms without having a NICS background check. Two other states—California and Utah—have laws or procedures in place that prevent persons from using revoked permits to purchase firearms without a NICS background check. In California, for example, state law requires concealed carry permit holders to have a separate NICS background check when purchasing a firearm, thus preventing ineligible permit holders from purchasing firearms regardless of the status of their permit. Utah—another NICS-exempt state for permit holders—requires gun dealers to verify the validity of a concealed carry permit by contacting the state issuing authority before approving a NICS-exempt gun purchase. Rather than requiring another background check at the time of purchase, this verification simply requires gun dealers to visually inspect the permit, and then call the state’s Department of Public Safety to verify that the permit is still valid—that is, that it has not been suspended or revoked. According to Utah officials, this process helps the state monitor the legal status of permit holders, and it prevents persons from using revoked permits to purchase firearms without a NICS background check. According to ATF officials, after the Brady Act was passed in 1993, the states became responsible for conducting firearms purchase background checks. Because some states already required permits and background checks in order to purchase firearms, it seemed redundant to require another identical state background check just to comply with Brady. As a result, the law exempted permit holders from having a separate background check when purchasing firearms. When NICS became operational in 1998, the FBI and the states began sharing responsibility for firearms background checks, but the permit exemption continued based on criteria laid out in the Brady Act and NICS regulations for exempting permit holders from NICS background checks. Even so, ATF officials noted that some states require their concealed carry permit holders to undergo a separate background check at the time they make a firearms purchase. The officials went on to say that permit holders may sometimes commit crimes that disqualify them from possessing firearms, although the state has not yet taken action to revoke the permits. In such instances, a NICS background check at the time of purchase serves to identify permit holders who may be disqualified from purchasing a firearm and prevent those persons from obtaining firearms simply by presenting their permits. Regarding Utah’s permit-verification process that requires gun dealers to verify the current validity of concealed carry permits, ATF officials told us it is not clear whether ATF could require all states to have a similar process. Generally, ATF can set regulations for states to meet as prerequisites to exempting their permit holders from NICS background checks, provided these regulations are consistent with congressional intent. Among other things, ATF regulations already specify that exempt permits must be valid, issued no more than 5 years earlier, and must be issued only after verifying that the permit holder was not ineligible to possess firearms under federal, state, and local law. Regarding an additional regulation requiring point-of-purchase verification of the validity of exempt permits, ATF officials noted that this could raise concerns as an unfunded mandate, particularly in those states that do not participate in NICS and have no existing infrastructure at state agencies or licensed gun dealers for performing such verification. Nonetheless, ATF would consider such a regulation if there was compelling evidence to suggest that a problem did exist (e.g., data indicating that ineligible persons used revoked permits to purchase firearms without a NICS check), and that any new regulation was consistent with congressional intent under the Brady Act. The six states we visited used various approaches to help ensure that domestic violence misdemeanor convictions were identified in state criminal history repositories and were accessible to NICS. These approaches included establishing a specific domestic violence offense in the state’s criminal code, defining domestic violence in other state statutes, enacting domestic violence penalty enhancement statutes, and flagging domestic violence offenses in the criminal records. For example, two of the states we visited—California and Michigan—had enacted specific criminal offenses related to domestic violence, which clearly differentiates these offenses from other misdemeanor assaults. Four states—California, Michigan, Texas, and Utah—had amended general criminal statutes (such as assault or battery) to create a separate penalty enhancement when the circumstances involved a family member or other relation. Florida, Michigan, and Utah also “flag” domestic violence offenses by notating the criminal record to clearly identify the offenses as domestic violence-related. Only Massachusetts had no mechanism for specifically identifying domestic violence offenses in the state’s criminal history records. Appendix V presents more information about the states’ laws and procedures to help ensure that domestic violence convictions are accessible to NICS. From November 1998 through September 2001, ATF data indicate that the agency received 10,945 referrals from the FBI requesting retrieval of firearms that had been sold to ineligible persons. These firearm-retrieval actions were the result of NICS background checks that could not be completed by the FBI within the 3 business days allowed under federal law. When this occurs, the sale is allowed to proceed—that is, the gun dealer may legally transfer the firearm without a response from the FBI as to the purchaser’s eligibility. The FBI continues to research these transactions, even after 3 days have passed, to ensure that the purchasers were not prohibited individuals. Regarding the referrals noted above, after the firearms were legally transferred the FBI discovered that the purchasers should have been denied. Once the FBI made these determinations, ATF was notified so steps could be taken to investigate the transactions, retrieve the firearms, and refer any appropriate cases for prosecution. As shown in table 3, about 26 percent of the firearm-retrieval actions referred to ATF during roughly the first 3 years of NICS were in the prohibited category of domestic violence misdemeanor. By comparison, in looking at all FBI NICS denials during approximately this same period,the category of domestic violence misdemeanor made up only about 14 percent of the total number of NICS denials. As shown by this comparison, the percentage of NICS firearm-retrieval actions involving domestic violence misdemeanors was disproportionately large—almost double— when compared with the percentage of all NICS denials that involved domestic violence misdemeanors. These transactions create concerns because they represent domestic violence offenders who were allowed to purchase firearms and who may pose risks to public safety. It should be noted that the actual number of domestic violence offenders who purchased firearms under NICS may be larger than shown in table 3. We previously reported that roughly 1.7 percent of NICS background checks could not be completed within 21 days because the FBI was not able to obtain sufficient information to verify the purchaser’s eligibility.Based on the number of NICS background checks processed by the FBI through fiscal year 2001, an estimated 204,000 transactions would have fallen into this unresolved category. Even if only 1.6 percent (the average NICS denial rate for this time period) of these transactions involved prohibited persons, this would represent an estimated 3,200 additional prohibited persons who purchased firearms without being identified by NICS—over 800 of which would have been domestic violence offenders (based on the percentage of domestic violence misdemeanor firearm- retrieval actions shown in table 3). Furthermore, this number could be much higher, because the FBI has previously reported that delayed transactions are much more likely to involve prohibited persons than the average NICS checks. According to FBI officials, researching domestic violence offenses can often take more than the 3 days allowed under the Brady Act. In a typical transaction, the NICS background check identifies an arrest for a misdemeanor assault but no matching disposition. The NICS examiner must then go back—in some cases to original police reports—to verify what happened and who was involved, in order to determine whether the offense meets the federal criteria for domestic violence misdemeanor. Furthermore, the information needed to confirm the conviction may not be in the automated record, and manual research is then required. If the offense was tried in a so-called court of non-record (e.g., a magistrate or justice of the peace court), the case may not have been reported to the state repository. Thus, the FBI may have to contact the local court or the original arresting agency to document the outcome. Various other factors contribute to the difficulty in identifying domestic violence convictions within 3 business days and, thus, preventing the associated firearm-retrieval actions. These factors include (1) the overall accessibility and completeness of state criminal history records, (2) the complex federal definition of domestic violence misdemeanor, and (3) the difficulty in identifying domestic violence offenses in the criminal history records. Regarding the first factor, states are continuing to automate and otherwise improve the completeness and accessibility of their criminal history records. However, this process has been ongoing since the early 1990s and is still far from complete. For example, BJS recently reported on the status of efforts to improve criminal history records for background check purposes. According to the report: By mid-2001, a total of about 64 million records were held in state criminal history repositories. However, approximately 7 million (about 11 percent) of these were manual records and, thus, not instantly accessible to NICS. Of the remaining 57 million automated records, an estimated 16 million records (28 percent) were not accessible through the Interstate Identification Index for background check purposes. That is, these 16 million records were instantly accessible only to the state holding the respective records. Of the 41 million records that were automated and accessible through the Interstate Identification Index, the most recent BJS data indicate that perhaps 37 percent may not be fully useful for an instant check due to a lack of data on arrest dispositions. To assist BJS in reporting on the completeness of criminal records, the FBI analyzed a sample of delayed NICS background checks that resulted from an open arrest with no disposition. Overall, the FBI found that these delayed transactions typically involved older arrest records—mostly ranging from over 5 years old to more than 15 years old. Specifically, more than 75 percent of the open arrests had occurred before 1995 and about 50 percent were found to have occurred before 1984. “Even in states where the criminal history record on its face will indicate … an element of domestic violence, research … will still be necessary to determine if the offender was represented by counsel…or had the opportunity for a jury trial [before firearms eligibility can be determined]. Because this type of information is not always recorded in original records of entry, it may simply never be possible in many states to obtain this information or to make this determination.” The SEARCH representative concluded that there may be a certain, but unknown, percentage of misdemeanor convictions that resist any attempt to determine whether they meet the Lautenberg test, because records are not available or do not indicate whether the offender had access to counsel or the right to a jury trial. A third complicating factor is that misdemeanor criminal history records may not be clearly identified as domestic violence-related, thus requiring additional—sometimes manual—research. As BJS noted in a February 2000 report on improving criminal history records, identifying domestic violence misdemeanor convictions for purposes of a firearms background check presents a unique challenge. Domestic violence incidents have historically been categorized simply as assaults, making it difficult to segregate them from other criminal history records. Further, where additional research is necessary, misdemeanor criminal records may be more difficult to track down than felony records. In its recent report on the use and management of criminal history records, BJS noted that most state criminal repositories collect information only about the most serious classes of misdemeanor offenses. And, the general lack of comprehensive misdemeanor arrest and disposition data has previously been identified as one of the major deficiencies in state criminal history record systems. In response to passage of the Lautenberg amendment, the FBI’s automated system for identifying persons with felony convictions was modified in May 2001 so that domestic violence offenders (and other ineligible persons) could be more readily identified. Under the new system, a “flag” can be set in the automated criminal history to indicate whether an individual is disqualified from purchasing firearms (signified by the letter D), cleared to purchase firearms (the letter C), or unknown or pending status (the letter X). When a firearms background check identifies a person with a disqualifying flag, the transaction can be immediately denied with no additional research required. Flags have historically been used to mark persons that have a felony conviction in their criminal record. However, for purposes of quickly identifying domestic violence misdemeanors, some questions remain. For example, while most states flag some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases, only 19 states currently participate in the FBI’s new flagging system for identifying domestic violence and other firearms disqualifiers. Also, as reported in a 1997 study sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,several state central repository officials expressed concern over the reliability and consistency of flags set in criminal history records, and one state official said he would not trust a flag set by another state and would need to look at the offender’s rap sheet before determining the applicant’s firearm eligibility. In Michigan, for example, an FBI NICS audit found that felony flags were not always removed from state criminal history records when individuals had their firearms rights restored. The audit also concluded that certain domestic violence offenses were flagged as disqualifying the individual from purchasing firearms, even though the offenses did not meet the criteria for disqualification. In April 2000, we reported on the FBI’s inability to complete certain NICS background checks within the 3 days allowed under the Brady Act. In our report, we presented to the Congress as a matter for consideration three options for minimizing the number of these transactions that occur—(1) improve state criminal history records; (2) encourage states’ participation in NICS; and (3) allow additional time for certain NICS background checks. These three options bear further discussion here in the context of preventing the sale of firearms to domestic violence offenders. However, given the long-term nature of improving state criminal records, and the reluctance of states to conduct their own NICS background checks, the third option—amending the Brady Act to allow more time to complete NICS background checks before allowing firearms sales to proceed— would have a more immediate effect on reducing the incidence of firearm- retrieval actions—including those involving domestic violence offenders. Improve state criminal history records. The first option was to continue providing grants to states for improving their criminal history records. During fiscal years 1995 through 2001, the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) provided over $350 million in grant funds to assist states to improve the quality and accessibility of their criminal history records, in order to support the implementation of NICS and enhance the effectiveness of NICS background checks. Among the five program priorities for fiscal year 2002, three directly relate to NICS: (1) establishing infrastructure to support the full implementation of NICS, including full state participation in the Interstate Identification Index; (2) supporting state court efforts to improve the completeness of criminal history records; and (3) encouraging states to focus on developing domestic violence record systems that are complete and accessible to NICS. NCHIP is a long-term approach that has resulted in many improvements to state criminal history records. However, our analysis of NICS firearm-retrieval actions indicates that existing criminal records systems are still not sufficient to ensure that ineligible persons— particularly domestic violence offenders—are prevented from purchasing firearms under NICS. Furthermore, in the most recent BJS summary of states’ NCHIP grant programs, none of the six states we visited reported any specific activities or accomplishments on improving the access to or quality of domestic violence misdemeanor records. Encourage state participation in NICS. The second option was to encourage increased state participation in NICS. The FBI originally envisioned that most, if not all, states would conduct their own NICS background checks; however, half the states continue to rely on the FBI to conduct NICS checks for their states. In terms of access to records and expertise in interpreting criminal history records, FBI officials believe that states no longer necessarily have an advantage over FBI examiners. On the other hand, states typically have access to automated and manual records—including arrest dispositions—that are not accessible through NICS. Furthermore, states that conduct their own NICS background checks may have laws that make domestic violence (and other) firearm- retrieval actions less likely to occur. In Utah, for instance, state law prohibits gun dealers from selling a firearm until an affirmative response is provided by the state agency conducting the background check. In California, if background research reveals unresolved questions about a purchaser’s eligibility, the transaction can be put on hold until these questions are resolved. Allow additional time for certain NICS background checks. The third option was to amend the Brady Act to allow more than 3 business days to research unresolved NICS background checks before allowing firearms sales to proceed. FBI data indicate that, depending on how much additional time is allowed, such a change could significantly reduce the incidence of firearm-retrieval actions—including those involving domestic violence offenders. For example, data for roughly the first 3 years of NICS operations (Nov. 30, 1998 through Oct. 19, 2001) show that allowing up to 30 calendar days for background research would have reduced the number of firearm-retrieval actions by about 54 percent. Although this is somewhat less than the 77 percent reduction we previously reported based on the first year of NICS operations, it represents a significant improvement nonetheless. Furthermore, in terms of the burden on firearms purchasers, allowing more time to research unresolved transactions would affect a relatively small percentage of all NICS background checks. According to an FBI analysis of August 2001 NICS data, the vast majority—over 96 percent—of NICS background checks were completed in 5 calendar days or less. Because a significant number of firearm-retrieval actions involve domestic violence misdemeanors, reducing the total number of such actions would, in turn, help reduce the number of domestic violence offenders who are able to purchase firearms under NICS. As required under the Brady Act, a firearms purchase generally may not proceed until the gun dealer has contacted NICS to determine whether the transfer of the firearm would violate federal firearms law and any applicable state law. As a result, state laws and procedures—such as those discussed previously—can have a significant effect on NICS operations, particularly in how NICS examiners interpret state criminal history records to establish a purchaser’s eligibility. Because of the variations in states’ firearms laws, NICS examiners are challenged to identify the applicable federal and state laws for any particular transaction and make a decision to approve or deny the purchase within the 3 business days allowed under the Brady Act. In looking at the differences in how states restore gun ownership rights, issue concealed carry permits, and identify domestic violence convictions in their criminal history records, it is, therefore, important to consider how these actions may affect the operations of a federal program such as NICS. Regarding the restoration of gun ownership rights, there is little doubt that persons who have their gun ownership rights restored by a state action may sometimes commit subsequent crimes—perhaps even crimes that would make them ineligible to possess firearms. Based on the limited number of cases we reviewed from the six selected states, we found few instances where such persons subsequently committed additional crimes. However, regarding how such actions may affect NICS, any such persons would, in all likelihood, be identified by a NICS background check if they later attempted to purchase a firearm. Although some observers may question whether it is appropriate to allow any restoration of gun ownership rights after such rights have been lost through commission of a crime, that issue is not relevant here for purposes of the potential effect on NICS’ ability to screen prospective purchasers and prevent ineligible persons from purchasing firearms. On the other hand, state concealed carry permits—because they may exempt the permit holder from a NICS background check when purchasing firearms—can have a significant effect on NICS ability to prevent the purchase of firearms by ineligible persons. If states do not monitor their permit holders for continuing eligibility, and revoke the permits of persons who become ineligible to possess firearms, it is possible that ineligible persons could use revoked permits to purchase firearms—avoiding a NICS check that might have prevented the sale. ATF has determined that four of the states we visited issue concealed carry permits that exempt permit holders from a NICS check when purchasing firearms. In two of these four states, state officials told us they do not recover all revoked permits and, in fact, they have no authority to force such recovery. In these states, revoked permits could used by ineligible persons to purchase firearms without a NICS check. States could avoid this potential problem by requiring all permit holders to have a separate background check at the time of purchase. A simpler solution—which is practiced in one of these four states—is to require gun dealers to verify the validity of the permit itself before approving a NICS-exempt gun purchase. This procedure allows the NICS exemption for active permit holders, while ensuring that ineligible persons cannot use revoked permits to avoid a NICS check when purchasing firearms. The inability of NICS to access domestic violence misdemeanor records in a timely manner is particularly troubling, since these offenses represent individuals who should be prevented from purchasing firearms. Yet, during roughly the first 3 years of NICS operations, the percentage of NICS firearm-retrieval actions involving domestic violence misdemeanors (representing over 2,800 persons) was disproportionately large—almost double—when compared with the percentage of all NICS denials involving domestic violence misdemeanors. Various factors make domestic violence misdemeanors difficult to identify in a timely manner. For example, while states continue to work to automate and improve the overall quality and accessibility of their criminal history records, this process has been ongoing since the early 1990s and is still far from complete. Also, domestic violence offenses may not always be clearly labeled as domestic violence, and the complex federal definition of domestic violence misdemeanor requires information that may not be immediately available in the state criminal history record. Allowing unresolved NICS transactions to proceed after 3 business days, when combined with these other factors, has resulted in numerous domestic violence offenders being able to purchase firearms without being identified by NICS. These are issues that have been known for years, yet they continue to pose problems for NICS. FBI data suggest that allowing additional time to research unresolved NICS background checks before allowing firearms sales to proceed would significantly reduce the number of firearm-retrieval actions—including those involving domestic violence offenders. For example, based on data for roughly the first 3 years of NICS operations, firearm-retrieval actions would have been reduced by 54 percent if up to 30 days of research were allowed. And, based on the FBI’s recent analysis of NICS transaction data, most background checks would not be affected by such a change—in fact, over 88 percent of the background checks were completed within 1 hour, about 95 percent were completed within 3 calendar days, and over 96 percent were completed within 5 calendar days. Thus, allowing additional time to research unresolved NICS background checks would affect a relatively small percentage of firearms purchasers, while at the same time helping to minimize the number of firearm-retrieval actions. To minimize the possibility of ineligible persons using revoked concealed carry permits to purchase firearms without a NICS background check, we recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury consider developing regulations requiring states to implement point-of-purchase verification procedures, whereby the current validity of concealed carry permits must be verified by licensed gun dealers before transferring firearms to permit holders. To reduce the number of NICS firearm-retrieval actions and improve the ability of NICS to prevent domestic violence offenders from purchasing firearms, the Congress should consider amending the Brady Act to allow more than 3 business days to complete unresolved NICS background checks before firearms sales are allowed to proceed. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Departments of Justice and the Treasury. On June 28, 2002, Justice’s Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy provided us written comments. The comments did not specifically address our report’s recommendation or the matter for congressional consideration. However, Justice acknowledged that the problem of NICS delayed denials (which can lead to firearm- retrieval actions) primarily stems from incomplete or inaccurate state criminal history records. Justice also identified steps it is taking, principally through the NCHIP grant program, to reduce the NICS error rate and achieve the most complete and accurate criminal history record system possible. These steps include (1) directing NCHIP grant funding to assist states to automate and improve their criminal history record systems, (2) encouraging states to use NCHIP funds to flag records of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, and (3) directing BJS to study and recommend ways to target NCHIP grants to improve the accuracy of criminal history records, including those relating to domestic violence. We acknowledge that using NCHIP grant funds to improve the accuracy and completeness of state criminal history records is an appropriate and reasonable long-term strategy for reducing the number of NICS delayed denials and resulting firearm-retrieval actions. However, as we have noted in the report, these efforts have been ongoing since 1995, and yet significant numbers of firearm-retrieval actions have occurred during each year of NICS operations. Moreover, preliminary results from the BJS study noted above indicate that millions of state criminal history records remain incomplete or inaccessible by NICS. This suggests that a different approach is needed—if not permanently, then at least in the short term— to immediately reduce the number of domestic violence offenders and other ineligible persons who are able to purchase firearms under NICS. Allowing additional time to research unresolved NICS background checks before firearms sales can proceed would significantly reduce the number of NICS firearm-retrieval actions. At the same time, Justice could continue working with the states to achieve the long-term goal of improving state criminal history records to the extent that delayed denials and firearm- retrieval actions no longer posed a significant problem. On June 24, 2002, Treasury provided us written comments by the Director of ATF. Generally, ATF agreed with the report’s recommendation to consider developing regulations requiring states to verify the validity of concealed carry permits before allowing firearms transfers to proceed without a NICS background check. ATF noted, however, that it would first need to examine the extent to which persons with revoked permits have, in fact, been able to purchase firearms without NICS background checks. If a real problem is found to exist, then ATF would consider what options are available under current law to deal with the issue. The states that we studied were not maintaining data to facilitate determining to what extent, if any, that revoked permits have been used to purchase firearms without a NICS check. However, in our view, the fact that such a loophole exists and could be abused by persons legally prohibited from purchasing firearms is sufficient reason for ATF to take administrative action to foreclose the possibility of such transfers and, in turn, possibly prevent a firearm-related crime of violence. ATF also commented that certain language in the report could be misinterpreted to imply that ATF favors repeal of the permit alternative under NICS, that ATF believes the rationale for allowing permit holders to avoid a background check at the time of sale is weaker now than it was when the Brady Act was passed in 1993, or that ATF believes holders of valid permits should be required to undergo a separate NICS check at the time of purchase. ATF reiterated that its mandate is to enforce the statute as enacted by Congress and enforce the permit provisions of the Brady Act in a manner consistent with the plain language of the statute as well as congressional intent. We modified our discussion of the permit alternative under NICS in order to clarify ATF’s comments on this issue. The full texts of Justice’s and ATF’s written comments are presented in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. In addition to these written comments, FBI and ATF officials provided us various technical clarifications, which have been incorporated into the report where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and interested congressional committees. Copies will be provided to other parties upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny R. Burton at (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix VIII. Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, requested that we provide information about state laws and procedures regarding restoration of gun ownership rights, issuance of concealed carry handgun permits, and convictions for domestic violence. As agreed with the requester, our work focused on the following questions: Restoration of gun ownership rights, including differences among the states in how such rights may be restored to persons with criminal convictions, and the extent to which persons who had their gun ownership rights restored subsequently committed new crimes. Handgun concealed carry permits, including the extent to which concealed carry permits exempt permit holders from a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check when purchasing firearms, differences among the states in how they issue permits and monitor permit holders, and what actions the states take to revoke permits if the permit holders subsequently commit new crimes. Domestic violence misdemeanor convictions, including differences among the states in how they ensure that domestic violence convictions in state criminal history repositories are accessible to NICS, and the extent to which persons convicted of domestic violence purchased firearms without being identified by NICS. To obtain nationwide perspectives on the three objectives, we met with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials from the FBI’s NICS Program Office in West Virginia, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) officials from ATF’s Firearms Programs Division and Office of Chief Counsel in Washington, D.C. We obtained and reviewed federal reports prepared by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), as well as relevant studies published in professional journals and studies prepared by private sector interest groups. To obtain additional details about specific state laws and procedures, we met with state or local officials in six states—California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. As shown in table 4, and as discussed with the requester, we judgmentally selected these states in order to illustrate the range of state laws and procedures that address restoration of gun ownership rights, handgun concealed carry permits, and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions. Because these three issues may affect NICS’ capability to identify persons ineligible to purchase firearms, we also selected the states to reflect a mix of state participation types under NICS—full participant, partial participant, and nonparticipant. Generally, in performing our work, we relied on testimonial and documentary evidence provided by the states, as well as similar evidence provided by the FBI and ATF. In using state and federal statistical data, we discussed the sources and accuracy of the data with appropriate officials. We also worked with the officials to reconcile any discrepancies we identified in the data. The following sections present more details about our scope and methodology for each of the three objectives. Our work focused on (1) summarizing nationwide perspectives and information on state laws and procedures dealing with the restoration of gun ownership rights, (2) comparing and contrasting specific restoration laws and procedures in selected states, and (3) determining the extent to which restorees subsequently committed new crimes. To obtain nationwide perspectives on restoration of gun ownership rights, we first obtained background information from relevant reports prepared by government agencies and studies published in professional journals about the various ways in which states restore a person’s civil rights and gun ownership rights once those rights have been lost through a criminal conviction. Sources of information included BJS, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, and the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. We also met with FBI NICS Operations Center officials to discuss (1) the extent to which restoration of rights is documented in state criminal history records and (2) how restoration of rights can affect NICS operations—specifically, how the FBI determines in a timely manner whether a particular state action restores an individual’s right to purchase a firearm under applicable federal and state law. To obtain more detailed information about specific state restoration laws and procedures, we met with officials at various state and local agencies in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. We obtained information about relevant state laws, regulations, and procedures that govern the restoration of gun ownership rights, focusing on the four methods recognized in federal firearms law—executive pardons, expungement of criminal records, set-aside of criminal convictions, and restoration of civil rights. To determine the extent to which restorees have been subsequently involved in criminal activity, we first obtained background information from relevant reports prepared by government agencies, studies published in professional journals, and reports prepared by private interest groups. Sources of information included the Department of the Solicitor General (Canada), the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Violence Policy Center. We also met with officials from ATF’s Firearms Programs Division and Office of Chief Counsel to discuss ATF’s federal restoration of rights issues. From the six selected states, we analyzed data on state pardons, expungements, set-asides, and restorations of civil rights to determine whether persons whose firearms rights were restored in these states later committed criminal offenses. The following data were obtained from the six states: California – Data on pardons granted between calendar years 1990 and 2000. Florida – Data on pardons and restorations of firearms authority granted between July 1999 and June 2001. Massachusetts – Data on pardons granted between calendar years 1990 and 2000. Michigan – Data on pardons granted between March 1969 and July 1995, conviction set-asides granted between September 2000 and November 2001, and county restorations of firearms rights granted between October 1992 and June 2001. Texas – Data on pardons granted between calendar years 1992 and 2001. Utah – Data on pardons granted between calendar years 1990 and 2001 and expungements granted between January 2000 and March 2001. We then had our Office of Special Investigations, or in some cases the state agencies themselves, check the names through criminal history databases to determine whether any of those persons had been convicted of additional crimes since the event that restored their rights. The selection of restoration data used in our analysis was largely dependent on the availability of state data for each method of restoration. In some cases, statewide data were not available and in other cases only data from certain time periods were available. In some states, the analysis was based on a review of a small number of cases, in order to facilitate cooperation from the states in helping to analyze the data. For example: None of the states had data available for analysis if gun ownership rights had been restored automatically (in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Texas) or through expungement (in Utah). Some pardon data (in Michigan and Texas) did not have sufficient identifying detail to enable us to perform a check of criminal history databases and, as a result, the cases we examined were limited to the number of pardons that had sufficient detail. In other instances (Florida pardons and Michigan set-asides), the number of cases we examined was limited in order to facilitate cooperation from the states in helping to gather and analyze the data. As a result of these limitations, the analysis of the state restoration data is intended solely to illustrate what we found from the cases we reviewed in the six states we visited, and the results cannot be generalized beyond the timeframes and locations from which the data were collected. Our work focused on (1) determining the extent to which concealed carry permits exempt permit holders from NICS background checks when purchasing firearms; (2) comparing and contrasting laws and procedures for issuing, monitoring, and revoking concealed carry permits in selected states; and (3) determining the extent to which states revoke concealed carry permits when permit holders subsequently commit new crimes. To determine the extent to which concealed carry permits exempt permit holders from NICS background checks, we first reviewed the Brady Act and its implementing regulations to identify any relevant provisions exempting permit holders from NICS checks. We obtained ATF Brady permit exemption lists for 1999 and 2002 identifying which states issued permits that ATF had determined would exempt the permit holders from a NICS background check. We also met with officials from ATF’s Firearms Programs Division and Office of Chief Counsel to discuss ATF’s interpretation of the permit exemption language in the Brady Act and reasons for exempting permits in some states and not others. In the six selected states, we discussed the permit-exemption issue with state officials and identified any state laws affecting the exemption of state permit holders from firearms background checks. To obtain more detailed information about specific state laws and procedures for concealed carry permits, we met with officials at various state and local agencies in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. We obtained information about state laws, regulations, and procedures dealing with concealed carry permits—including (1) how the states screen and approve permit applicants, (2) how the states monitor active permit holders to ensure they remain eligible to possess firearms, and (3) what actions the states take to revoke permits when permit holders become ineligible. To determine the extent to which concealed carry permit holders subsequently commit crimes or other infractions that lead to permit revocation, we first obtained background information from relevant reports prepared by private interest groups. Sources of information included the Cato Institute and the Violence Policy Center. From the six selected states, we obtained and analyzed available data on the number of concealed carry permits issued, the number of permits revoked, and the extent to which states recovered revoked permits from permit holders. Regarding revoked permits, we also obtained available data on the criminal offenses that led to the revocations—including whether these offenses were felonies or misdemeanors and whether they involved a firearm. The following data were obtained from the six states: California – Data on permits issued and revoked during calendar year 2000. Florida – Data on permits issued and revoked between October 1987 (program inception) and December 2001. Massachusetts – Data on permits issued and revoked between October 1998 (major program revision) and February 2002. Michigan – Data on permits issued and revoked between July 2001 (major program revision) and March 2002. Texas – Data on permits issued and revoked between January 1996 (program inception) and October 2001. Utah – Data on permits issued and revoked between January 1994 and December 2001. Our analysis was largely dependent on the availability of state data. In some cases, statewide data were not available, and in other cases only data from certain time periods were available. For example: California permit data were available only for calendar year 2000; Michigan data were available only since July 2001, when the state’s new shall-issue permit law went into effect; and Massachusetts data were available only since October 1998, when a major permit program change took place. Only Florida and Utah data contained detail about whether the crime leading to revocation had involved a firearm, and only Texas and Utah data identified whether the crime committed was a misdemeanor or felony. As a result of these limitations, the analysis of the state concealed carry permit data is intended solely to illustrate what we found from the information we reviewed in the six states we visited, and the results cannot be generalized beyond the timeframes and locations from which the data were collected. Our work focused on (1) summarizing nationwide perspectives and information on state laws and procedures dealing with domestic violence, (2) comparing and contrasting selected states’ laws and procedures for ensuring domestic violence convictions are identified and reported to state criminal history repositories, and (3) determining the extent to which persons with domestic violence convictions are able to purchase firearms because such records were not accessible to NICS. To obtain nationwide perspectives and background information on domestic violence laws and procedures, we reviewed relevant reports by government agencies and private research groups about the various ways in which state criminal codes address domestic violence, as well as the general quality and accessibility of state criminal history records. Sources of information included BJS, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Research and Statistics Association, and the Institute for Law and Justice. To obtain more detailed information about specific state laws and procedures, we met with officials at various state and local agencies in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. We obtained information about relevant state laws, regulations, and procedures dealing with domestic violence—including (1) how the states treat domestic violence in their criminal codes or other state statutes and (2) whether the states impose special identification or reporting requirements on domestic violence records. To determine the extent to which domestic violence offenders are able to purchase firearms under NICS, we first reviewed relevant studies and reports published in professional journals or private interest groups. Sources of information included the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation. We met with officials from the FBI’s NICS Operations Center and ATF’s Firearms Program Division and Office of Chief Counsel to discuss the extent to which domestic violence criminal history records cannot be obtained within 3 business days under NICS (as prescribed under the Brady Act) and the reasons why such records cannot be obtained. We obtained the following FBI and ATF data for roughly the first 3 years of NICS operations (Nov. 30, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2001): We obtained FBI data on the number of NICS firearm-retrieval actions—those where the FBI took more than 3 days to determine the purchaser was ineligible and the firearms then had to be retrieved. We also obtained FBI data on the total number of NICS denials and the reason for these denials—broken out by each of the federal disqualifying factors (including domestic violence). We obtained ATF data on (1) the number of NICS firearm-retrieval actions referred to ATF for retrieval of firearms and (2) the number of these firearm-retrieval actions that had been denied because of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. We used the FBI and ATF data to quantify the number of persons with domestic violence convictions who were able to purchase firearms when such records were not accessible to NICS within 3 business days. The federal data allowed a more comprehensive, nationwide analysis of such transactions, whereas data from the selected states were more limited. For example, some states tracked the number of such transactions but not the disqualifying factors involved, while other states had laws which allowed additional time to complete transactions where the purchaser’s eligibility could not be determined within 3 business days. In determining whether a person is ineligible to possess firearms, applicable federal and state laws must be considered. While federal eligibility restrictions generally apply in all the states, states may place additional restrictions on possessing or purchasing firearms. Although other factors come into play, decisions about a person’s eligibility to possess firearms largely are based on an assessment of state criminal history records. Under federal firearms law, the factors that make a person ineligible to possess (or receive) firearms are generally described in Title 18, Chapter 44, of the United States Code—primarily Sections 922(g) and 922(n). Ineligible persons include the following categories: Convicted felons and persons under felony indictment or information. A felony is generally defined as any federal, state, or foreign offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. It does not include state offenses classified as misdemeanors and for which the punishment is 2 years or less in prison. In addition, what constitutes a conviction is to be determined by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the criminal proceedings were held. Fugitives from justice. A fugitive is generally defined as any person who has fled from any state, either to avoid prosecution or to avoid giving testimony in a criminal case. This definition includes persons who, knowing criminal charges are pending, leave the state of prosecution. Unlawful drug users or persons addicted to a controlled substance. This category includes persons who use controlled substances and have lost the power of self control and persons currently using controlled substances in a manner not prescribed by a licensed physician. An inference of current use may be demonstrated by a drug conviction or positive drug test within the past year, or by multiple drug arrests during the past 5 years. Illegal or unlawful aliens. This category includes aliens who are in the United States without a valid immigrant, nonimmigrant, or parole status, including aliens who entered the country without inspection and authorization or whose authorized period of stay has expired. In addition, certain other aliens lawfully admitted in nonimmigrant status are also ineligible, unless they meet certain exceptions defined in federal firearms law. Persons adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Mental defectives are generally defined as persons who have been determined by a court or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or who lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, including persons who have been found to be insane by a court in a criminal case. Commitment to a mental institution is generally defined as a formal commitment by a court or other lawful authority, including commitment for mental illness or other reasons such as drug use. It does not include persons voluntarily admitted to a mental institution. Persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship. Persons ineligible under this category must have renounced their citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer in a foreign country or before an officer designated by the U.S. Attorney General when the United States is at war. Persons dishonorably discharged from the military. This category includes separation from the U.S. armed forces by a dishonorable discharge or dismissal adjudged by a general court-martial. It does not include separation resulting from any other type of discharge. Persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order. This category includes persons who are subject to a court order that prohibits harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of an intimate partner, or placing such persons in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The order must have been issued after a hearing for which the person had actual notice and an opportunity to participate, and the order must either find a credible threat to the intimate partner or child, or by explicit terms prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. This category includes any federal, state, or local misdemeanor where the offense involves the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian. To be considered ineligible, such persons must have had counsel and a jury trial (if applicable), unless those rights were waived. In addition to federal law, states may have their own specific laws dealing with eligibility to possess or purchase firearms. In some states, only the federal eligibility restrictions apply; in other states, eligibility may go beyond what is required under federal law. In the six states we visited, for example: California, a state which conducts all firearms checks under NICS, prohibits the purchase of a firearm by persons convicted of certain misdemeanors—such as assault, battery, and criminal possession of a firearm—for 10 years following the conviction. Massachusetts, a nonparticipant state under NICS, prohibits possession of firearms by anyone convicted of certain state-defined violent crimes—whether felonies or misdemeanors. Texas, a nonparticipant state under NICS, places no additional state eligibility restrictions on prospective firearms purchasers. Utah, a state which conducts all firearms checks under NICS, prohibits any juvenile adjudicated as delinquent within the past 7 years for an offense that would have been a felony if committed by an adult from purchasing a firearm. In practice, federal and state determinations about eligibility to possess firearms hinge largely upon a person’s criminal history, primarily whether the individual has been convicted of a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor or has been arrested and/or convicted for drug-related offenses. For example, according to FBI data, NICS denied 199,720 firearms purchases during roughly its first 3 years of operation (from Nov. 1998 to Oct. 2001). As shown in table 5, the vast majority of these denials—almost 92 percent—were due to the purchasers’ criminal histories. In a July 2001 report on the implementation of the Brady Act and NICS, BJS reported similar data for state and local agencies that conduct firearms purchase background checks. Specifically, during the year 2000, just over 66 percent of all state and local firearms purchase denials were denied due to felony convictions, felony indictments, or domestic violence convictions. The number of criminal history records maintained by the FBI and the states is enormous—and continues to grow. As shown in table 6, according to BJS, there were over 62 million criminal history records in the United States as of December 1999. The vast majority of these records—about 95 percent—were generated by the states. Furthermore, the total number of criminal history records increased by over 23 percent between 1993—the year the Brady Act was passed—and 1999. As noted previously, most NICS denials are based on criminal history records. As table 6 indicates, these criminal history records are generated predominantly by the states and are maintained in state criminal history repositories. As such, NICS must rely on the accuracy of state criminal history records in making decisions about the eligibility of prospective firearms purchasers. This appendix discusses (1) how federal firearms law recognizes certain state methods of restoring gun ownership rights, (2) national overview information on the availability of these methods throughout the states, and (3) the extent to which these methods have been used by the six states we studied—California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. Persons prohibited from possessing firearms due to a state criminal conviction may, under state laws, have those rights restored by the state in which the criminal offense occurred. Certain types of state actions that serve to restore firearms rights are also recognized under federal law as a restoration of the federal right to possess firearms. This recognition arises out of the meaning of the term conviction—that is, federal law states that what constitutes a conviction is to be determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the criminal proceedings were held. More importantly, federal law specifies that any conviction that has been expunged or set aside, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had his civil rights restored, is not considered a conviction for firearms eligibility purposes unless the expungement, pardon, or restoration expressly prohibits the person from possessing firearms. Thus, federal firearms law recognizes state use of any of the four specified restoration methods to restore gun ownership rights to persons disqualified due to a state criminal conviction. Because relief from firearms disabilities is no longer readily available at the federal level, individuals convicted of disqualifying criminal offenses turn to the states for restoration of gun ownership rights, through one of the four methods recognized by federal law—pardon, expungement, set- aside, or restoration of civil rights. States use these methods to restore firearms rights, as well as any civil rights—such as the right to vote, hold office, and serve on a jury—lost as a result of criminal offenses. Each of these methods can have a different impact on the disqualifying record, as well as the extent to which firearms or civil rights are restored, as described in the next section. Pardon – A pardon is, in general, an executive action that typically mitigates the punishment the law demands for an offense and restores any or all of the rights and privileges forfeited on account of the offense. The power to pardon for state crimes is generally vested in state governors or delegated to state pardon boards. An unconditional or full pardon generally absolves the offender from all legal consequences, direct or collateral, of the crime and conviction and generally restores civil rights. A conditional or partial pardon may require certain actions on the part of the offender or may absolve only a portion of the legal consequences of the crime. States vary in how they document pardon actions in their criminal history record systems. Most states retain records on the original offense, noting the pardon on the criminal history record, while some destroy or seal all records pertaining to the offense. Expungement – An expungement (or erasure) is a procedure whereby a court orders the annulment or destruction of arrest records or other court proceedings, such as a criminal conviction, provided certain conditions are met. When a conviction record is expunged, it may allow the offender to say, under certain circumstances, that he or she has never been convicted; expungement may not, however, automatically restore the offender’s firearms rights. Expungement can also result in the sealing of a record, but whereas certain parties can still examine an erased record, a sealed record can generally be examined only by court order. Expungement and sealing of records are usually provided for by statute for juvenile records, but may also apply to less serious records, such as arrest records for persons acquitted at trial or whose arrest was deemed by a court to be unlawful. Some states require the passage of a certain period of time before an offender can apply for expungement. Some states destroy expunged criminal records, while others note the action in the record or seal the record. Set-Aside – A set-aside is an action that annuls or revokes a previously issued judgment or order—such as a felony conviction. To set-aside a judgment is to make it void or of no effect and to deprive it of all force and operation as to future transactions. The majority of states note a set-aside in the offender’s criminal record; a few destroy the criminal record. Restoration of Civil Rights – Just as state law may impose certain civil and collateral disabilities on criminal offenders, it may also make available procedures to remove those disabilities and restore any rights that were lost upon conviction. In some states, civil and collateral (e.g., firearms) rights may be restored automatically upon completion of sentence or upon the passage of time, as provided for by statute; in other states, restoration of rights may require an administrative or judicial act, which may be based on evidence of rehabilitation. Most states note the restoration in the offender’s criminal record, while a few may destroy the record. As mentioned previously, persons prohibited from possessing firearms due to a state criminal conviction may have those rights restored by the state in which the offense occurred, through any of four specified methods prescribed in federal firearms law—pardon, expungement, set-aside, and restoration of civil rights. Each of these four methods can have a different effect on a prohibited person’s underlying criminal conviction and the extent to which firearms rights are restored. Recent studies have shown that states vary in terms of (1) the restoration methods they employ, (2) the laws and procedures they have in place to implement those restoration methods, and (3) the underlying effect they impose on the criminal record. In 1996, the U.S. Office of the Pardon Attorney reported on the availability of restoration methods among states for felony offenders and found that states vary in terms of the methods available for relief as well the laws they have in place to govern these methods. The variation in procedures was so great that the Office of the Pardon Attorney characterized state laws as a national “crazy-quilt” of disqualifications and restoration procedures. The report also identified disagreement among agencies as to how the laws in particular jurisdictions should be interpreted and applied. Moreover, the Office of the Pardon Attorney found that a restoration of civil rights under state law—even through a governor’s pardon—does not necessarily restore firearms privileges. Despite considerable variation among states, the Office of the Pardon Attorney determined that state laws regarding the loss and restoration of civil rights could be characterized in terms of the following five patterns: Civil rights are not lost upon conviction, or civil rights are lost when the offender is incarcerated and automatically restored upon release. Rights are lost upon conviction, then are automatically restored after completion of sentence, either through passage of time or by obtaining a certificate of discharge from the sentence. Rights are restored through judicial or administrative procedure, which typically requires completion of sentence and a waiting period and may also require proof of rehabilitation. Rights are restored only by pardon. Rights are permanently lost and cannot be restored. Other studies of restoration of civil rights provide context as to the range and use of restoration methods by states and the effect these methods have on disqualifying criminal convictions. For example, a 1997 study regarding the legal consequences of felony convictions compared the availability of restoration methods among states in 1996 with the availability of methods 10 years earlier in 1986. Researchers found that, during those 10 years, states did not increase the number of restoration methods available to former offenders to restore civil rights. The study reported that in 1996 the availability of restoration methods among states was as follows: All 50 states allowed for pardons. In 22 states, the decision to pardon rested with the governor; in 16 states, the decision was shared between the governor and a board of pardons; in 11 states the decision rested with the board of pardons; and in 1 state, the decision required an act of the state’s general assembly. 27 states had some method of felony record expungement (including sealing, annulment, and withheld or deferred judgments). In 9 of the 27 states, the law provided for general expungement or related legal actions. In the other 18 states, the expungement statutes contained specific eligibility requirements for the sealing of criminal records. 42 states statutorily provided for automatic restoration of all or some civil rights for felony offenders. In 22 of the 42 states, the law restored one or more civil rights after completion of sentence. In the other 20 states, an existing general statute restored civil rights. In October 2000, BJS reported on the status of state criminal history information systems. In its report, BJS included the results of a survey, taken in 1999, on the policies and practices of state criminal history repositories with respect to the four restoration methods, showing how each of the methods affected states’ treatment of the underlying criminal history record. This survey showed that in 1999: 49 states reported statutes that provided for the granting of pardons. In 43 of the states, the pardon was to be noted in the criminal history record; in 3 states, the record was to be destroyed; in 1 state, the record was to be sealed; and 2 states did not indicate how pardons were treated in terms of criminal history records. 21 states had statutes providing for the expungement of felony convictions. In 9 of the states, an expunged criminal history record was to be destroyed; in 7 states, the expungement was to be noted in the criminal record; and in 5 states, the record was to be sealed. In two other states, state law did not specifically provide for expungement, but allowed records to be destroyed or sealed based on a court order. 40 states had statutes that provided for the set aside of felony convictions. In 33 of the states, the set-aside was to be noted in the criminal record; in 3 states, the record was to be destroyed; in 1 state, the record was to be sealed; and 3 states did not indicate how set-aside records were to be treated by the state repository. 41 states had legal provisions that provided for the restoration of a convicted felon’s civil rights. In 33 of the states, the restoration was to be noted in the criminal history record; in 3 states, the record was to be destroyed; in 1 state, the record was to be sealed; in 2 states, restoration was not tracked or no action was taken; and 2 states did not indicate how restoration records were to be treated. To obtain more detailed information regarding restoration of gun ownership rights, we reviewed state laws and procedures in six states— California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. Each of the six states we visited provided for the restoration of gun ownership rights through one or more of the four specified methods. Pardon was the most commonly utilized method, with all six states employing some form of pardon—either full or conditional—that restored gun ownership rights to previously ineligible persons. Expungement—available only in Utah—was the least commonly available method of restoring gun ownership rights. For purposes of our study, we identified state laws and procedures to restore state firearms rights that may, in turn, also restore federal firearms rights by means of the four methods recognized under 18 U.S.C § 921. In addition to identifying state actions that fully restore state and federal gun ownership rights, we also identified certain state restoration actions that only partially restore such rights. In the category of “restoration of civil rights,” some actions that restore state gun ownership rights do not restore federal firearms rights, because they do not provide full relief from disabilities—that is, they do not also restore civil rights (as prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 921). Other state restoration actions do not restore federal firearms rights because civil rights were lost as a result of a noncriminal disqualifier (such restorations are not recognized under 18 U.S.C. § 921). Nevertheless, we present the information here in order to illustrate the complexity of state restoration laws and procedures and the interaction between state and federal firearms laws. Regarding the specific state laws and procedures for restoring gun ownership rights, the six states differed primarily in three areas: (1) the processes for application of and approval for relief, (2) the conditions or criteria under which a prohibited person was eligible to receive relief, and (3) the effect restoration methods have on firearms rights. Table 7 shows the differences among the six states in these three areas. The six states we reviewed differed in the processes they have in place for restoring firearms rights. Most of the states either provide for automatic restoration of firearms rights for certain criminal disqualifications, or require an administrative or judicial petition to restore those rights. For example, California employs automatic restoration for persons convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses, 10 years following completion of sentence. Michigan, on the other hand, employs both procedures: persons convicted of low-grade or nonviolent offenses have their rights restored automatically 3 years after completing their sentence, while persons convicted of more serious felonies—such as arson or drug-related felonies—must apply to their County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board for relief 5 years after completing their sentence. In contrast, Utah has no separate provision for restoring firearms rights—individuals in that state must apply for a pardon or an expungement. States also differed in the processes they use for reviewing and awarding pardons. For example, in California, pardons are approved by the governor; in Utah, pardons are approved by a state pardon board; and in Massachusetts, pardons are approved by a review panel, which includes the governor. All of the six states we visited require applicants to meet certain eligibility criteria—depending on the type of restoration method—to qualify for firearms relief, such as the passage of time or the absence of additional convictions. For example, persons in Florida must wait 10 years following the completion of their sentence to apply for a full pardon or 8 years to apply for a restoration of firearms authority. Persons convicted in Michigan of specific felonies—for example, arson—must wait 5 years after the completion of their sentence to apply for relief from their County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board. Many of the states also restrict the types of offenses for which the state will grant relief. For example, California automatically restores firearms rights to offenders convicted of certain misdemeanors—but not felonies—10 years after completion of sentence. Some of the states also require that an applicant have no additional convictions other than the offense in question. In Utah, only certain offenders with two or fewer convictions—only one of which can be a felony—can apply to have their criminal history record expunged. In four of the states we reviewed—California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Texas—certain state restoration actions restore state gun ownership rights, but do not restore federal firearms rights. As a result, persons in these states who are authorized under state law to possess a firearm are still prohibited from doing so under federal law. In California, for example, state law automatically restores the state right to possess or purchase firearms to certain persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, 5 years after their release from confinement. This restoration does not, however, restore federal firearms rights to persons prohibited under this category. Under 18 U.S.C. § 921, state actions to restore firearms rights are recognized as a restoration of federal firearms rights only for persons who lost those rights as a result of criminal disqualifiers (such as a felony conviction), as opposed to noncriminal disqualifiers such as confinement to a mental institution. In Massachusetts, ATF officials have determined that the operation of state law is inconsistent with federal law in terms of restoring firearms rights—both handgun and long gun rights—to persons who have been adjudicated as mentally defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Under Massachusetts statute, persons prohibited under the mental defectives category can seek to regain their state firearms rights if they provide an affidavit from a registered physician attesting that they are not disabled in a manner that should prevent them from possessing firearms. However, according to ATF officials, the same principle that prevents recognition of California’s mental health restoration statute under federal firearms law also prevents recognition of Massachusetts’ mental health restoration statute. That is, the specified methods of restoring firearms rights under 18 U.S.C. § 921 do not include state restoration of firearms rights lost as a result of noncriminal disqualifications. Also in Massachusetts, state law restores the right to possess certain long guns, but not handguns, to nonviolent offenders 5 years following the completion of sentence. According to ATF officials, because this restoration does not apply equally to both handgun and long gun rights, it cannot be recognized under federal law as restoring firearms rights. This stems from a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Caron v. United States, in which the court held that a state restoration action would not restore federal firearms rights, if any restriction on an individual’s right to possess firearms remained following the restoration. Similarly, in Michigan, persons convicted of a nonviolent felony have their firearms rights automatically restored 3 years after completion of sentence, subject to certain conditions. However, the state’s concealed carry law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from ever obtaining a concealed carry permit. According to ATF officials, because of this restriction on the right to obtain a concealed carry permit, Michigan’s restoration only partially restores firearms rights to persons convicted of a felony. As a result, Caron also applies, and such restorations cannot be recognized as restoring federal firearms rights. Texas’ law restores—to varying degrees—state firearms rights that were lost as a result of domestic violence misdemeanor and felony convictions. The law automatically restores, 5 years after completion of sentence, all state firearms rights to persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. The law also allows persons convicted of a felony to possess a firearm in their home 5 years after completion of sentence. However, according to ATF officials, the state law does not restore federal firearms rights for either category of offense—felony or misdemeanor— because it does not also restore the offenders’ civil rights, as specified under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). This appendix presents (1) a national overview of concealed carry permit programs and (2) information about selected states’ permit programs— including how states screen permit applicants, how they monitor the eligibility of permit holders, and what actions states take to revoke permits if the permit holders commit crimes. Concealed carry laws allow gun owners, under certain conditions, to carry a concealed loaded firearm in public. While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits, 42 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public after obtaining a permit from state or local law enforcement authorities. As shown in table 8: Twenty-nine states are commonly known as “shall-issue” states, where a concealed carry permit must be issued if no statutory reason for denial is revealed during a background check of the applicant. Thirteen states are known as “may-issue” states, where the police have discretion to grant concealed carry permits to eligible individuals after considering additional subjective prohibitors, such as the applicant’s history, character, and intended purpose for carrying a firearm. One state allows any legal gun owner to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, under most circumstances. In the remaining seven states, carrying a concealed firearm is generally prohibited. Federal law does not mandate that states establish certain eligibility criteria for issuing concealed carry permits. As such, state laws generally define the eligibility criteria that individuals must meet in order to obtain and maintain a concealed carry permit. To better understand the differences among states’ concealed carry laws, we visited six states. As noted in table 8, four of the six states we visited—Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Utah—were “shall-issue” permit states. The other two— California and Massachusetts—were “may-issue” states. The following sections provide a more detailed description of each state’s permit laws and procedures for screening permit applicants, monitoring the eligibility of permit applicants, and revoking permits if disqualifying offenses are detected. In the six states we visited, the concealed carry permit programs were administered either at the state level or by local officials, depending on the state. Administrative procedures generally included permit application, applicant screening, and permit issuance, as well as permit monitoring and revocation. All the states we visited had formal procedures for performing background checks of permit applicants before issuing concealed carry permits. However, the thoroughness and types of databases used during background checks varied slightly. The states also had procedures in place for revoking permits once officials became aware, through monitoring efforts, that a permit holder had committed a disqualifying offense or otherwise became ineligible to have a permit. However, once a permit was revoked, only two of the states would ensure that permit holders returned the permits to the revoking authority by seizing the permits. Also, only one of the states provided for any enforcement penalties for failure to surrender a revoked permit. Each of the states we visited requires applicants to fill out a form with background information and previous criminal history, if any. In addition to the information presented by the applicant, each state performs independent background screening using a variety of federal and state criminal and noncriminal information sources. To determine eligibility to obtain a concealed carry permit, each state screened applicants based on various disqualifiers outlined in federal and state law. In addition to the federal firearms disqualifiers, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and illegal aliens, the concealed carry laws in these states identified additional disqualifiers—such as certain violent or firearms-related misdemeanors (California and Michigan), driving under the influence (Michigan), or the inability to demonstrate competency with a firearm in an approved safety course (all states visited). As shown in table 9, in screening permit applicants for eligibility, the permit-issuing entity in each state is to consult both federal and state sources of criminal justice data. In all the selected states except Florida, the issuing entity is either a state or local law enforcement agency; Florida’s Department of State issues the permits, while the background screening is performed by Florida’s Department of Law Enforcement. In addition to name-based searches using both federal and state information sources, the states’ screening procedures also include fingerprint-based checks performed by the state and the FBI. Specifically, with regard to nationwide sources of criminal and other disqualifying data, each state screens permit applicants against the three databases that make up the NICS system—the Interstate Identification Index, the National Crime Information Center, and the NICS Index. In addition, each state we visited queried its own state criminal history repository in reviewing permit applicants. The states also maintained other information sources that they consulted during the screening process. For example, all the states we visited reviewed records of fugitive warrants. In addition, most states reviewed listings of protection orders and mental health records. Also, some of the states consulted information sources unique to their respective states when screening permit applicants. California, for example, queried records on persons under supervisory release (i.e., on probation or parole), and Utah reviewed driver’s license records. Only two of the six states we visited included a check of local records as a routine portion of the permit-screening process. For instance, Texas law enforcement officials examine records kept at the local (county) level as a routine part of the concealed carry permit background investigation. A Texas Department of Public Safety officer is to physically visit the local courthouse in the county where the applicant resides to examine local records. Also, local officials in Michigan are to check local records for pending charges and ongoing investigations, in addition to records in previous counties of residence if the concealed carry permit applicant has lived in the present county only a short period of time. The remaining states generally seek details from local records only when an automated records search reveals a possible problem with incomplete data—for example, a potentially disqualifying arrest without a disposition. Another example of a difference in background screening processes concerns time limits. All the states we visited have some time limitation for the background check process specified in the state’s law. However, Florida’s concealed carry permit law requires the state to issue the permit after 90 days—even if the background check has not been completed— unless the applicant is ineligible or has a potentially disqualifying arrest without disposition information. According to Florida officials, this situation could and does occur when the state does not receive fingerprint results back from the FBI within the 90-day time limit. During fiscal year 2001, for example, 1,065 concealed carry permits were issued without a completed background check. In these situations, if the permit holders are later determined to be ineligible, the state must take action to revoke the permits—which occurred 461 times between 1987 and 2001. In the other states we visited, officials could use discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a permit when the background screening could not be completed within the time frames established by the respective state’s concealed carry law. Once concealed carry permits are issued, the states are to monitor permit holders to ensure continued eligibility and, if needed, revoke the permits of persons who become ineligible. Five of the six states we visited had formal mechanisms in place for detecting a disqualifying criminal offense or other disqualifying factors committed by permit holders. As shown in table 10, these mechanisms include computerized matching of names of concealed carry permit holders against state criminal records (Utah and Florida), manual notifications to the state’s permit authority by the courts when a concealed carry permit holder is convicted of a criminal offense (Michigan), and point-of-purchase verification of a permit’s validity (Utah). With regard to automated database checks, two states—California and Texas—have procedures to continually match permit holders’ names against state criminal records. In Texas, for example, new criminal records are automatically matched against existing state records (including the database of permit holders) as they are added to the state criminal records repository. In two other states—Florida and Utah—state criminal records and other potentially disqualifying records are matched against the names of active permit holders on a periodic basis. Florida, for example, conducts periodic matches of permit holders against a variety of state databases and records, including criminal histories (weekly), protection orders and repeat violent offenders (daily), corrections records (monthly), and motor vehicle records (monthly). Utah conducts a daily computer check by matching records in the state criminal repository to the list of permit holders to determine if any of them have been charged with or convicted of a disqualifying offense. After Utah began daily matching in February 2000, the number of permits identified for revocation increased over 240 percent—from 75 revocations in 1999 to 256 revocations in 2000. Rather than automated monitoring processes, Michigan depends on a formal process of reporting offenses committed by concealed carry permit holders. That is, when a permit holder is charged with an offense that could potentially result in revocation of his or her permit, the applicable prosecutor is to notify the county gun board that issued the individual’s permit. Following prosecution, a court official is to notify the county gun board about the results, including information about any disqualifying conviction. Massachusetts, on the other hand, has no formal statewide mechanism for monitoring concealed carry permit holders for continued eligibility. Rather, monitoring is done on an ad hoc basis, such as when one local law enforcement entity requests information on a suspicious permit holder from another locality. Local permit-issuing authorities (police departments) have informal agreements regarding the sharing of criminal records on permit holders to help facilitate this process. Massachusetts officials told us they expect to have an automated system in place in the future to more closely monitor permit holders. Among the states we visited, Utah uniquely monitors its concealed carry permit holders at the time of purchase of a firearm. That is, before selling firearms to a permit holder, a gun dealer is required to verify the validity of the permit presented, in order to allow the purchase to proceed without a NICS background check (ATF has determined that Utah permits qualify to exempt the permit holders from a NICS background check when purchasing firearms). In the other states we visited—Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas—where ATF allows certain concealed carry permits to be presented in lieu of a NICS check, the gun dealer performs only a visual inspection of the permit. In Utah, the dealer is to visually inspect the permit and call the state’s Bureau of Criminal Identification to verify that the permit is still valid and has not been revoked. Florida and Texas officials commented that, without this provision in their state laws, an individual conceivably could present a revoked concealed carry permit and purchase a firearm without a NICS check. After detecting a disqualifying criminal offense or other disqualifying factor, all six states have similar procedures in place for revoking a concealed carry permit. In addition to criminal offenses, a revocation could also be warranted if the individual had developed a noncriminal prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm (e.g., diagnosed with a mental illness or subject to a domestic violence restraining order). As shown in table 11, firearms prohibitions in all the states we visited included federal disqualifiers, such as felony convictions, along with additional prohibitions put in place by the states. Regarding additional prohibitors, three of the six states visited revoke a concealed carry permit for any violent offense—whether a felony or misdemeanor. In addition, all six states identified certain misdemeanor offenses that would result in revocation. Michigan, for example, designates specific misdemeanors as revocable offenses upon conviction—including driving under the influence, assault, child abuse, and various firearms- related offenses. Some of the states had other unique disqualifiers that could lead to revocation for their permit holders. For example, in Michigan, the concealed carry permit law generally provides that pending felony charges in any state or federal jurisdiction can result in permit suspension and revocation. Massachusetts is similar in that an arrest warrant in any jurisdiction—whether in state or out of state—will result in permit revocation. Texas also revokes permits for certain noncriminal activities—such as delinquency on taxes, student loans, or child support. Of the six states we visited, only Massachusetts had laws establishing any civil or criminal penalties if an individual failed to return a revoked permit to state authorities. If a person fails to return his or her revoked permit, as required by Massachusetts state law, the state may charge the individual with a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to 2-½ years. Massachusetts was also one of only two states (California was the other) where we found that local permit-issuing authorities would actively seek out and seize permits once they had been revoked. Massachusetts law generally requires that revoked permits be surrendered to the permit-issuing agency and, if not surrendered, the licensing authority is to take possession of the permit and the permit holders may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. In California, although not a requirement in state law, local law enforcement officials also told us that revoked permits are seized. In contrast, state officials in Florida and Texas—two states with large numbers of concealed carry permit holders—told us that they did not actively seek out and recover revoked permits. Furthermore, neither state has sanctions in place to force the return of revoked permits or otherwise penalize permit holders who do not voluntarily surrender their revoked permits. Data from Florida and Texas illustrate the extent to which revoked permits are not surrendered. In fiscal year 2001, Florida issued over 25,000 concealed carry permits. Due to the 90-day limit on application processing mandated by state law, 1,065 of these permits were issued before the background check was completed. State officials later found that 18 of these persons were ineligible to have a concealed carry permit and these permits were then revoked. However, state officials told us that 7 of these persons did not voluntarily surrender their revoked permits. Although Texas officials did not have specific data, they estimated that about 20 percent of all revoked permits are not recovered by the state. Based on the total number of revocations (1,659) in Texas between January 1996 and October 2001, this would represent an estimated total of about 332 revoked permits that were not recovered. Among the federal firearms prohibitors, identifying domestic violence misdemeanor convictions for purposes of firearms background checks presents a unique challenge. Although the law establishing this prohibitor was retroactive, domestic violence offenses have historically been categorized as assaults, making it difficult to isolate domestic violence misdemeanors from other nondisqualifying misdemeanors. In particular, the complex federal definition of domestic violence misdemeanor requires information about court proceedings that may not be immediately available in automated criminal history records. Thus, additional manual research may be necessary to determine whether a misdemeanor offense constitutes a federal firearms prohibitor. This appendix (1) provides details about the complex federal definition of domestic violence misdemeanor; (2) presents national overview information about the laws and procedures states have developed regarding domestic violence offenses; and (3) summarizes specific laws and procedures used in the six states we reviewed—California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. In September 1996, as part of the 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress banned the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The so-called Lautenberg Amendment amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to make it unlawful for any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess or receive firearms. As defined in the law, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is an offense that is a misdemeanor under federal or state law and has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by (1) a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; (2) a person with whom the victim shares a child in common; (3) a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian; or (4) a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. In addition to the detailed definitional criteria and elements of the offense, the Lautenberg Amendment also prescribed a series of more complex exceptions to the firearms prohibition. Under these exceptions, a person is not considered to be convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances: The person was not represented at trial by counsel (unless he or she waived the right to counsel). The person was entitled to a jury trial but the case was not tried by jury (unless he or she waived the right to a jury trial). The conviction was expunged or set-aside, or the person was pardoned or had his or her civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) and the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. Federal firearms regulations provide that the definition of domestic violence includes any misdemeanor that meets the criteria, regardless of whether the applicable state statute or local ordinance does or does not define the offense as “domestic violence.” For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against his or her spouse would be prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under the law. Also, the firearms prohibition applies to any disqualifying misdemeanor, regardless of the court of record (federal, state, or local) where the conviction occurred. In practice, most criminal history records are generated by the states, not the federal government. As such, with respect to domestic violence misdemeanors, the determination of a person’s eligibility to purchase firearms is based largely on review of state criminal history records and related documents. As BJS stated in its February 2000 report on improving criminal history records, identifying domestic violence misdemeanor convictions for purposes of a firearms background check presents a unique challenge. Although the law establishing this prohibiting category was retroactive, domestic violence incidents have historically been categorized simply as assaults, making it difficult to isolate them from other criminal history records. In addition, where additional research is necessary, information about misdemeanors may be more difficult to track down than felonies. In its recent report on the use and management of criminal history records,BJS noted that most state criminal repositories collect information only about the most serious classes of misdemeanor offenses. Moreover, BJS noted that the general lack of comprehensive misdemeanor arrest and disposition data has already been identified as one of the major deficiencies in state criminal history record systems. FBI NICS officials confirmed that researching domestic violence misdemeanor convictions can be laborious. It often involves manual research going back to the original court records—and in some cases to arresting agency reports—to verify what happened and who was involved, in order to determine whether the offense constitutes a federal firearms prohibitor. In general, domestic violence misdemeanor conviction records are maintained, along with all other types of criminal records, in state criminal history repositories. Some states have developed specific systems or procedures for identifying and collecting data on domestic violence offenders, with the effect of making such records more easily identifiable for law enforcement and for other purposes. In a July 1996 report to Congress, the National Institute of Justice reported that many states were collecting data (or implementing systems to collect data) on domestic and sexual violence offenses. According to state survey results, 35 of 47 responding states and territories collected domestic violence statistics annually; however, there was wide variation among states with regard to what information was collected and how it was gathered—reflecting the differences in how states approached these issues and their existing structures for collecting general crime data. For example, some states enacted specific domestic or family violence statutes that clearly defined this as an offense; some states had not designated domestic violence as a separate offense but had instituted reporting systems for cases that could be characterized as such; in states with an incident-based crime reporting system, some had derived domestic violence crime statistics from the existing system; and in states lacking incident-based capability, some had created domestic violence reporting systems. An October 1999 update to the 1996 report on domestic and sexual violence expanded on the original findings. With respect to law enforcement databases—which collect data on offenses reported to or arrests by local law enforcement agencies—34 states reported having some type of law enforcement data collection system for domestic violence. In discussing the key components of law enforcement databases, the report stated that domestic violence offenses in these systems can be identified through a number of methods—including relationship and offense codes, flags, specific offense codes, and specific crime statutes. For example, “flags”—typically a special line entry or box that is checked—clearly designate an offense in the state’s criminal history records as domestic violence, thus making these offenses easier to identify for law enforcement purposes. Recognizing the advantages of these systems, the report recommended, among other things, that states should implement incident-based reporting systems that use nationally compatible offense and relationship codes. In October 2000, the Institute for Law and Justice—under a grant from the National Institute of Justice—reported on state domestic violence laws from a law enforcement perspective. The report noted that criminal code provisions for addressing domestic violence include both traditional common law offenses—such as assault and battery—as well as provisions that specifically criminalize domestic violence and related offenses. Specifically, 37 states had enacted domestic battery laws to complement common law assault and battery laws. These offenses can be classified as misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the circumstances. According to the report, the primary purpose of these laws is to provide enhanced penalties, especially for repeat offenses. However, the laws also provide a basis to more clearly identify domestic violence-related offenses within a state’s criminal history records. The report concluded that the states had adopted widely variant statutory models for addressing domestic violence and that state legislation making domestic violence a crime was “largely a hodge-podge of differing provisions.” To address these issues, the report identified certain model legislative guidelines that states could follow in revamping their domestic violence laws. With respect to criminal law provisions, these guidelines included, among other things, the establishment of specific state domestic violence assault and battery offenses. In April 2002, BJS issued its latest in a series of surveys of state procedures for firearms sales. Among other things, BJS surveyed the states to determine what automated or manual databases maintained by state agencies were normally available to checking agencies during the course of firearms background checks. As of June 2001, BJS found that all 50 states had established criminal history databases containing—at a minimum—felony arrests and convictions and, in some cases, dispositions and other data on domestic violence and other misdemeanors. In addition to these general criminal history databases, BJS further reported that 33 of the states surveyed had misdemeanor conviction databases that could also be accessed during firearms background checks. However, the report did not indicate whether these databases were automated or manual, nor the extent to which they included domestic violence convictions. In the six states we visited, we looked for various approaches used by the states that could make it easier to identify domestic violence convictions in state criminal history records for purposes of NICS background checks. As shown in table 12, these approaches included establishing a specific domestic violence criminal offense, defining domestic violence as an element of certain general criminal offenses, enacting penalty enhancement statutes for domestic violence offenses, and flagging domestic violence offenses in the criminal history records. As table 12 shows, two of the six states we visited—California and Michigan—have specific statutes that make domestic violence a criminal offense. In California, the state penal code has a separate citation for misdemeanor battery, when the violence involves a spouse or other similar relationship (Sec. 243e). In addition, the state penal code contains another statute that makes certain offenders—that is, persons who willfully inflict a traumatic injury on their spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of their child—guilty of a felony (Sec. 273.5). When a person is convicted of domestic violence under these statutes, California law enforcement personnel are to enter the appropriate citation in the criminal history record, thus making the offenses clearly identifiable as domestic violence for NICS background check purposes. Similarly, in Michigan, the state penal code statute for assault and battery includes a separate provision for domestic violence misdemeanor when the assault involves a family member or other close relationship (Sec. 750.81(2)). Two states—Florida and Utah—define domestic violence in noncriminal statutes, rather than within the context of a specific domestic violence criminal offense. For example, Florida’s statutes on domestic relations define domestic violence to mean offenses such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by another who is or was residing in the same home (Sec. 741.28). Florida also requires a minimum level of punishment when any of the specified domestic violence-related offenses are committed. Similarly, Utah’s code of criminal procedure contains the Cohabitant Abuse and Procedures Act, which includes a definition of domestic violence (Sec. 77-36-1). Within this definitional statute, certain crimes are identified—such as assault and harassment—which, if they involve one cohabitant assaulting another, are considered to be domestic violence offenses. In both states, however, the offenses themselves are still charged under general criminal statutes and, thus, they may not be easily identified in the criminal records during the course of a NICS background check. Four states—California, Michigan, Texas, and Utah—have penalty- enhancement statutes that provide for additional punishment when convicted domestic violence offenders are subsequently convicted of another domestic violence offense. For example, under the Michigan domestic violence statute, a convicted first-time offender is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in prison, making this a less serious misdemeanor. However, second-time offenders are guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in prison (Sec. 750.81(3)), and third-time offenders are guilty of a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison (Sec. 750.81(4)). These enhancements increase the penalty for the domestic violence offense, but also—because they are considered more serious than first-time offenses—make them subject to more stringent reporting procedures to the state’s criminal history repository. Texas, has a penalty-enhancement statute for familial assault (Sec. 22.01(b)), which is a separate citation under the state’s penal code for general assault. A misdemeanor offense normally charged under the assault statute is enhanced to a felony if the defendant has previously been convicted of an assault involving the offender’s spouse or other member of the household. While felony enhancements would be easily identifiable in the criminal records as disqualifying offenses during a NICS background check, first- time misdemeanor offenders charged under the general assault statute may not be as easily identified, since this part of the statute includes not only domestic assaults, but other types of assaults as well. Finally, three of the six states—Florida, Michigan, and Utah—identify domestic violence offenses in their criminal history database by using an automated flag. According to Florida officials, 2 years ago the Florida Department of Law Enforcement implemented an automated fingerprint system that allows users to check a “yes/no” box when submitting a domestic violence offense to the state’s criminal history repository. In addition, this system provides a narrative field that allows users to enter details of the domestic violence incident. The “yes/no” box and narrative field allow anyone conducting a NICS background check to quickly see from the criminal history record if the person has a domestic violence offense on his or her record. In Michigan, any time the offense code for a domestic violence offense is entered into the criminal history record, the system automatically places a flag in the record indicating that it is a disqualifying domestic violence offense. One of the states we visited—Massachusetts—has no specific domestic violence criminal offense statute, nor other mechanism for easily identifying domestic violence offenses in the state’s criminal history records. In February 2002, the state amended its criminal statutes (Chap. 265, Sec. 13A) in order to create two new types of offenses—assault or battery against pregnant women and assault or battery in violation of certain protective orders. Although both provisions could be used to prosecute domestic violence-related offenses, the former provision could also be used to prosecute an assault where there is no family or household relationship involved. Also, this provision does not define or include any reference to the offender-victim relationship as a required element of the offense. As such, a conviction under the new statute, in and of itself, would not always be an indicator that the offense is domestic violence- related. In addition to the above, David Alexander, Philip Caramia, Marco Gomez, Barbara Guffy, Geoffrey Hamilton, Michael Harmond, William McDaniel, and Ellen Wolfe made key contributions to this report. | The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) searches state criminal history records to prevent gun sales to ineligible persons. GAO found that state firearm laws and procedures may affect how these records are used by NICS. Each of the six states GAO surveyed had some mechanism by which persons with criminal convictions could have their rights to own a firearm restored. The six states typically require a waiting period before someone can apply for relief, and some criminal convictions make a person ineligible for restoration. In 26 states, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has determined that a concealed carry permit may exempt permit holders from an NICS background check when they are buying a firearm. This situation underscores the need to carefully screen applications and monitor permit holders to ensure their eligibility to own firearms. The six states used various approaches to make it easier to identify individuals convicted of domestic violence. Despite these efforts, NICS failed to detect more than 2,800 persons convicted of domestic violence who bought firearms during the first three years the system was in operation. |
The Senate imposes some general procedural requirements and prohibitions on its committees, but, in general, the Senate's rules allow each of its standing committees to decide how to conduct business. Most of the chamber's requirements for committees are found in Senate Rule XXVI. Because the committees are agents of the Senate, they are obligated to comply with all Senate directives that apply to them. This report identifies and summarizes the provisions of the Senate's standing rules, standing orders, precedents, and other directives that relate to legislative activity in the Senate's standing committees. The report covers four main issues: committee organization, committee meetings, hearings, and reporting. The coverage of this report is limited to requirements and prohibitions that are of direct and general applicability to most or all Senate committees, as they consider most legislative matters. This report may not capture every nuance and detail of the rules themselves. For that purpose, the text of the appropriate rule or other document should be consulted. Adoption of committee rules ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 2 Each committee is required to adopt written rules to govern its proceedings. Committee rules must not be inconsistent with the rules of the Senate, but the Standing Rules do not elaborate on what this means in practice. Publication of committee rules ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 2 The rules adopted by each committee are to be published in the Congressional Record by March 1 of the first session of each two-year Congress. If the Senate should create a committee on or after February 1, the committee must adopt its rules and publish them in the Record within 60 days. If a committee later adopts an amendment to its rules, that amendment becomes effective only after it is published in the Record . Committee records ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(b) Each committee, except for the Appropriations Committee, is to keep a record of its actions, including rollcall votes taken. Authority to meet ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 1 A standing committee and its subcommittees are authorized to meet and to hold hearings when the Senate is in session as well as during its recesses or adjournments. Committees do not have unlimited authority to meet when the Senate is also meeting. Meetings during Senate sessions ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a) A committee may not meet (or continue a meeting in progress) on any day (1) after the Senate has been in session for two hours, or (2) after 2:00 p.m. when the Senate is in session. This prohibition does not apply to the Appropriations and Budget Committees. The rule allows the majority and minority leaders (or their designees) to jointly waive the requirement for other committees, but in practice the Senate instead waives it by unanimous consent on the floor if no Senator objects. Regular meeting day ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 3 Each committee must designate a regular day on which to meet weekly, biweekly, or monthly. This requirement does not apply to the Appropriations Committee. In practice, committees do not always convene on the specified meeting date. Many committees meet at more frequent intervals than specified in their rules. Additional committee meetings ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 3 The chair of a committee may call additional meetings at his or her discretion. In addition, three members of a committee can make a written request to the chair to call a special meeting. The chair then has three calendar days within 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. This is a rarely used device. However, the expectation that Senators are prepared to invoke it may encourage committee chairs to schedule meetings sought by other committee members. Scheduling meetings ; Standing Orders of the Senate; Section 401 of S.Res. 4 , 95 th Congress When a committee or subcommittee schedules or cancels a meeting, it is to provide that information—including the time, place, and purpose of the meeting—for inclusion in the Senate's computerized schedule information system. (See Public Announcement , below.) Open meetings ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(b) In general, committee and subcommittee meetings, including hearings, are open to the public. For any committee or subcommittee meeting (or a series of meetings on the same subject that may extend up to 14 calendar days), the committee or subcommittee is authorized to vote to close a meeting if it (1) involves national security information, (2) concerns committee personnel or staff management or procedure, (3) could invade personal privacy or damage someone's reputation or professional standing, (4) could reveal identities or damage operations relating to law enforcement activities, (5) could disclose certain kinds of confidential financial or commercial information, or (6) could divulge information that some law or regulation requires to be kept confidential. By agreeing, in open session, to a motion made (and seconded) to close the meeting to the public, the committee can go into closed session only to determine whether the subject of the meeting or the testimony at the hearing falls into any of the six specified categories. If it determines that this is the case, the committee can then decide by a second rollcall vote in open session to close the remainder of the meeting. Presiding at committee meetings ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 3 In the absence of the committee chair at any committee meeting, the next ranking member of the majority party shall preside. Quorum at meeting ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(1) A committee or subcommittee may set its own quorum requirement for transacting business at meetings so long as the quorum is not less than one-third of the membership. A committee can set a lesser quorum requirement for hearings, but a majority must be physically present to order a measure or matter reported; see Quorum at hearing and Quorum for reporting , below. Also, proxies cannot be used to constitute a quorum; see Proxy votin g , below. Maintaining order ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(d) The committee chair is responsible for maintaining order at committee meetings and may close a meeting for that purpose until order is restored. Proxy voting ; Rule XXVI, paragraphs 7(a)(3) and 7(c)(1) A committee may adopt rules permitting proxy voting (see Proxy votes on reporting , below). However, 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. Proxies may not be counted for the purpose of constituting a quorum. Records of committee meetings ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(e) Each committee shall maintain a transcript or recording of each committee meeting, whether it is open or closed to the public. This requirement can be waived by majority vote. Unless the meeting is closed, a transcript or a video or audio recording must be posted on the Internet no later than 21 business days after the meeting and remain posted until the end of the Congress after the meeting; this requirement may be waived by the Rules and Administration Committee in cases of technical barriers to compliance. Authority to hold hearings ; see Authority to meet , above. Investigative authority ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 1 Each standing committee, including any of its subcommittees, is empowered to investigate matters within its jurisdiction. Subpoena power ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 1 Each standing committee, including any of its subcommittees, is empowered to issue subpoenas for persons and documents. Public announcement ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(a) 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." (See Scheduling m eetings , above.) This requirement does not apply to the Appropriations and Budget Committees. Quorum at a hearing ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(2) A committee or subcommittee may set its own quorum requirement of less than one-third of the members "for the purpose of taking sworn testimony." The Senate standing rules do not set a minimum quorum for this purpose. Several committee rules allow sworn testimony to be taken with just one member in attendance. (See Quorum at a meeting and Quorum for r eporting , below.) Statements of witnesses ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(b) Each committee is to require each witness to file a written statement at least one day before his or her appearance, though the chair and ranking minority member may waive this requirement. This provision does not apply to the Appropriations Committee. Staff summaries of testimony ; Rule XXVI, paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) The committee may direct its staff to prepare daily digests of the statements that witnesses propose to present and then to prepare daily summaries of the testimony that the committee actually received. With the approval of the chair and ranking minority member, the committee may include the latter summaries in any published hearings. Witnesses selected by the minority ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(d) During hearings on any measure or matter, the minority shall be allowed to select witnesses to testify on at least one day if the chair receives such a request from a majority of the minority party members prior to the end of the hearing. This provision does not apply to the Appropriations Committee. Open hearings ; see Open meetings , above. Broadcasting hearings ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(c) Any hearing that is open to the public also may be open to radio and television broadcasting. However, committees and subcommittees may adopt rules to govern how the media may broadcast the event. Printing and/or posting of hearings ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 10(a), Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(e) Each committee is authorized to print its hearing records as well as material submitted at hearings for the record. Records of the committee belong to the Senate and are open for review by any Member of the Senate. Such records should be kept separately from the records of the chair of the committee. Unless the meeting is closed, a transcript or a video or audio recording must be posted on the Internet no later than 21 business days after the meeting and remain posted until the end of the Congress after the meeting; this requirement may be waived by the Rules and Administration Committee in cases of technical barriers to compliance. Availability of printed hearings ; Rule XVII, paragraph 5 If a committee has held hearings on a measure or matter it has reported, the committee is to "make every reasonable effort" to have the printed hearings available to Senators before the Senate begins floor consideration of the measure or matter. Authority to originate measures ; Rule XXV, paragraph 1 A committee with legislative jurisdiction under Rule XXV has "leave to report by bill or otherwise" on matters within its jurisdiction. In other words, the committee is authorized to originate bills and resolutions in addition to reporting measures previously introduced and referred to it. Committee amendments ; Rule XV, paragraph 5 A Senator may raise a point of order on the floor against consideration of any reported committee amendment that contains "any significant matter" that is not within the committee's jurisdiction except for a "technical, clerical, or conforming amendment." This prohibition does not apply to provisions of an original bill that a committee reports. Quorum for reporting ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(1) A majority of a committee must be physically present when the committee votes to order the reporting of any measure, matter, or recommendation. (See Quorum at hearing and Quorum at meeting , above.) Vote required to report ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(3) The motion to order the reporting of a measure or matter requires the support of a majority of the members who are present, and in turn, the members who are physically present must constitute a majority of the committee. (See Quorum for reporting , above.) Proxy votes on reporting ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(3) A committee may adopt a rule prohibiting the use of proxies on votes to order a measure or matter reported. If a committee permits the use of proxies on such votes, the preceding two requirements (in regard to a proper reporting quorum) continue to apply. Ratification of prior actions ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 7(a)(3) When a committee orders a measure or matter reported in accordance with the three immediately preceding rule provisions (that is, in regard to a proper reporting quorum and a proper vote to report), that action has the effect of ratifying previous committee actions on the measure or matter. In other words, if a measure or matter has been reported properly, a Senator may not make a point of order on the Senate floor against the measure's consideration on the basis of a committee action or inaction that occurred prior to the vote on reporting it. (This is sometimes called the "clean-up" provision of Rule XXVI.) The following requirements concern the content of committee reports on legislation. The Senate's rules do not require a committee to file a written report when it reports a bill or resolution to the Senate. However, if a written report is filed, Senate rules and statutes specify certain items that must be included: Other views ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 10(c) A committee member is entitled to have his or her supplemental, minority, or additional views included in the committee's report on a measure or matter if the committee member (1) gives notice, at the time the committee orders the measure or matter reported, of his or her intent to submit such views, and (2) files those views in writing within three calendar days of the committee vote. This provision does not apply to the Appropriations Committee. Rollcall votes taken ; Rule XXVI, paragraphs 7(b) and (c) A committee report on a measure shall contain the results of any rollcall votes taken on the measure and amendments to it and on the motion to order it reported, including the names of Senators voting in support or against. This requirement does not apply if the results have been "previously announced by the committee." Cost estimate ; Section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act ( P.L. 93-344 ). (Related requirements are found in Section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act and in Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 11(a).) The report on a measure or committee amendment that would provide new budget, direct spending, or credit authority, or change revenues or tax expenditures, is to include (1) comparisons with appropriate committee allocations, (2) a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) covering the first fiscal year affected and the following four fiscal years, and (3) an estimate, also prepared by CBO, of new budget authority provided for assistance to state and local governments. This requirement does not apply to continuing appropriations, and the second and third items need to be included only if they are "timely submitted" by CBO. Comparative print ; ("Cordon Rule," named after Senator Guy Cordon); Rule XXVI, paragraph 12 The committee report accompanying any measure that would repeal or amend existing law must show what the measure proposes to repeal and, using appropriate typographical devices, how the existing law would be amended by the bill if it were enacted as reported by the committee. A committee may dispense with this requirement if it states in its report that doing so is necessary "to expedite the business of the Senate." Regulatory and paperwork impact statement ; Rule XXVI, paragraphs 11(b) and (c) The report on a public bill or joint resolution must typically include an evaluation of the measure's anticipated impact in several respects: (1) its regulatory impact on individuals and businesses, (2) the economic effects of its regulatory impact, (3) its impact on personal privacy, and (4) the amount of paperwork and recordkeeping it would require. This requirement does not apply to the Appropriations Committee, nor does it apply to reports on Senate or concurrent resolutions or on private measures. Furthermore, any committee need not comply if it states in its report why compliance would be "impracticable." A Senator may make a point of order on the floor against considering a bill if the report accompanying it does not comply with this requirement. Applicability to Congress ; Section 102(b)(3) of P.L. 104-1 The report accompanying a bill or joint resolution "relating to terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations" must describe how the provisions of the measure apply to the legislative branch or why they do not. A point of order can be made on the floor against Senate consideration of a measure if the accompanying report does not comply with this requirement, but the requirement may be waived by majority vote of the Senate. Preemption information ; Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act ( P.L. 93-344 ), as amended An authorizing committee's report accompanying a bill or joint resolution must contain a statement, if relevant, on the extent to which the measure would preempt any state, local, or tribal law and the effect of any such preemption, including identification of direct costs to state, local, and tribal governments and to the private sector; an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits; and a statement on effects on the private and public sectors. If the mandates are intergovernmental, the report is required to include additional detailed statements and explanations in regard to the funding allocations, sources, and costs of the mandates. Unfunded mandates ; Sections 423 and 424 of the Congressional Budget Act ( P.L. 93-344 ), as amended An authorizing committee's report accompanying a bill or joint resolution that contains a federal mandate must include a description of that mandate. Tax law complexity analysis ; Sections 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 ( P.L. 105-206 ) For measures reported by the Senate Finance Committee (or a conference committee) that include any provision that "would directly or indirectly amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and which has widespread applicability to individuals or small businesses," the Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) must provide in the committee report a tax complexity analysis (or instead provide such analysis to members of the reporting committee). Re port on jointly referred measure ; Rule XVII, paragraph 3(b) There may be only one report on a bill that was referred jointly to two or more committees. The report may be printed in several numbered parts prepared by different committees. Timely filing of reports ; Rule XXVI, paragraph 10(b) It is the chair's duty to ensure that a measure his or her committee has ordered reported is reported "promptly" to the Senate. The chair is also "to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote." A majority of a committee may require that a measure the committee has approved be reported to the Senate within seven calendar days (excluding days on which the Senate is not in session) of the submission of a written request to do so. These provisions do not apply to the Appropriations Committee. Layover requirements ; Rule XVII, paragraphs 4(a) and 5 There are two distinct layover requirements in relation to committee-reported measures or matters. First, a measure or matter reported from committee is to lie over for one legislative day before the Senate may consider it. Second, the written report on the measure or matter (if there is a written report) is to be available to Senators for two calendar days (excluding Sundays and legal holidays) before the Senate begins considering the measure or matter. The two-calendar-day requirement may be waived jointly by the majority and minority leaders and does not apply to congressional declarations of war or national emergency or to joint resolutions of disapproval that are effective only if enacted within statutory deadlines. | The Senate imposes some general procedural requirements and prohibitions on its committees, but, in general, the Senate's rules allow each of its standing committees to decide how to conduct business. Most of the chamber's requirements for committees are found in Senate Rule XXVI. Because the committees are agents of the Senate, they are obligated to comply with all Senate directives that apply to them. This report identifies and summarizes the provisions of the Senate's standing rules, standing orders, precedents, and other directives that relate to legislative activity in the Senate's standing committees. The report covers four main issues: committee organization, committee meetings, hearings, and reporting. The coverage of this report is limited to requirements and prohibitions that are of direct and general applicability to most or all Senate committees as they consider most legislative matters. The report does not cover any special provisions contained in Senate resolutions concerning the Select Committee on Ethics, the Select Committee on Intelligence, or the Special Committee on Aging. Similarly, it does not encompass other provisions of law or the Senate's rules or standing orders that apply to (1) only one committee, such as the provisions of Rule XVI governing appropriations measures and the provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act governing budget resolutions and reconciliation and rescission measures; or (2) only certain limited classes of measures, such as provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. |
Since assuming office in 2001, President Bush has been a strong supporter of free trade and trade liberalization. In numerous statements, he has touted the virtues of trade expansion. As he explained: "Our goal is to ignite a new era of economic growth through a world trading system that is dramatically more open and free." The President has promoted trade liberalization on multiple fronts: globally, regionally, and bilaterally. By pursuing multiple free trade initiatives, the Administration has tried to create "competition in liberalization" and more options. As explained by Robert Zoellick, President Bush's first U.S. Trade Representative, if free trade progress becomes stalled globally, then we can move ahead regionally and bilaterally. Globally, the Administration is now working to reach an agreement in the so-called Doha Round of multilateral trade talks being held among the 148 members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Regionally, the administration is pursuing agreements with the countries of the Southern African Customs Union, Andean countries, and 34 countries of the Western Hemisphere to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas. Bilaterally, it is currently negotiating FTA's with Thailand, Panama, and the United Arab Emirates. The administration signed an FTA with Bahrain in 2004 and with Oman in 2005, and it is contemplating starting negotiations with a number of other countries. Possible new negotiating partners include Egypt, Malaysia, India and South Korea. The Bush Administration argues that these negotiations promote a host of U.S. domestic and foreign interests, both economic and political. At home, it views trade liberalization as providing substantial gains to American consumers and companies. Cuts in U.S. trade barriers can help American families to pay less for consumer goods and U.S. companies to lower their operating costs as a result of access to cheaper imported components. Increased competition in domestic markets also promotes innovation, increases in labor productivity, and long-term growth. Better access to foreign markets facilitates increases in U.S. exports, thereby increasing employment in sectors that may pay higher than average wages. U.S. investors can also benefit through rule changes and obligations that assure more dependable treatment by the host country. Trade liberalizing agreements, particularly FTAs, also promote the U.S. trade agenda and foreign interests in a number of ways. Some FTAs establish precedents or models that serve as catalysts for wider trade agreements. Many FTAs reward and support market reforms being undertaken by the negotiating partner. And still others help to strengthen U.S. ties with various countries and regions of the world. For example, by forging stronger economic ties with countries in the Middle East, such as Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain, the U.S. hopes to strengthen its strategic position vis-a-vis all countries in the region by promoting economic prosperity and opportunity. At the same time, trade liberalizing agreements may carry economic and political costs. Increased foreign competition can lead to plant closings and job losses concentrated in certain regions and industries. Critics note that it may contribute to increased anxiety and wage pressures, as well as rising income inequality. Some of these concerns were central to the divisive debate in Congress this year over CAFTAâan agreement that became a proxy, in part, for more generalized concerns about America's standing in an increasingly globalized world economy. While CAFTA was approved by narrow margins in both houses, it is not clear how the outcome will affect the Administration's future free trade agreement program. The CAFTA was the most controversial free trade agreement vote taken by Congress since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) implementing legislation was passed in 1993. The Senate passed the CAFTA implementing legislation on June 30, 2005 by a vote of 54 to 45 and House passed the legislation on July 28, 2005 by 217 to 215. Besides being the lowest margin of victory for any modern FTA agreement, the votes, particularly in the House, were highly partisan. Over 92% of House Democrats voted against the agreement, while over 88% of House Republicans voted in favor. In both the Senate and House debates, many proponents stressed a combination of economic and political arguments. Those in favor argued that, while imports from the CAFTA countries enter the U.S. virtually duty free, the agreement will level the playing field for U.S. commercial interests by eliminating 80% of the tariffs CAFTA countries impose on U.S. exports. As a result, they maintained the U.S. goes from one-way free trade toward a more reciprocal trading relationship that will increase U.S. exports and jobs. Others emphasized that the agreement would contribute to bolstering more market-oriented and democratic governments in the region, longstanding U.S. foreign policy interests. Many lawmakers who opposed the agreement cited provisions dealing with the treatment of labor and sensitive industries (sugar and textiles). In addition, the agreement clearly triggered more generalized anxieties concerning globalization's impact on the American economy and labor force. Future congressional consideration of similar trade accords are likely to raise similar controversies and challenges, thereby prompting the administration to address these issues as part of its trade liberalizing agenda. Labor issues in the agreement were controversial and may have been a major reason the vote divided largely along party lines. Disagreement revolved around whether the CAFTA countries had laws that complied with the U.S. or International Labor Organization (ILO) similar list of five internationally recognized worker rights (e.g. the right to organize unions and bargain collectively). Such standards have not been required by CAFTA, by trade promotion authority legislation outlining requirements for trade agreements, or by any other bilateral trade agreement. However, they have been required for decades by U.S. trade preference laws, which typically prohibit preferential treatment to countries which are not affording their workers internationally recognized worker rights. Therefore, these FTAs continue to be seen by may Democrats as a step backward from longstanding U.S. trade policy. Many Republicans argue that the agreement encourages these countries to improve their laws and enforcement as well. Moreover, they argued that the administration's commitment to earmark $40 million in appropriations for capacity building and enforcement over a four-year period would go a long way in strengthening these provisions. Further exacerbating partisan tensions was a long history over this issue. Some Democrats expressed clear annoyance that their support for stronger labor provisions was characterized by Bush Administration trade officials as being "economic isolationism." At the same time, many Republicans were upset that they were given little credit by the other side for the compromises they had made over the years in accommodating Democratic concerns. Partisan tensions were further exacerbated by different views on whether the process in producing the agreement and the implementing legislation was inclusive and consistent with consultation requirements provided under the Trade Promotion Authority statute. Following the CAFTA vote, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman has worked to narrow the gap on the divisive labor issue in both the Bahrain and Andean FTAs. House Democrats reportedly have been pleased by the Administration's efforts to obtain higher labor commitments and enforcement standards in the Bahrain agreement. But other reports suggest that the Administration and House Democrats remain far apart on how to handle the labor provisions in the Andean FTA. Thus, it remains unclear whether the FTA labor provisions will become a less divisive and partisan issue. A second contentious issue involved liberalization of U.S. restrictions in two industriesâtextiles and apparel, and sugarâthat still benefit from protective barriers. The agreement as signed by the Bush Administration provided some small additional opening of these two still protected markets. These changes, in turn, were opposed vigorously by segments of both industries and by both Republicans and Democrats that had important constituent interests to defend. To gain support for the agreement, the Bush Administration made some commitments that, on balance, will reduce the commercial benefits of the agreement to CAFTA countries as originally negotiated. Some analysts believe that this action may send a very negative signal to future negotiating partners about U.S. willingness to negotiate reciprocal trade concessions. An underlying problem for the administration may be that the partisan divide in Congress over trade issues, particularly labor standards, provides defenders of protected industries with greater power than in previous eras. As one scholar opined, a partisan divide "renders the basic support margin narrow, making trade policy hostage to any protectionist interests that hold the decisive, marginal votes." This partisan divide could become a major hurdle for completing agreements that require the reduction and eventual removal of U.S. barriers to imports. In cases where liberalization of protected U.S. industries is necessary to get other countries to reduce their own barriers to U.S. exports, the Bush Administration may have two options. First, it can work to bridge the partisan divide that arguably provides these industries with heightened leverage. Second, it can alter the way it promotes the benefits of trade liberalization. Traditionally, trade liberalization has been pursued by focusing attention on gains associated with export expansion through a reduction of foreign trade barriers with little discussion of the gains that reduction of U.S. trade barriers can provide to U.S. companies and consumers. But by highlighting more the two-way gains from trade (both exports and imports), some analysts believe that greater political support can be built for the kinds of actions that are necessary to sustain a trade liberalization policy. The CAFTA debate in Congress also served as a proxy for public concerns and anxieties about the effects of trade and globalization on the American economy. Record U.S. trade deficits, the rise of China as a world manufacturing power, and India's growing attractiveness as a source for outsourcing of white collar jobs all raised questions about the effects of trade agreements on U.S. workers. Some Democrats, in part, may have opposed CAFTA because they believe that working class Americans suffer most from attempts to accelerate economic integration. Their opposition may have been buttressed by public opinion polls showing that more that 50% of U.S. households may oppose these trade initiatives if they are not given the tools and training to compete with workers from all around the world. To ease the anxieties of the American public on globalization and trade agreements that accelerate economic integration, some policymakers are calling for more robust programs that will help American workers obtain the skills that are necessary to compete in the global economy. While the longstanding Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides retraining and income support for workers displaced by import competition, some argue that a more comprehensive program that would cover not only workers displaced by trade competition but also by technological change and foreign outsourcing is needed to deal with broad distributional costs of globalization and the rise of economic insecurity among American workers. Proponents argue that such a plan could include meaningful retraining, wage and health insurance, and job search aid. Two obstacles are often cited to moving in this directionâcost and ideology. One estimate of a comprehensive program that extends trade adjustment to all workers, provides a general two-year wage insurance program and adds on business tax incentives comes to $20 billion a year. While this cost could be considered modest compared to an estimated $1 trillion in benefits the U.S. economy gains from globalization (international openness) every year, it also could be considered very costly in the context of an economy experiencing record budget deficits, prompting calls for reductions in government spending. In addition, the fact that some policymakers take a dim view of the ability of these kinds of programs to achieve the intended results, combined with some sense that a growing market economy is the best antidote to adjustment, provide another hurdle. The Bush Administration is now actively negotiating a large number of trade liberalizing agreements. The broadest and most ambitious initiative being negotiated is the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations. Negotiations are also taking place with Panama, Thailand, three Andean countries (Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador), and the United Emirates. Assuming that the divisions over labor issues, industry protection, and globalization anxieties that were imbedded in the CAFTA debate persist, these potential agreements could encounter differential obstacles. An ambitious Doha agreement is the administration's highest priority. With 148 countries involved in the negotiation, this trade negotiation provides the largest potential benefits for U.S. firms, farmers, and consumers. Some analysts maintain that large gains or benefits accruing to a broad spectrum of American stakeholders are necessary to help mobilize political support to eliminate or reduce remaining U.S. restrictions on politically sensitive industries and products. This is based on a belief that an ambitious agreement would require large concessions from trading partners that open substantially new market access opportunities for U.S. companies, and that these potential gains would be too tempting for U.S. industry not to support strongly. While labor issues are not part of the Doha negotiations, any big commercial agreement would likely trigger globalization anxieties among some segments of the body politic. Whether an ambitious agreement that provides large economic benefits to the U.S. economy might provide some impetus and support for devising a comprehensive adjustment program remains problematic. In the past, implementing legislation for multilateral agreements has included the creation or expansion of adjustment programs. The FTA's being negotiated with Thailand, Panama, and the Andean countries might encounter some or all the obstacles raised in the CAFTA debate. Thailand's labor conditions and exports of import sensitive products such as sugar and rice could prove contentious. Given that Thailand is a larger trading partner than the five CAFTA countries combined, globalization anxieties could also play a role in this agreement as well. In the case of Panama and the Andean countries, their labor laws and exports of sugar could raise concerns among some Members of Congress. But given that they are both very small trading partners, globalization anxieties are less likely to play a key role. To date, CAFTA-related controversies appear to be playing a small role in the FTAs concluded with countries of the Middle EastâJordan, Morocco, Bahrain and Oman. These four agreements have received broad bipartisan support not only because they are viewed favorably for advancing U.S. security interests, but also because the countries in commercial terms provide little competitive threat to U.S. producers and workers. | Since taking office in January 2001, President Bush has supported trade liberalization through negotiations on multiple fronts: globally, regionally, and bilaterally. During this period, Congress has approved five free trade agreements (FTAs) that the Bush Administration has negotiated and signed. The FTAs are designed to promote broad economic and political objectives, both domestic and foreign. However, the debate in Congress over the last FTA approvedâthe Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)âwas contentious, sparking concerns about how Congress might consider future trade liberalizing agreements. This report analyses some of the challenges that became apparent in the aftermath of a divisive trade debate and how they could affect consideration of future trade agreements. This report will not be updated. |
Recent outbreaks of measles in North America could be blamed on the anti-vaccine movement. Movement could be causing significant harm.
The first measles vaccine was invented in 1963 and saved thousands of lives. The movement against vaccines started in 1998 when a British doctor wrote that autism could have been due to a vaccine that vaccinates against measles, mumps and rubella in a medical journal called The Lancet. He was not right.
When the article was thoroughly investigated, the research was found to have been done unethically and was filled with conflicts of interest. The data was false in the article. The risks to health care were false. In 2010, The Lancet had to say that the report was totally incorrect. This is considered an uncommon step in academic journals.
Even though the research was false, it was believed by some people in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). The rates of vaccination have greatly decreased in the UK and the number of measles greatly increased. In the US, in 2013, measles cases tripled. There have been outbreaks of measles in eight US communities. 12 people were recently struck by measles in New York City.
In Canada, in recent weeks, provinces from British Columbia to Ontario have received reports of measles outbreaks. Edmonton, Manitoba and Calgary have just confirmed some new cases. Canadian health officials and doctors are putting the blame on anti-vaccination movement on the recent outbreaks of measles.
Doctors and health officials are pointing the blame at the anti-vaccination movement for the sudden outbreak, which is also spreading throughout the United States. A Canadian doctor named Dr. Gerald Evans, a professor at Queen’s University, says that low vaccine rates have indeed gone down. The outbreaks are the result of vaccination rates falling. Some people are simply not getting vaccinated.
Th anti-vaccination movement that the doctors blame for measles outbreaks in North America got a big boost in 2007 when celebrities like Jenny McCarthy joined the movement. These celebrities went on numerous TV shows and printed many books that told parents not to vaccinate their children. These celebrities believe that autism has increased owing to vaccinations, even though the original report in UK’s The Lancet that stated this has been proven to be untrue.
The anti-vaccination movement thinks that it is a chemical called thimerosal is to blame for the increase of autistic children. This chemical has stopped being employed in the measles, rubella and mumps vaccine in 1999. It was used as a preservative in vaccines and supposedly caused autism. Numerous investigations have proven that this is not the situation.
Recent laws might be helping the spread of measles. There are 19 states that have what are called “personal belief” exemptions. A parent can decide that based on their personal beliefs, they could decide not to get their children vaccinated. These personal exemptions in California, one of the 19 states, have tripled in growth from 2000 to 2010. The rates in rich communities have actually reached 84 percent. Outbreaks have happened in communities where there are high numbers of personal exemptions.
More measles outbreaks will happen in North America as long as the anti-vaccination movement continues to enjoy influence over some people.
By Tom Clark
Sources:
Cleveland
Global News Canada
Forbes ||||| CLOSE Some American families who fear vaccines may cause autism, and others who don't trust the federal government are choosing not to vaccinate. In some places diseases once thought to be conquered are making a comeback.
The Riffenburg family. (Photo: Stan Godlewski for USA TODAY)
Kathryn Riffenburg decided on a closed casket for her baby's funeral.
She didn't want her family to see what whooping cough, her son's first illness, had done to 9-week-old Brady Alcaide. The nearly forgotten disease, which has in recent years afflicted thousands of Americans, left Brady's tiny body swollen and unrecognizable.
So his mother dressed him in a white baptismal suit and hat and tucked him into a tiny white casket. Brady's burial came just four weeks after his first laugh — inspired by her version of I'm a Little Teapot — and two weeks after his family learned that he had contracted a vaccine-preventable illness.
"It just seemed like it was impossible," says Riffenburg, 31, of Chicopee, Mass. "It felt like we were dropped in The Wizard of Oz. We went from sitting in the hospital day by day, waiting for him to get better for almost two weeks, to doctors telling us we had a 50/50 chance he was going to make it."
The mother, who was inoculated years before giving birth to Brady, later learned that she could have gotten a booster shot during her pregnancy that likely would have saved Brady's life. Although Riffenburg didn't know to get revaccinated, people actively choosing not to are helping diseases once largely relegated to the pages of history books — including measles — make a comeback in cities across the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Recent measles outbreaks in New York, California and Texas are examples of what could happen on a larger scale if vaccination rates dropped, says Anne Schuchat, the CDC's director of immunizations and respiratory diseases. Officials declared measles, which causes itchy rashes and fevers, eradicated in the United States in 2000. Yet this year, the disease is on track to infect three times as many people as in 2009. That's because in most cases people who have not been vaccinated are getting infected by others traveling into the United States. Then, Schuchat says, the infected spread it in their communities.
The 189 cases of measles in the U.S. last year is small compared with the 530,000 cases the country used to see on average each year in the 20th century. But, the disease — which started to wane when a vaccine was introduced in 1967 — is one of the most contagious in the world and could quickly go from sporadic nuisance to widespread killer.
Measles kills about once in every 1,000 cases. As cases mount, so does the risk. "We really don't want a child to die from measles, but it's almost inevitable," says Schuchat. "Major resurgences of diseases can sneak up on us."
Vaccination rates against most diseases are about 90%. Fewer than 1% of Americans forgo all vaccinations, Schuchat says. Even so, in some states the anti-vaccine movement, aided by religious and philosophical state exemptions, is growing, says Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He points to states like Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont — where more than 4.5% of kindergartners last year were unvaccinated for non-medical reasons — as examples of potential hot spots. Such states' rates are four times the national average and illustrate a trend among select groups.
"People assume this will never happen to them until it happens to them," Offit says. "It's a shame that's the way we have to learn the lesson. There's a human price for that lesson."
The most vulnerable are infants who may be too young to be vaccinated, children with compromised immune systems and others who may be unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, scientists say.
In communities across the nation, Americans of all stripes are making dangerous decisions to reschedule or forgo immunization, says Alan Hinman, a scientist who sits on the scientific advisory board of Voices for Vaccines, which supports and advocates for on-time vaccinations.
The anti-vaccination movement has picked up steam in the past decade with support from celebrities such as actress Jenny McCarthy, actor Aidan Quinn and reality TV star Kristin Cavallari, who last month said not vaccinating was "the best decision" for her children. Many continue to believe the debunked idea that vaccines cause autism, while others don't trust the federal government or the pharmaceutical companies responsible for these vaccines.
DISEASE CAN STRIKE ANYWHERE
Riffenburg hopes her family's experience will serve as a wake-up call. At first, Brady seemed to have a simple cold. As his symptoms worsened, Riffenburg and her fiancé, Jonathan Alcaide, took him to the hospital, where doctors suspected he had whooping cough.
Two weeks later, Brady stopped breathing. His brain was without oxygen for some time, and he was put on life support, where Riffenburg said the horrific effects of the disease made her child become unrecognizable. A day later, she made the excruciating decision to take him off machines. The child died while cradled in her arms.
"I hope Brady has saved babies and protected them because we have spread his story," RIffenburg says.
Since then, Riffenburg has made sure that her fiancé and her two daughters, now 7 and 10, get all of their booster shots. She was also inoculated while pregnant with her now 1-year-old son, Jaxon. And she insisted everyone — including doctors, family members and even the hospital photographer — got booster shots before they came near Jaxon.
It is not clear where Brady contracted whooping cough. Schuchat says that is precisely why communities must maintain high vaccination rates. Many might not know they are carrying a disease but can still be contagious and pass it on before symptoms arrive.
"It doesn't have to be on an airplane or at an airport. It could be at a grocery store or the concert you went to," Schuchat says.
During a 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, CDC officials were shocked to find school districts where one in five children were not vaccinated against the disease, she says.
Last year, California had the largest number of unprotected kindergartners not vaccinated for their parents' philosophical reasons: 14,921. This year, 49 cases of measles had been reported by March. The state had four cases by that time last year.
Michaela Mitchell helps her 10-year-old son, Jeremiah, take off his prosthetic arms inside their Tulsa home on March 30, 2014. (Photo: Bryan Terry for USA TODAY)
'WE CRIED FOR A LONG TIME'
As cases of these diseases flare and create headlines, parents whose children have suffered are pushing back.
Jeremiah Mitchell, 10, plays Xbox with no hands, writes with a pencil strapped to what remains of his arms and prefers eating pizza because it's one of the few foods he can hold.
Four years ago, doctors working to rid his body of meningitis amputated both his arms and legs as well as parts of his eyelids, jaw and ears. At the time, Jeremiah, then 6, was a kindergartner in Oologah-Talala Public Schools in Oklahoma. An outbreak of meningitis in the school system killed two children and infected five others, including Jeremiah.
A photo of Jeremiah Mitchell before he contracted meningitis. (Photo: Bryan Terry for USA TODAY)
In 12 hours, Jeremiah went from being a child who loved climbing trees and riding his bicycle in the mud to being in a coma, says his mother, Michaela Mitchell, 42, of Tulsa. He spent 14 days unconscious in the hospital as parts of his body became blackened and burned-looking from the disease.
"He came out with all his limbs cut off and wrapped up like a mummy — I fainted," Mitchell says. "We cried for a long time."
Jeremiah wasn't vaccinated against meningitis because at his age his school didn't require it, Mitchell says. CDC suggests all 11- or 12-year-olds get the vaccine and receive a booster shot at 16. And though his family did everything according to medical recommendations, Jeremiah was exposed because someone brought the disease into their community.
Now Mitchell, who takes care of her son full time, and Jeremiah, who faces more reconstructive surgeries, work with Meningitis Angels, a non-profit that supports families affected by bacterial meningitis and advocates for vaccinations.
Other organizations including the National Meningitis Association, Every Child By Two, and PKIDs combine personal stories and scientific evidence to encourage vaccinations.
From the medical side of the equation, some physicians have resorted to their own defenses to protect their patients from those who won't vaccinate.
Doctors at Olde Towne Pediatrics in Manassas, Va., won't take new patients if the parents don't plan to vaccinate their children. It's not clear how many other physicians do the same, as experts say no comprehensive studies of the practice have been done.
"We don't want to put our patients at risk because people for their own personal reasons don't want to vaccinate," said Anastasia Williams, a managing partner of the practice who has been a pediatrician for 15 years. "We are doing our due diligence to protect our children who wait in our waiting room."
Several states have also worked to make getting an exemption tougher.
In Colorado, where 4% of kindergartners last year didn't have their shots for non-medical reasons, a proposed bill sponsored by State Rep. Dan Pabon, a Democrat from Denver, would require parents to get a doctor's note or watch a video about risks before opting out of vaccines.
VACCINE SKEPTICS
Such measures offend Sarah Pope, a Tampa mother of three, and Shane Ellison, a father of three in Los Angeles. They both decided against vaccinating their kids because they fear the potential side effects.
In 2006, all three of Pope's children — now 9, 11 and 15 — contracted whooping cough, the same disease that killed Brady. Seven years earlier, Pope had decided against vaccinating any of her children. After seven weeks of coughing, and with treatment by a holistic doctor and natural supplements, all three recovered without complications, she says.
"I wasn't scared by it," says Pope, 49, who runs The Healthy Home Economist, a healthy living website and blogs about vaccines. "People only see the bad with infectious diseases. But infectious diseases do help children strengthen their bodies."
Pope and Ellison say it is unfair to pressure parents into using vaccines that aren't 100% effective. However, doctors note that all drugs — even aspirin — have risks, and none is 100% effective.
High vaccination rates can protect even unvaccinated people by lowering the level of infectious disease in the community, a phenomenon known as herd immunity, says Hinman, a senior public health scientist at the Task Force for Global Health. The more people who are vaccinated, the less likely anyone in that community will be infected.
Though vaccines are considered safe, Schuchat points out that they can cause reactions in some children, which in rare cases can be serious. But one of the most publicized fears of the anti-vaccine movement — that they cause autism — has been debunked by dozens of studies that have found no link.
Even so, parents like Ellison, 39, don't buy it, and he points out that he comes to the issue with some expertise: He has a master's degree in organic chemistry and used to work in the pharmaceutical industry designing medicines. His children — 6 months old, 8 and 12 — were all born at home. Aside from one visit to an emergency room for a bruised finger, none of them has ever been to a doctor, and they're all healthy, he says, except for the occasional sore throat or common cold.
"The doctors all have the same script for vaccines," says Ellison, who runs The People's Chemist, a website about health.
He is working to build and support his children's natural immune system using three healthy meals a day, exercise and sunshine. He says if his kids get sick he would rather rely on emergency care than vaccines.
"It's much more soothing to trust emergency medicine than a vaccine, which for me is like playing Russian roulette," he says.
Yet as Samantha Purkiss learned, bringing infected people to the emergency department is simply another way to spread disease.
Purkiss' 7-month-old daughter, Olivia, got measles while in a San Diego hospital emergency room last month. Olivia had visited the ER while her dad was having an ingrown toenail removed. Two weeks later, Olivia was back in the emergency room with measles. Doctors spent 12 hours testing and observing her. She later recovered.
"We are blessed because she didn't end up with any complications," says Purkiss, 20, who is 16 weeks' pregnant and takes care of Olivia full time. "If the wrong person is in the wrong place, that happens."
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1gzc9Rb | If only Kathryn Riffenburg had gotten a booster shot during pregnancy, her son might have lived. But the baby got whooping cough, and was so badly swollen that his burial at nine weeks of age—in a white baptismal suit and hat—was in a closed casket. "It just seemed like it was impossible," said 31-year-old Riffenburg, who didn't know about getting revaccinated. And she's not alone: Recent measles outbreaks in three states show what might happen on a bigger scale if enough people refuse vaccinations, some for philosophical and religious reasons, USA Today reports. Fewer than 1% of Americans avoid all vaccines, but the anti-vaccine movement has grown thanks to celebrity endorsements and the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism. Some states have responded by making it harder to get vaccine exemptions, and doctors in one Virginia town are refusing to take new patients who won't vaccinate their children. In Canada, officials are linking two disease outbreaks to Dutch Reformers and Mennonites, who refuse vaccinations, the National Post reports. But 19 US states allow "personal belief" exemptions, reports Guardia, and anti-vaccine advocates are standing firm: "I wasn't scared by it," says a Tampa, Fla., mother whose three kids all recovered from whooping cough. "Infectious diseases do help children strengthen their bodies." |
Republican officials are looking into reports of double-voting at Tuesday night's Nevada caucuses, according to multiple reports.
The party is currently reviewing the process, and a Republican National Committee official said the “chaos is contained,” according to Mashable.
One GOP official said the party will be reviewing a master sign-in sheet, according to well-known Nevada journalist Jon Ralston.
“Obviously we take reports of double-voting very seriously and we will be reviewing the ballots,” a GOP official said.
The official also addressed the need for more ballots and said that additional ones were given out “in a matter of minutes.”
The official sought to downplay the apparent chaos surrounding the caucus. “Other thing to know is because you have multiple precincts in one spot, not the entire place was in chaos, just a select few that were rushed which contained the problems,” the official added.
And a tweet from the Nevada GOP said:
There have been no official reports of voting irregularities or violations. #nvgopcaucus — Nevada GOP (@NVGOP) February 24, 2016
Nonetheless, there have been reports on Twitter including:
Ballots being tucked under envelopes.
Voters not being checked for ID.
This is what Trump rule looks like.#NVcaucus pic.twitter.com/J5n3L2XsZ0 — Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) February 24, 2016
KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported on Tuesday night that some caucus sites had run out of ballots and that the party was scrambling to replenish them:
#BREAKING: According to the #RNC, some caucus sites have run out of ballots. The RNC says more are being delivered.#NVcaucus #8NNpolitics — 8 News NOW (@8NewsNow) February 24, 2016
There have also been reports of precinct workers wearing Donald Trump Donald John Trump Airstrikes hit Syria air base: Syrian state media Trump, Macron agree on 'strong, joint response' to alleged Syria chemical attack Trump congratulates Patrick Reed on Masters win MORE gear, but the Nevada GOP tweeted:
It's not against the rules for volunteers to wear candidate gear. Volunteers went through extensive training & are doing a great job — Nevada GOP (@NVGOP) February 24, 2016
At one caucus location, a ballot collector is decked out in a Trump shirt and hat, according to The National Review.
At another caucus location in Las Vegas, two ballot collectors were also sporting Trump T-shirts, according to The Guardian.
Not one but two ballot collectors wearing TRUMP t-shirts at this caucus site in Vegas. pic.twitter.com/DgwyL6eNpL
— Richard Wolffe (@richardwolffedc) February 24, 2016
Tuesday night’s contest is expected to draw a large turnout, with 37,000 Republicans already preregistered. That’s 3,000 more than the number of caucusgoers in 2012, and some in the state estimate that turnout could swell to 75,000.
Developing ||||| Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., points to the audience during campaign event, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016 in Kentwood, Mich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) (Associated Press)
Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., points to the audience during campaign event, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016 in Kentwood, Mich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) (Associated Press)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on campaign 2016 on the day of the Nevada Republican caucuses (all times are Eastern Standard Time):
12 a.m.
Donald Trump has won the Republican presidential caucuses in Nevada, giving the billionaire businessman three straight wins in the race for the GOP nomination.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are vying for second place, far ahead of John Kasich and Ben Carson.
Preliminary entrance polls taken of Republican caucus-goers show that nearly 6 in 10 are angry at the way the government is working, and about half of them supported the billionaire businessman.
Trump was also supported by about 6 in 10 of those who said they care most about immigration, and nearly half of those who said they care most about the economy.
The race for the Republican nomination now moves on to next week's Super Tuesday, when a dozen states will hold presidential primaries.
___
10:40 p.m.
Among early arrivals at Nevada's Republican caucuses, nearly 6 in 10 say they are angry at the way the government is working. Entrance polls conducted as people arrived at caucus locations in Nevada show another third saying they are dissatisfied with the government.
Those early arrivals are most likely to say the top issues facing the country are the economy or government spending, each listed by about 3 in 10 caucus. Immigration and terrorism were each chosen by slightly fewer — about 2 in 10.
The survey was being conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks by Edison Research as Republican voters arrive at 25 randomly selected caucus sites in Nevada. The preliminary results include interviews with 925 Republican caucus-goers and have a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
___
10:35 p.m.
Cheering supporters and packs of selfie-seekers greeted Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump when he stopped by a Las Vegas caucus site Tuesday night.
Trump spent nearly an hour at Palo Verde High School. He was nearly mobbed by the crowd that had gathered to vote in the GOP caucuses. He drew more cheers when he asked, "Did you vote for Trump?"
The billionaire businessman ran through a list of campaign promises, including taking case of veterans and scrapping the president's health care law. He then posed for photos and greeted people who had lined up to meet him after they'd cast their ballots.
The same caucus site was reported to be having problems with double voting, long lines and not enough ballots. National party officials say they are looking into those reports, but state party officials say there are no official reports of voting irregularities or violations.
Other caucus sites appear to be running smoothly with no reports of difficulty.
___
10:15 p.m.
As Nevada Republicans caucus across the state, the Republican National Committee says it is concerned about reports of double voting at a troubled caucus site in Las Vegas.
RNC spokesman Fred Brown acknowledges there have been reports Tuesday night of double voting, long lines and not enough ballots at Palo Verde High School. Some people were being turned away and directed to another location.
Candidate Donald Trump stopped by the school as part of his last-minute campaigning.
Brown says the double-voting problem appears to be limited to one part of a caucus site where different precincts have been combined. The party plans to compare the number of paper ballots cast to the sign-in sheet to determine whether any double voting actually occurred.
Other caucus sites appear to be running smoothly with no reports of difficulty.
___
9:15 p.m.
Marco Rubio says he can unify Republicans before the November election and appeal to Democrats who "never" vote for GOP candidates.
The Florida senator spoke Tuesday night during a rally at a western Michigan auto supplier, two weeks before the state's primary.
Rubio says Republicans must win the presidency and the GOP race "cannot be about just making a point." In an apparent shot at Donald Trump, Rubio told a crowd of more than 1,000 that he himself didn't become a conservative when he thought about running for president.
Rubio says he would rebuild a "gutted" U.S. military but de-emphasize the federal government's role in other matters, leaving those issues to state and local governments.
Rubio has framed the 2016 election as a "generational choice" and told his Michigan audience that it's time for "our generation to rise up and do our part."
___
9:10 p.m.
Hillary Clinton says she supports the effort by President Barack Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
In in Columbia, South Carolina, for a forum hosted by CNN, Clinton says the prison is a "continuing recruitment advertisement for terrorists" and that Obama is right to try to close it.
Obama's plan leaves unanswered the politically thorny question of where in the U.S a new facility would be located to house some of the most dangerous inmates. Clinton says that should be a "matter of negotiation" with Republicans, who she hopes will join the effort to shutter the facility.
Clinton is also reiterating her pledge to release transcripts of paid speeches to Wall Street banks only if every other presidential candidate does the same.
___
8:45 p.m.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is largely standing by his 1974 critique of the CIA as a "dangerous institution" used to "prop up fascist dictatorships."
In a CNN town hall in South Carolina, Sanders says "that was 40 years ago" and that he believes the CIA plays "an important role." But he says the agency nonetheless has "done things which they should not have done on behalf of the United States government."
Sanders pointed first to Iran's Mohammad Mossadeq, a democratically elected prime minister who was overthrown in 1953, with CIA documents later confirming the agency's role. Sanders says, "That led to the Iranian Revolution, and we are where we are today."
He named the overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile, referring to a democratically elected communist who was ousted in a 1973 coup by hard-right dictator Augusto Pinochet. Sanders said Allende had won an election and the CIA overthrew him.
___
7:30 p.m.
Donald Trump and Nevada Republicans are warning that it's improper to videotape Tuesday night's GOP caucuses.
Trump sent a letter to the state Republican Party complaining that an unnamed Cruz backer was quoted in The Wall Street Journal advising caucus-goers to bring their cell phones and videotape the proceedings Tuesday evening. Past Nevada Republican caucuses have been roiled by allegations of improper behavior.
Nevada Republicans responded by confirming that it is against party rules to record the caucus proceedings.
"The Nevada Republican Party is committed to assuring the caucusing process is free from intimidation, threats or nefarious activity of any kind," the party said in a statement.
__
6:40 p.m.
Members of the Culinary Union are planning to protest in front of Trump Hotel Las Vegas while Nevada voters weigh in on the resort's polarizing namesake.
Culinary Union, the casino workers union, is staging a rally from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday, at the same time as Nevada's Republican caucus. Donald Trump is expected to do well in the contest.
The union wants to represent the hotel's workers, but the hotel is objecting to a recent union vote.
Culinary officials say the hotel's management wants to draw the matter out in a lengthy legal battle, and point out that Trump made a deal with his employees in Canada.
Officials with the hotel didn't immediately have comment on the demonstration.
The union represents 57,000 workers and hasn't endorsed in the 2016 presidential election.
___
5:45 p.m.
Republican Ted Cruz says he's facing the same sort of opposition from the Washington establishment that tried to take Ronald Reagan out before he unseated Jimmy Carter.
Cruz is campaigning on Nevada's caucus day Tuesday with Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, the grandson of Sen. Paul Laxalt, one of Reagan's best friends. Laxalt introduced Cruz to a crowd of about 400 at an outdoor park in rural Minden during the second of four campaign stops hours before Republicans start to cast their votes.
Cruz said Republicans are asking the same questions about him that they asked of Reagan back then: Can he win? Is he too conservative?
Cruz said the "Reagan Revolution" didn't come from Washington, which he said "despised Reagan." He said Paul Laxalt was among the leaders of a "movement that turned this country around"
___
5:30 p.m.
Marco Rubio says the Republican race for the presidential nomination can't be about "making a point" by picking a political outsider.
The Florida senator and GOP hopeful didn't mention Donald Trump or other rivals by name during a rally in a Minneapolis hotel ballroom Tuesday. But he urged voters to look past candidates who exude anger or a willingness to say outlandish things.
Rubio is riding a wave of recent high-profile endorsements but is still trying to score a win as candidates shift their focus to later-voting states. His stop in Minnesota came as Nevada Republicans prepared to caucus and a week before the Midwestern state's own caucus on Super Tuesday.
He was set to head to Michigan Tuesday evening to rally voters ahead of its March 8 primary.
____
5:20 p.m.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is floating the idea of turning the detention center at Guantanamo Bay over to Cuba.
Trump was delivering a rally speech in Sparks, Nevada Tuesday when he addressed President Barack Obama's speech earlier in the day outlining his plan to close the detention center.
Trump vowed to keep it open - "and we're going to load it up with some bad dudes," he said - and took issue with the facility's operating cost, which current stands at $445 million a year.
Trump guaranteed that he could "do it for a tiny, tiny fraction."
"I mean like maybe five, maybe thee, maybe like peanuts," he says. "Maybe in our deal with Cuba we get them to take it over and reimburse us 'cause we're probably paying rent."
The detention center is located on the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, which the U.S. pays a nominal fee to lease.
The lease was reaffirmed by a 1934 treaty that allows the U.S. to pay about $4,000 a year.
It says the termination of the lease requires the consent of both the U.S. and Cuba governments, or the U.S. abandonment of the base property.
___
5:00 p.m.
CNN says it will no longer book Donald Trump supporter Roger Stone as a guest on the network, after he tweeted profane remarks about one of the network's political commentators.
Stone Monday questioned on Twitter why CNN's Anderson Cooper would ask contributor Ana Navarro about politics, since she's "dumber than dog----." In another tweet, he called her an "abusive diva."
The liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America, which has followed Stone's tweets, said the political consultant and author has appeared on CNN seven times within the past month.
Stone, author of "The Clintons' War on Women," tweeted Tuesday that "Funny — seems the Clintons have ordered CNN not to interview me in the future because I am not PC."
__
4:50 p.m.
Donald Trump warned his Nevada supporters to keep an eye out for what he described as "dishonest stuff" at their caucus sites tonight and report it to Trump volunteers or to police.
"If you see something going on that's fishy with the paper ballots, report 'em to the police," Trump says at his final pre-caucus rally held in Sparks, Nevada Tuesday afternoon. "'Cause I'll tell you what, a lot of dishonesty with this. You've just got to be careful."
Trump went on to say that some type of fraud is they only way he could lose the election, noting how much time he's spent here and the Las Vegas hotel that bears his name.
The other guys "they're all gone," he says, "they made their little speech this morning and they ran away."
"But Trump? I'm going to be here with you all night."
Trump also reminded voters that, unlike in Iowa," You don't have to sit around like a bunch of dopes. You can go in and you vote" and leave.
___
4:30 p.m.
Unscripted moments are typical for Republican presidential contender John Kasich.
The second-term Ohio governor delivers even major addresses without a script or a teleprompter. On the campaign trail, he's insistently impromptu — even if it means risking a foot in his mouth.
Kasich once had to apologize after calling a police officer an idiot. At a 2012 Mitt Romney rally, he said politicians stump while their spouses are "at home doing the laundry."
The latest example came on Monday, when Kasich said "women who left their kitchens" helped deliver him his first political victory in 1978. Feminists, including Democrat Hillary Clinton, balked at the stereotype.
Kasich pledged to be "a bit more careful" — but he also takes some pride in operating "on a high wire without a net."
____
3:40 p.m.
Republican presidential candidate John Kasich says he is unsure if he was meant to be president.
Speaking at a town hall at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, Tuesday, the Ohio governor says he's not sure if his purpose is to be president.
"My purpose is to be out here doing what I think I need to be doing. And, we'll see where it ends up."
When asked about his rivals, Kasich rejected suggestions from an audience member it was time to take the gloves off.
"I just think it's time to end all negative campaigning and the dirt in politics," he said. "I think it's a bad way to run for president."
Kasich's appearance at the university was his second of the day in the Atlanta area. Earlier, he addressed lawmakers at the Georgia State Capitol and told reporters he had no plans to suspend his presidential campaign.
___
3:30 p.m.
Marco Rubio is receiving a Super Tuesday advertising boost from a supportive outside group.
Conservative Solutions PAC, a super political action committee run by his close allies, is planning for about $3.5 million in television ads in eight of the 10 states that weigh in March 1.
The super PAC's heaviest spending - $1.4 million - is in Texas, which has several costly media markets and where Rubio competitor Ted Cruz, one of its senators, was leading in recent polls.
An ad shared by the super PAC tags Donald Trump as "erratic, unreliable" and Cruz as "calculated, underhanded." The ad concludes: "Marco Rubio, the Republican who can beat Hillary and inspire a new generation."
Conservative Solutions PAC is one of the few GOP groups - or candidates - with advertising plans ahead of the March 1 contests.
___
1:50 p.m.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should not be closed as President Barack Obama has proposed.
Instead, the Republican presidential hopeful said during a campaign stop Tuesday in Fernley, Nevada, that the facility should be expanded to house more "terrorists."
Cruz says shutting down the Guantanamo Bay facility will result in the release of prisoners who will ultimately need to be recaptured. Cruz says he fears Obama may also turn Guantanamo Bay back over to the Cuban government.
The Obama administration on Tuesday sent Congress its plan to shut down the detention center and relocate detainees to a U.S.-based prison.
Cruz also joked about Obama's planned visit to Cuba next month, saying "it wouldn't be a terrible thing if he just stayed."
___
1:05 p.m.
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says Wall Street and billionaire campaign donors have an unfair advantage in the U.S. and it will take a "political revolution" to lessen their political clout.
Speaking Tuesday to thousands of supporters at Norfolk's Scope arena, Sanders rarely mentioned rival Hillary Clinton, reiterating his belief that she was wrong on the NAFTA trade deal and is too close to Wall Street campaign donors.
Virginia is one of several states holding its primary on the so-called March 1 Super Tuesday. While preference polls have shown Clinton doing well in the moderate swing-state, the Sanders campaign says it is confident with a week to go until the contest.
Clinton recently began running TV ads in Virginia and former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to campaign on her behalf in Northern Virginia and Richmond on Wednesday.
___
12:45 p.m.
Supporters of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump are stressing to potential caucus-goers that they won't need to stick around for hours, like in Iowa, to cast their ballots Tuesday evening.
"Do you know you can vote and go, you don't have to wait around?" Trump volunteer Walter Seip, 74, a retired army colonel, told rally-goers as they lined up for a Trump event last night at a Las Vegas hotel and casino.
"Name of the game is you drive people in there to vote for Trump," he explained.
Trump's son, Eric, stressed the same message in a Twitter post that was re-tweeted by his father Tuesday morning: "Nevada remember you can "Vote and Go" - walk in vote and walk out!" he wrote.
Trump has made no secret of his disregard for the caucus system since coming in second in Iowa. He's argued that traditional primaries offer a more accurate gauge of a candidate's support.
___
12:40 p.m.
Nevada's influential Mormons aren't being taken for granted in the state's Republican presidential caucuses Tuesday.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only account for 4 to 5 percent of the population in Nevada, where the first white settlers were Mormon and the faith's bastion sits across the state line in Utah.
But they are politically involved, apt to turn out and perched at the highest levels of Nevada's political structure. They made up about a quarter of the electorate in the 2012 GOP caucuses won by Mitt Romney, a Mormon, according to voter surveys.
Many influential Mormons have flocked to Marco Rubio, a Floridian who was part of the church for a few childhood years when he lived in Las Vegas. Rubio now is a practicing Catholic and still has relatives in the state.
Ted Cruz, too, played for Mormon support, particularly to a subset of conservatives most concerned that changes on the Supreme Court could erase religious liberties.
___
12:15 p.m.
The former campaign spokesman for Ted Cruz says he is going to keep supporting the Texas senator as a voter, but he no longer works on the campaign in any capacity.
Rick Tyler was asked to resign on Monday by Cruz after he tweeted a story that falsely accused White House hopeful Marco Rubio of insulting the Bible.
Tyler confirmed to The Associated Press on Tuesday in a series of text messages that he did indeed resign when asked by Cruz. He says, "I am no longer on the Cruz campaign."
Tyler declined to comment on the incident, but did say he would continue to support Cruz "as a voter."
Cruz was forced to steer away from his campaign message on Monday, the day before the Nevada caucuses, addressing the Tyler situation and saying he had no choice but to seek his resignation.
Donald Trump accused Cruz of being disloyal.
Trump wrote on Twitter, "He used him as a scape goat-fired like a dog! Ted panicked."
___
12:00 p.m.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took her sharp criticism of Wisconsin auto parts maker Johnson Controls Inc. from the campaign debate stage to the airwaves.
The Clinton campaign began airing a new television spot in the Duluth, Minnesota market Tuesday that slams the suburban Milwaukee manufacturer, claiming Johnson Controls benefited from auto industry bailout years ago when the auto industry was unstable and is now moving its headquarters to Ireland as part of its merger with Tyco International — a move she says "shirks" its tax liability in the U.S.
The automotive sector of Johnson Controls, one of Wisconsin's largest companies, had $20 billion in sales last year.
___
11:40 a.m.
As Republicans in Nevada prepare to caucus for their picks for a GOP presidential nominee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is telling lawmakers in Georgia the strength of the United States rests in its people, not in its government.
He's speaking before both the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate Tuesday ahead of the state's primary on Super Tuesday.
Kasich tells lawmakers that "you're Americans before you're Republicans and Democrats," adding that "We can fight, we can argue, but it should never be personal because the people of our state, our community and our country depend on us."
Kasich's appearance at the Georgia State Capitol is the first of three scheduled in the Atlanta area. He also plans to hold town halls at Kennesaw State University and Sandy Springs City Hall.
___
11:15 a.m.
Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio is criticizing President Barack Obama's effort to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.
Rubio says voters have the right to be frustrated and points to Obama's move as one reason why. "This makes no sense to me," he told a morning rally in Las Vegas Tuesday, with hours to go before the Nevada caucuses get under way.
Rubio says Obama may return the land to Cuba. "We're not giving back an important naval base to an anti-American communist dictatorship," Rubio says.
He adds that the Guantanamo prisoners don't belong on U.S. soil. "These are literally enemy combatants." Rubio promises that he will ship terrorists to Guantanamo when he's president.
___
10:45 a.m.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is toughening his position on whether the more than 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally should be found and deported.
Cruz said in a Fox News interview late Monday that anyone living in the U.S. illegally should be sought out and deported. That marks a shift for Cruz who said last month while campaigning in Iowa that he opposed dispatching a special force to deport undocumented immigrants. Instead, Cruz said then they would be caught through existing law enforcement agencies.
Cruz told CNN in January, "I don't intend to send jackboots to knock on you door and every door in America. That's not how we enforce the law for any crime."
But in Monday's interview on Fox, Cruz was asked whether he would send federal law enforcement officers to the home of an immigrant known to be living in the country illegally.
Cruz says, "You'd better believe it." But he says there is no ability to do that now because the U.S. doesn't have a biometric exit-entry system to know when someone has overstayed their work visa.
___
10:00 a.m.
Filmmaker Spike Lee is endorsing Bernie Sanders for president in a South Carolina radio ad.
Arguing, in Sanders' words, that the "system is rigged," Lee praises Sanders for not taking money from corporations in the ad. And in a reference to one of his early films, Lee says that once in the White House, Sanders will "do the right thing."
Lee also notes that the Vermont senator participated in the march on Washington and protested segregation in Chicago public schools.
A writer, director and actor, Lee's films include "Do the Right Thing," and "Malcom X." His most recent movie "Chi-Raq" is about gun violence in Chicago.
Lee endorsed President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
___
9:30 a.m.
The lone outside group making a concentrated effort to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee is circulating a memo in hopes of netting new big donations - or encouraging the four remaining GOP candidates to take on Trump more directly.
Our Principles, a super political action committee that spent $3.5 million on commercials and other voter outreach in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, on Monday put out the memo titled "Defeating Donald Trump and his Conservatism of Convenience."
Katie Packer, the Republican strategist leading the group wrote which, in the memo, said Tuesday that Our Principles is deciding over whether to attack Trump through a costly national media plan or to target him in key March 1 states. ||||| Donald Trump trounced his rivals in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday, notching his third consecutive victory and giving the Manhattan mogul even more momentum heading into Super Tuesday next week, when voters in a dozen states will cast their ballots.
Trump’s decisive win, which the Associated Press announced immediately after polls closed, was propelled by an electorate even more enraged than the ones that had swept him to wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and a second-place showing in Iowa.
Story Continued Below
"We love Nevada. We love Nevada,” Trump declared in his victory speech. "You're going to be proud of your president and you're going to be even prouder of your country."
For the first time in the 2016 primary season, media entrance polls showed that a majority of voters, 57 percent of Nevada caucus-goers, said they were "angry" with the federal government.
And, as significantly, they want to bring in an outsider to fix it. More than three in five caucus-goers said they favor someone from outside the political establishment rather than a candidate with political experience as president.
It all added up to Trump’s biggest night yet.
"Now we’re winning, winning, winning,” Trump said. “And soon the country is going to start winning, winning, winning.”
The outcome was bad news for Marco Rubio, who is now 0 for 4 in the February contests, and Ted Cruz, who won the Iowa caucuses but finished a disappointing third in South Carolina on Saturday.
Those two senators continued to vie for the crucial mantle of the best candidate to eventually take down Trump. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Trump finished first with a whopping 46 percent of the vote, with Rubio and Cruz trailing far behind. Rubio came in second with 24 percent of the vote, while Cruz finished third with a little more than 21 percent.
Rubio skipped an election-night speech, while an exhausted-looking Cruz proclaimed himself the only legitimate alternative to Trump.
"The only campaign that has beaten Donald Trump and the only campaign that can beat Donald Trump is this campaign,” Cruz told supporters.
Stopping Trump now looks like a steeper proposition after he trampled Rubio and Cruz on Tuesday, scoring huge wins across nearly every cross-section of the Republican Party. Entrance polls show Trump won moderate voters and very conservative voters by huge margins. He won in rural and urban areas, and among voters with only high school diplomas and those with post-graduate degrees.
Trump even handily bested Cruz among his supposed base of evangelical Christians, and, though the sample was small, topped his two Cuban-American opponents among Hispanic caucus-goers.
Trump reveled in the details. "I love the evangelicals!” he yelled. "Number one with Hispanics,” he bragged.
And he pointedly called out the home states of his remaining rivals — Texas for Cruz, Florida for Rubio and Ohio for John Kasich — as places he now leads in the polls and will win in the coming weeks.
“It’s going to be an amazing two months,” he said. "We might not even need the two months to be honest, folks."
Indeed, it's not clear where anyone can next beat Trump, though Cruz looked ahead to Texas, which votes on March 1, in his speech.
"I cannot wait to get home to the great state of Texas,” he said.
Cruz and Rubio now face a political calendar that plays even more to Trump’s strengths: massive made-for-TV rallies and free national media coverage, with a dozen states voting in only seven days.
Kasich, who finished in last place on Tuesday night, continued to insist he was in the race to stay. His chief strategist, John Weaver, released a memo after the race was called, taking aim at Rubio, Kasich's rival for the mantle of establishment favorite.
"Contrary to what his campaign is trying to portray, Senator Rubio just endured another disappointing performance despite being the highest spending candidate in Nevada," the memo read. "Republicans are now left to wonder whether investing in Marco Rubio is throwing good money after bad."
Cruz, who was neck-and-neck with Rubio in early returns, also said the Florida senator underperformed.
"Marco Rubio started working early and put a significant amount of resources into making Nevada the one early state he could win," Cruz's campaign wrote in a statement. "But despite the hype, Rubio still failed to beat Donald Trump."
Low turnout put a particular premium on early organizing, in which both Rubio and Cruz quietly invested. Cruz had the backing of the state’s Republican attorney general, Adam Laxalt, and made appeals to Nevada’s rural voters with a television ad highlighting his opposition to the fact that the federal government controls 85 percent of the state’s land. (Kasich targeted the same issue in TV ads, as well.)
Rubio, meanwhile, tried to connect with Nevada voters from his time living there as a child in the late 1970s and early 1980s, telling audiences about how his father worked as a bartender at Sam's Town and his mother as a maid at the Imperial Palace. (He still has numerous cousins in the state.) Rubio’s family’s dabbled with Mormonism during those years and Rubio hoped an active Mormon political network that lifted Mitt Romney to a landslide win, with 50 percent of the vote, would turn out for him.
But it didn't happen.
Stumping in rural Nevada on caucus day, Trump continued to boast of his strong poll numbers in states coming up on the voting calendar. He warned supporters to be wary of “dishonest stuff” from Cruz, whom he dubbed a "baby" and a "liar."
Supporters cheer during a caucus night rally for Donald Trump in Las Vegas, Feb. 23. | AP Photo
And Trump issued a warning shot to Rubio to beware taking him on: The two have largely avoided tangling, but that could change as Rubio builds on his second-place finish in South Carolina on Saturday.
“When he hits me, ugh, is he gonna be hit,” Trump said. “Actually, I can’t wait."
Trump was in a far more ebullient mood at his victory rally, where he stood behind a lectern for his third straight win, flanked by two of his sons.
Alluding to his practice in his earlier life of raking in money whenever he had the chance, Trump said: “Now we’re going to get greedy for the United States.”
Trump walked off the stage mouthing, “USA, USA, USA.”
Nolan D. McCaskill contributed to this report.
||||| Donald Trump triumphed in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday, in a resounding win that cemented his position as the Republican presidential frontrunner with a lead that could soon be unassailable.
The billionaire reality TV star has now won three of the four early nominating states, after other convincing wins in South Carolina and New Hampshire.
The Nevada result was called at 9pm local time by the Associated Press. By 2.30am, when all precincts had reported, Trump had a remarkable 45.9% of the vote.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the two senators best placed to challenge Trump, battled it out for second place, with Rubio on 23.9% edging Cruz, who got 21.4%.
However, their race for second place was overshadowed by the magnitude of Trump’s victory, which exit polls indicated was predicated upon a sweep of virtually every single demographic in the state, including those previously considered loyal to his rivals.
At his Las Vegas victory party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino, Trump described the diversity of his supporters. “We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We’re the smartest people, we’re the most loyal people.”
He got the loudest applause when he pointed out exit polls that showed he won close to half the Latino vote. The exit data, from CNN, was based on a small sample of Latino voters, but it was nonetheless a surprising figure for a candidate who has called Mexicans “rapists” and “criminals”.
“Number one with Hispanics,” Trump said. “I’m really happy about that.”
Looking ahead to Super Tuesday
The Republicans now look ahead to Super Tuesday on 1 March, when 11 states are due to hold contests that could have a decisive impact on the race.
Trump appears to have a lead in all the states in which recent surveys are available, except Arkansas and Texas, Cruz’s home state. In a sign of the breadth of his support, Trump is ahead of the pack in deeply conservative Super Tuesday states such as Alabama, Georgia and Alaska, and Democratic-leaning states such as Minnesota.
In Massachusetts, another left-leaning Super Tuesday state, Trump leads by 50 percentage points, according to a recent poll that put Rubio at 16%.
Trump’s commanding victory in Nevada was expected even before the caucuses closed, amid complaints about caucus volunteers – those who distribute and count the ballots – wearing official Donald Trump apparel. The Nevada GOP said it was “not against the rules” for volunteers to wear candidate hats and T-shirts.
There were also reports of voter registration mistakes at some sites, and long queues at others that may have been struggling with high turnout.
Both Cruz and Rubio needed a win in Nevada to gain the momentum required to mount a meaningful challenge to Trump, who has confounded the political establishment with a presidential campaign that some are equating to outright demagoguery.
At an eve-of-caucuses rally in Las Vegas on Monday, one of Trump’s most extraordinary to date, the businessman appeared fearless and unencumbered by the normal rules of politics. He lampooned Cruz as “sick”, said that banned torture techniques did not go far enough, and reacted to a heckler by saying: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
Although the Republican race is still at an early phase, and Trump – with 81 delegates to Cruz and Rubio’s 17 each – is a long way off from the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the party’s nomination, he is now the clear and dominant frontrunner. That is partly due to a change in the nominating rules introduced by the Republican National Committee (RNC) following the long and drawn-out race of 2012 that Mitt Romney eventually won.
The 2016 nominating contest was truncated, meaning a candidate can now secure the party’s backing more quickly. In another rule change, designed to prevent GOP outsiders from mounting long-shot challenges, a nominee must score clear victories in at least eight states in order to be nominated at the convention as opposed to five states. That change is also likely to benefit Trump.
What’s next for Trump’s Republican rivals
Currently, Rubio and Cruz are essentially vying for second place, before either can emerge as a challenger to Trump. However, for that to happen, many experts believe one of them would need to pull out to make way for the other.
That seems highly unlikely for candidates who come from opposite wings of the party. And even in the unlikely case it happens, it is not clear that Trump would not simply absorb many of their voters.
The evidence in Las Vegas, as elsewhere in the country, points to this being an election year in which Republican voters – disaffected with conventional politics, angry and fearful about a quickly changing world – want to gamble on Trump.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump supporters cheer while waiting for him to speak at his victory rally in Las Vegas. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images
It is remarkable how many people lured to his mega rallies say they are not partisan Republicans, but the kind of voters who dip in and out of elections during once-in-a-generation contests.
Patrick Cress, a 61-year-old businessman at the Trump rally, said that the last time he voted in an election was 1972, for Democrat George McGovern. “I was a kid in California and we wanted them to legalize marijuana,” he said. (McGovern never actually supported flat-out legalization, although many of his younger supporters thought he did.)
“You don’t have to say, ‘Who is this Trump guy’. You’ve been seeing him on the TV for years and years and years,” Cress said, adding that the frontrunner stands for “jobs, money, [not] getting ripped off by other countries”.
Cress, who owns a fireworks business in New Mexico and imports his stock from China, was unperturbed by Trump’s promise of tariffs on imports from the country. “I’m willing to pay for it. I want to see my country winning again,” he said. “Trump is a winner. And I’m sick of losing.”
The Nevada Republican caucuses – in pictures Read more
Perhaps the final deadline for Rubio or Cruz to throw a meaningful wrench in Trump’s path would be 15 March, when candidates enter the phase when the winner takes all of a state’s delegates.
But even in those big-prize states, Trump maintains a lead over rivals who should have a home advantage. They include Rubio, who trails Trump in Florida, and John Kasich, the governor of Ohio who came second in the New Hampshire race but is trailing Trump in his own swing state.
In Nevada Kasich, who skipped campaigning in the state, won 3.6% of the vote. The only other Republican left in the race is retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who had 4.8%.
Even though Rubio appeared to be on course to come in second or third in Nevada, the results were arguably most disappointing for him. The senator from Florida spent part of his childhood in Las Vegas when his father worked behind a bar and his mother was a hotel maid. He was also baptized as a Mormon, a key voting demographic in the state that his campaign had pursued relentlessly.
Rubio was also hoping for a boost after a slew of senior Republican figures reacted to ex-Florida Jeb Bush exiting the race on Saturday by endorsing Rubio. If Rubio received a lift from his former mentor’s withdrawal, it did not show in Nevada.
Sensing defeat, Rubio did not even stay in Nevada to see the results come through.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ted Cruz stressed he was the only candidate to knock Donald Trump off his perch. Photograph: Mike Nelson/EPA
Cruz, who had a torrid campaign in Nevada, and was forced to fire his national campaign spokesman over a scandal involving false accusations he promoted about Rubio’s commitment to the Bible, did stay to deliver remarks after the results.
Drawing on his victory in the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa, Cruz stressed he was the only candidate to knock Trump off his perch. “The undeniable reality the first four states has shown is the only campaign that has beat Donald Trump, and the only campaign that can beat Donald Trump, is this one,” Cruz told supporters.
The Iowa contest, which took place just three weeks ago, seems in the distant past now that the race has been commandeered by the former host of The Apprentice.
‘Winning, winning, winning’
Michael Steele, a former chairman of the RNC, acknowledged Trump’s rise was “dismaying” to political elites.
“There’s a lot that makes you shake your head, but you cannot take away from him the absolute enormity of coming in completely from the outside, with no political experience, and he has just cut through this process like a hot knife through butter,” he said, speaking hours before the Nevada result.
“You go into Super Tuesday and the worst case scenario for Donald Trump right now is winning 10 out of 14 states. At what point do you start treating him like the nominee?”
Trump was already behaving as such during his victory speech. On the day Barack Obama sent his final plan to close the detention facility on Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay, to the US Congress, Trump made clear he would make a very different commander-in-chief.
“Gitmo, we’re keeping that open,” he said. “And we’re gonna load it up with a lot of bad dudes out there. We’re gonna have our borders nice and strong, and we’re gonna build the wall,” he said, referring to his flagship policy of building a giant wall between the US and Mexico.
Luxuriating in his decisive victory, he noted how his campaign was “winning, winning, winning” and reflected on the states ahead. Overstating his strength in Texas and Arkansas where, technically, he is trailing Cruz, the general thrust of his optimism was well-founded.
“We’ve had some great numbers coming out of Texas. And some amazing numbers coming out of Tennessee, and Georgia, and Arkansas. And then a couple of weeks later, Florida. We love Florida. We’re going to do very well in Ohio – we’re beating the governor; it is always nice to be beating the governor. And Michigan. The whole thing. It is going to be an amazing two months.” | The AP called it as soon as the polls closed: Donald Trump has won the Nevada Republican caucus by what appears to be a hefty margin, giving him three wins in a row and extra momentum just a week away from Super Tuesday. Trump seems to have reaped the benefits of voter anger: Politico reports that 57% of voters polled said they were angry at the federal government, with another 36% merely dissatisfied. "We're winning, winning, winning the country," Trump told cheering supporters at a Las Vegas casino. "Soon, the country is going to start winning, winning, winning." At the victory party, Trump highlighted polls that showed he had swept most demographics and even taken almost half the Latino vote. "We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old," he said, per the Guardian. "We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people." With almost all results in, Trump has around 46% of the vote, while Marco Rubio is second with close to 24% and Ted Cruz is third with 21.4%. Ben Carson and John Kasich are far behind, with 4.8% and 3.6%, respectively. There were widespread reports of chaos during the caucuses, though the state GOP says there have been no official reports of voting irregularities or violations, the Hill reports. |
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is probably the most widely used measure of inflation. A number of federal government programs, such as Social Security benefits and civil service retirement, are tied to increases in the CPI. In addition, the personal income tax rate schedule is indexed to the CPI. Economists use the CPI to calculate constant-dollar estimates of other economic indicators, such as retail sales and hourly earnings, which allow analysis of changes in these variables excluding the effect of changes in the price level. Each year, the CPI is used to update the income levels that determine the poverty rate. Periodic increases in many union wage and other contracts are also tied to increases in the CPI. Thus, the behavior of the CPI has major consequences for a significant portion of the population; but many may be unfamiliar with the details of its calculation. The CPI is published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). There is no specific legislation authorizing or requiring BLS to calculate and publish the CPI. Neither has legislation ever been enacted to require BLS to adopt any particular methodology in calculating the CPI. When the Bureau of Labor was first created in 1888, its task was, among other duties, to "acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with labor, in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word.... " In 1913, the Bureau of Labor was transferred to the newly created Department of Labor and renamed the Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS was given slightly more specific instructions: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, under the direction of the Secretary of Labor, shall collect, collate, and report at least once each year, or oftener if necessary, full and complete statistics of the conditions of labor and the products and distribution of the products of the same ... and said Secretary of Labor may collate, arrange, and publish such statistical information so obtained in such manner as to him may seem wise. Two CPIs are published by the BLS, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), and the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The CPI-W is based on the purchasing patterns of only those in the population who earn more than half of their income from clerical or wage occupations, and were employed at least 37 weeks in the previous year. The CPI-W population makes up about 32% of the total population. Prior to 1978, the CPI-W was the only CPI published. Beginning in 1978, the CPI-U was introduced so that a broader share of the population would be represented in estimates of changes in the price level. The CPI-U is based on the expenditure patterns of all urban consumers and covers about 87% of the population. The CPI-U is usually the more publicized of the two price indexes. Although the CPI-U and CPI-W are slightly different indexes, the numerical difference between the two measures is typically small. Between 1989 and 2009, the CPI-U increased, overall, by 73.0% compared with an increase of 71.0% for the CPI-W. Over the same period, that translates into an average annual rate of change of 2.8% for the CPI-U and 2.7% for the CPI-W. Both the CPI-W and the CPI-U are used for inflation indexing by the federal government. One advantage to using the CPI in indexing is that the CPI is rarely revised. Definitions, the index base year, the goods and services accounted for, and the methodology used to calculate the CPI may change from time to time, but, once published, the actual index number is final. Using other measures of the price level, such as one of the price indexes associated with Gross Domestic Product, for indexing purposes poses the problem of which number to use, the preliminary estimate or one of many subsequent revisions. Since the release of January 2007 data, the CPI and all of its component indexes have been published rounded to three decimal places rather than one. The change was not meant to imply any increase in the accuracy of the CPI. Instead it is being done to maintain precision in published estimates of percentage changes. Prior to 2007, when BLS published the CPI rounded to only one decimal place, it based published figures of percentage change in the CPI on those rounded numbers so that they could be replicated by users of published CPI data. But doing that meant that some precision in the published percent change data was lost. The effect of the change was expected to be small. Both CPIs are based on retail market prices. These prices, for more than 80,000 separate items, are collected in 87 urban areas across the country from thousands of outlets, such as grocery and department stores, gasoline service stations, and hospitals, among others. BLS selects these retail establishments based on a survey showing where people do their shopping. Actual prices (except those for food) are not published because they are collected on a confidential basis. Price indexes are available in considerable detail. Examples of items for which CPI data are available include white bread, men's shirts, automobile tires, haircuts, funerals, automobile repair, and bedroom furniture. The "all-items" CPI is the index most often referred to and it is a composite index, a weighted average, based on the indexes for all of the goods and services whose prices are collected. The all-items CPI measures the price change of a fixed market basket of goods and services over time. The mix of goods and services making up the market basket is based on spending patterns established by the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). Based on the CES, weights are assigned to each of the goods and services that make up the market basket. These weights determine how much the price change for a given good will affect the all-items measure. For any given interval, the total price change, as measured by the all-items CPI, is the weighted average of the price changes of all of the components. With the release of data for January 2010, the CPI market basket is based on purchasing patterns described by the CES in 2007 and 2008. BLS updates the expenditure weights every two years. Table 1 shows the major expenditure categories included in the CPI and their relative importance in the CPI-U as of December 2009. Relative importance reflects both the expenditure weights and changes in relative prices. Either a larger expenditure weight, or an increase in the price of a good relative to prices for other goods may cause the relative importance to increase, and vice versa. Based on the measures of relative importance shown here, some might be concerned that medical care costs have too small a weight in the all-items index. In particular, the elderly typically spend a relatively larger share of their outlays on medical care. In calculating the CPI, however, the share of the market basket accounted for by medical care is based on "out-of-pocket" costs. This includes direct out-of pocket costs for medical care as well as indirect out-of-pocket costs for health insurance. An increasing share of medical costs are paid for by employers and government, so that out-of-pocket expenses on medical care are not as great as total outlays on medical care. It is also important to appreciate that there is considerable variation among consumers (and among elderly consumers as well) in the demand for medical care, and the relative importance of medical care in the CPI is based on an average. No single price index can accurately describe the inflation experience of every single person. Different population groups (e.g., the elderly) tend to have different purchasing patterns, and individuals' purchases vary significantly within those groups. Although many elderly may spend more on medical care than is taken into account in the CPI, there are also some elderly who spend less. For those who spend less, if medical care costs rise more rapidly than do the prices of other goods and services, the CPI will tend to overstate increases in the cost of living, other things being equal. BLS is currently investigating the behavior of an experimental CPI for the elderly population. This experimental CPI for Americans aged 62 and older rose by an average of 2.9% per year between December 1989 and December 2009. During the same period, both the CPI-U and CPI-W rose at an annual rate of 2.7%. Considerable effort is made to ensure that the CPI is a meaningful, reliable measure of changes in the price level. But it does not necessarily reflect the inflation experience of each individual consumer. To the extent that individuals spend relatively more on those goods and services whose prices are rising faster than average, they may experience a higher inflation rate than that measured by the CPI. Similarly, those who spend relatively less on goods and services whose prices are rising faster than average, may experience a lower inflation rate than that measured by the CPI. If purchasing patterns change significantly, then in the short run the CPI may tend to overstate the inflation rate. The CPI is a fixed-weight index and does not immediately take into account changes in spending patterns due to changes in relative prices. There may also be a tendency for the CPI to overstate the inflation rate because some price increases reflect improvements in the quality of goods and services. Taking quality changes into account in a price index is difficult, but BLS does attempt to make some adjustments to the CPI for quality improvements in a number of areas, including automobiles, apparel, and a number of consumer electronic goods, personal computers in particular. Home ownership costs in the CPI are treated in a special way. Prior to 1983, the home ownership component of the CPI measured changes in the cost of purchasing a new home. Since 1983 for the CPI-U and 1985 for the CPI-W, changes in the cost of home ownership have been based on the concept of "rental equivalence." Rather than measuring changes in the cost of buying a house in each period, which would include finance charges, the CPI attempts to estimate the rental value of owner-occupied housing. Thus, the CPI measures changes in the consumption aspect of housing costs and not changes in the investment value of owner-occupied housing. In addition to the all-items CPIs, BLS also publishes an index which excludes the effects of both food and energy prices. Increases in the CPI less food and energy are also referred to as the "core" inflation rate. The reason for excluding food and energy prices is that, at times, they may be more volatile than other prices and thus mask the underlying trend rate of inflation. That can be useful for policymakers to whom inflation is an important variable. The "core" rate is often mentioned prominently in press reports covering the monthly releases of CPI data. This seems to be an occasional source of confusion, leading some to conclude that food and energy prices are not taken into account in calculating Social Security cost-of-living adjustments. In fact, food and energy prices are taken into account. The all-items CPI is used to make cost-of-living adjustments, not the core index. In December 1996, a special commission chaired by economist Michael Boskin reported to the Senate Finance Committee that the CPI tended to overstate the actual rate of inflation by about 1.1% per year. Although a number of specific recommendations were made in the report, Congress took no legislative steps to require any changes in the way BLS calculates the CPI. But the methodology of calculating the CPI has changed much since it was first published and is likely to continue to do so. BLS continues to look at methods that might lead to a more accurate measure of the cost of living. As part of that process, with the release of data for July 2002, BLS introduced an alternative CPI that makes use of "chain-weights." This index is referred to as the C-CPI-U. The expenditure weights for the C-CPI-U are updated more frequently than either the CPI-U or the CPI-W, and the index itself is subject to revision. The C-CPI-U has not replaced either the CPI-U or the CPI-W, and they will continue to be used for indexing. The CPI is currently published for 26 metropolitan areas. For most of these cities, however, indexes are not published on a monthly basis. These metropolitan area indexes are only intended to compare inflation rates between cities. The metropolitan area CPIs may not be used to compare the actual cost of living between cities. Table 2 shows the metropolitan areas for which the CPI is published as well as the publication frequency. BLS has set up an Internet home page for the CPI where visitors can get a copy of the most recent CPI press release, as well as up-to-date information regarding the CPI program. The Internet address for this page is http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ . Detailed CPI data are also readily available. BLS has set up a number of ways on their website, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/#data , to obtain CPI data. By making selections from each of a succession of menus, users of BLS's website may specify the particular data they want. There is also a link to an "inflation calculator," allowing users to make their own inflation adjustments to dollar amounts. BLS has published estimates of the CPI going back as far as 1800, which makes it the longest, continuous price index series available. These data are shown in Table 3 . Data for 1800 through 1912 were derived by splicing price indexes collected in three separate, nongovernmental, studies. Prior to 1978, there was only one CPI available. For 1978 and after, the data in Table 3 correspond to the CPI-U. Given that the accuracy of the CPI remains a topic of discussion, the data for the early years of this series should be considered to be fairly crude estimates. The long series allows a noteworthy observation. Between 1800 and 1945, there was no long-term trend in the price level. During that period prices tended to fall as often as they rose. Since 1945, however, there has been a decided upward trend in the level of prices with the price level having fallen in only a few years. The decline in 2009 was the first since 1955. The figures in Table 3 show year-over-year changes in the CPI, and the index numbers for each year are the average of the monthly data for that year. Changes in the CPI are sometimes published on a December-over-December basis. That number can vary significantly from the year-over-year number depending on how the monthly changes are distributed over the period. In 2009, for example, the year-over-year change was -0.4% whereas the change from December 2008 to December 2009 was 2.7%. The CPI is an indicator of changes in the price level. At present, those changes are expressed relative to the average level of prices in the years 1982, 1983, and 1984. Thus, the average of all of the monthly CPI numbers for those three years is equal to 100. Determining the change in consumer prices between any two years is a simple percent change calculation using the formula: percentage change in the CPI = (( CPI 2 ÷ CPI 1 ) - 1 ) x 100. For example, in 2009, the CPI-U was 214.537, and in 1989 the CPI-U was 124.0. The total percentage change in the CPI-U between 1989 and 2009 was: (( 214.537 ÷ 124.0 ) - 1 ) x 100 = 73.0 percent. Calculating the percentage change between any two years at an annual rate is slightly more complicated, and requires the formula: annual rate of change in the CPI = (( CPI 2 ÷ CPI 1 ) 1/n - 1 ) x 100, where n is the number of years covered in the interval. To calculate the average annual rate of change in the CPI-U between 1989 and 2009, we use an n of 20 and the same CPI-U values as in the previous example. The average annual rate of change in the CPI-U between 1989 and 2009 was: (( 214.537 ÷ 124.0 ) 1/20 - 1 ) x 100 = 2.8 percent. Another common use of the CPI is to adjust dollar amounts for inflation, so that amounts from different years can be compared in terms of dollars of the same purchasing power. Suppose the question is how much money would have been required in 2009 to buy the same quantity of goods and services as $100 bought in 1989. To get such an estimate, the 1989 dollar value needs to be adjusted to account for the increase in consumer prices between 1989 and 2009. That requires the formula: equivalent purchasing power in period 2 = ( CPI 2 ÷ CPI 1 ) x dollar amount in period 1. For example, using the same CPI values as in the above examples, the equivalent purchasing power in 2009 of $100 in 1989 is: ( 214.537 ÷ 124.0 ) x $100 = $173.01. This same calculation can be reversed to find the purchasing power in an earlier period of a dollar amount of a more recent vintage. To do this use the formula: equivalent purchasing power in period 1 = ( CPI 1 ÷ CPI 2 ) x dollar amount in period 2. For example, using the same CPI values as in the above examples, the equivalent purchasing power in 1989 of $100 in 2009 is: ( 124.0 ÷ 214.537 ) x $100 = $57.80. Using these formulae, dollar values of constant purchasing power can be compared for any two periods for which CPI data are available. Constant dollar values are always compared in terms of the dollar's purchasing power in a particular year, known as the base year. When comparing dollars of constant purchasing power, it is important to specify the base year. | The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is perhaps the most widely reported measure of inflation. A number of federal government programs are regularly adjusted to account for changes in the CPI, such as Social Security benefits and the personal income tax rate schedule. Thus, the behavior of the CPI has important consequences for a large number of people. Many, however, may be unfamiliar with how the CPI is estimated. For Congress, the CPI is of particular interest because of its significant effect on the federal budget. Changes in the CPI can have substantial effects on both revenues and outlays, and those changes may either reflect underlying economic conditions or result from methodological changes in the way the CPI is calculated. The CPI is based on a number of sample surveys. One of these surveys estimates the purchasing patterns of the "typical" household to determine how that household spends its money. Another survey determines where those households shop, and a third survey collects prices on the goods and services purchased by those households. The CPI measures the price level relative to a particular period. Currently, the CPI number for each month is a measure of the price level relative to what it was between 1982 and 1984. The CPI is available for a number of metropolitan areas but it does not allow comparisons of the cost of living in different cities. |
(CNN) Before the midterm elections, CNN Opinion asked commentators to weigh in on the races they were watching most closely. We have asked those commentators to assess the outcome of those races -- and what they mean for the future of American politics. The views expressed are solely their own.
Raul Reyes: Chances are, we have not heard the last from Beto
On Tuesday, just hours before the polls closed in Texas, Beyonce made a surprise endorsement for Democrat Beto O'Rourke over Republican Ted Cruz in the race for Texas senator. Maybe Queen Bey should have weighed in a little sooner. Maybe O'Rourke should have run a more traditional campaign, instead of refusing to run negative ads. Maybe O'Rourke should have worked harder at winning over Republican voters, rather than focusing on identifying new voters.
The "what-if's" will no doubt linger around O'Rourke's candidacy for a long time, as incumbent Cruz defeated him in the Lone Star State by single digits. Though O'Rourke excited voters in a way reminiscent of Barack Obama, this was not Beto's night. His narrow defeat was a heartbreaker for Democrats who have long dreamed of turning this state blue.
Still, this has been an extraordinary campaign, one that O'Rourke can and should be proud of. If he had run a conventional campaign, it likely would not have captured national attention, inspired Texas Democrats and made "Beto" a household name . O'Rourke should be pleased with the fact that he has awakened the state's Democrats. Just the fact that, until around 10 p.m. Tuesday night, the race was seen as a tossup is an accomplishment in itself.
O'Rourke has shown that a progressive Democrat can mount a serious challenge in a red state. He has brought in thousands of first-time voters, among them many Latinos and millennials. And he did this while refraining from personal attacks and staying true to his inclusive values.
Ted Cruz likely benefitted from the structural electoral advantages that Republicans enjoy in Texas -- as well as a healthy dose of political tribalism. But thanks to his charisma and sharp political instincts, O'Rourke has made a substantial impact on Texas politics. He is well-positioned to challenge Sen. John Cornyn, or even consider a presidential run. Chances are, we have not heard the last from Beto.
Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes
Jennifer L. Lawless: Three lessons from Texas 23
Republican incumbent Will Hurd's win over Gina Jones in Texas' 23rd Congressional District race demonstrates three important lessons about the midterms.
First, TX-23 is one of the 23 House districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but which sent a Republican to Congress. Both parties were laser-focused on this year's race because it was prime real estate to flip. The fact that the GOP held it yet the Democrats still found a path to control the House highlights the importance of broadening the electoral map. A loss in TX-23 would have been devastating for Democrats had fewer districts been in play.
Second, a compelling profile can only take a candidate so far. Gina Jones' background was a progressive Democratic voter's dream come true. She's young. She's gay. She's a woman of color. She's an Iraq War veteran. But even if she motivated and energized Democrats, there weren't enough of them in the district.
Third, Hurd's win isn't synonymous with a Donald Trump victory. Hurd isn't a Trump acolyte. He differs from the President on DACA and the border wall (not surprising given that the district is 55% Hispanic). And as a former CIA official, he's condemned the administration for how it handled Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hurd didn't embrace Trump and managed to eke out a win, probably to the president's chagrin.
TX-23 reminds us that even in a nationalized election, some politics are still local.
Jennifer L. Lawless is the Commonwealth Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.
Julian Zelizer: Trumpism was victorious in Tennessee
Tennessee produced an important victory for Trumpism, a Republican agenda that revolves around nativism, tariffs and nationalism -- as well as an unorthodox style of governance. The state's Senate race was perceived by both parties as a good test of what kind of impact Trump was having in territory that was friendly to him in 2016.
Democrats were hoping that the former governor, Phil Bredesen, a moderate and beloved politician, could defeat the conservative Representative Marsha Blackburn, a close ally of Trump.
And Bredesen put up a good fight. He stuck to whatever center still exists in American politics -- supporting Judge Brett Kavanaugh and saying he wouldn't vote for Sen. Chuck Schumer as the party leader. But the fact that he could not pull this off will be deflating.
If the Senate remains in Republican hands, the administration and the Republican leadership will certainly read into the results signs that the last month's aggressive partisan strategy worked -- play to the base, be as rightward as possible and do not cede anything to moderation.
The message from Tennessee will also have an effect on Democrats, as they start sorting through what kind of candidates they want to run in 2020 -- with an inevitable battle between those who favor centrists and those who want progressives. Bredesen's inability to pull off a victory in Tennessee means there is little hope that anyone else in the party can.
With Tennessee, even in an evening when Republicans suffered in swing House districts, score one for Trumpism.
Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and author of "The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress and the Battle for the Great Society."
Sally Kohn: Georgia's 6th District reminds us why every vote matters
When Democrat Lucy McBath announced her candidacy to unseat Republican incumbent Karen Handel in Georgia's 6th, no one really thought the flight attendant turned gun control advocate had a chance. After all, Handel had won her seat in the fiercely contested special election against Democrat Jon Ossoff in June 2017. While Ossoff broke fundraising records and almost became a national rock star, Handel ultimately won by more than 3 percentage points.
Georgia's 6th District -- the one that once sent Republican Newt Gingrich to Congress -- is historically red and 60% white. McBath is a black woman who rose to prominence as a voice in the Black Lives Matter movement after her 17-year-old son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed by a white man at a gas station after an argument over the volume of music playing in the teen's car.
So what happened in the election? As of Thursday morning, McBath won. What's more, it appears turnout in the district this midterm election nearly matches that of 2016 , which is highly unusual.
In addition, a strong base of volunteers showed up for both McBath and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, at the top of the state ticket. What really seems to distinguish this election is the level of sustained and enthusiastic grassroots support across the country. Trump supporters may have shown up in big numbers to attend rallies in airport hangars, but Democrats knocked on millions of doors, made millions of calls and mobilized in ways that will continue to shake politics in this country. That surge of progressive grassroots action is just beginning. George Goehl, the director of People's Action, rightly called the midterm results a "people's wave."
That's in a state where allegations of voter suppression were widely reported, especially after Georgia's secretary of state and Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp canceled more than 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012, according to The Associated Press . Republicans and Trump made clear in this election that they're willing to fight dirty by spreading hate or actively discouraging people from voting. And the Georgia 6th race reminds us why every vote matters.
Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator and author of the book, "The Opposite of Hate."
Jeff Yang: Never underestimate a well-run Democratic campaign
In a night where the Democratic Party's hope for a blue tidal wave was tempered by a redder-than-expected reality, Antonio Delgado's victory in New York's 19th Congressional District was a sterling example of how the traditional combination of an appealing candidate, methodical grassroots organizing, and, of course, an ample war chest is still the formula for success in demographically challenging areas.
Delgado, running as a pragmatic progressive in a rural, 84% white district that Trump won, set incumbent John Faso back on his heels with his ability to fund-raise and with competitive results in early polls.
Republicans tried to fight him by playing the racial fear card, running an ad referring to Delgado as an ex-rapper whose profane lyrics and left-wing politics showed him to be out of touch with the values of the community -- obscuring Delgado's status as a Harvard-educated lawyer and Rhodes scholar.
The ads may have backfired; at the least, they led to articles shaming Faso's clumsy attempt at race-baiting in the New York Times, Washington Post, New York magazine and local papers like the Times-Union. This allowed Delgado to avoid directly responding to the attacks, while focusing on more pertinent concerns for the district, such as health care, a topic on which Faso, who had voted to kill Obamacare, was already vulnerable. The victory polishes Delgado's status as a potential rising star in the Democratic Party -- which the party needs, given its lackluster bench going forward into 2020 and beyond.
Jeff Yang is a frequent contributor to CNN Opinion, a featured writer for Quartz and other publications, and the co-host of the podcast "They Call Us Bruce."
Scott Jennings: Progressives cannot win in Kentucky
Republican incumbent Andy Barr in Kentucky's 6th Congressional District found himself in a dogfight with Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, a former fighter pilot who came home to storm her primary and give Democrats hope in a district that covers Kentucky's beautiful bluegrass region.
But Barr brought in a wingman -- President Donald Trump -- and defeated McGrath in one of the closest congressional races in recent Kentucky history.
Trump rallied for Barr in Madison County, where thousands packed an arena on the campus of Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond. And when the votes were tallied on election night Madison delivered for Barr, giving him 59% of the vote and a nearly 7,000-vote margin.
Republican turnout in the district's rural counties overcame McGrath's strong showing in Fayette County, the urban heart of the district. There was some Republican handwringing over whether Barr should cleave so closely to Trump, but the campaign made the correct call and used the President in just the right way, giving Barr his happy landing.
This campaign showed the value of opposition research. Insiders say McGrath had a double-digit polling lead during the summer, but crashed back to earth when the Barr campaign unleashed tapes of her talking to liberal donors at out-of-state fundraisers.
"I am further left, I am more progressive, than anyone in the state of Kentucky," McGrath told her donors in one speech, a clip of which appeared in numerous sidewinders fired off by Barr and the Republicans in their ad barrage. Note to future candidates: everything you say anywhere might follow you home.
McGrath's strong showing could make her a player for a future contest, perhaps a state office in 2019 or a run for US Senate in 2020 or 2022 when senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul next face the voters, respectively. But given the damage the opposition research did to McGrath's image in a purplish district like Kentucky's sixth, it's hard to imagine her words playing any better throughout the redder portions of Kentucky.
Trump will be at the top of the ticket in 2020, and his alliance with McConnell will make it hard for any self-professed progressive to overcome the President and Senate majority leader in a state that's among the most receptive to the #MAGA agenda.
Scott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. He is a partner at RunSwitch Public Relations in Louisville, Kentucky. Follow him on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY.
Jen Psaki: Sometimes the national party gets it right
On a night when Texas sent Ted Cruz back to the Senate, his opponent still made a significant contribution to a big democratic night. Beto O'Rourke's grassroots turnout operation,and energizing message helped bring more Democrats to the polls and helped Lizzie Fletcher defeat John Culberson in Texas' 7th Congressional District.
Fletcher ran a smart race focused on health care and Culberson's votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And she successfully appealed to the anger and frustration of women in the Houston suburbs, including independent and Republican women, who were eager to send a message to President Donald Trump.
This race also showed that, once again, Democrats can come together after a bruising primary contest -- even one where the national party ham-handedly weighed in with opposition research against the primary candidate they viewed as weaker. Whether or not it was the right tactic, the Democrats ended up with the nominee they wanted and a nominee who won a crucial southern seat.
Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki.
Robby Soave: It's tough out there for third-party candidates
Former Gov. Gary Johnson came up well short in his third-party bid for New Mexico's Senate seat -- a familiar outcome for the Libertarian presidential aspirant.
Johnson, who previously earned 3% of the national popular vote in the 2016 presidential election, entered New Mexico's Senate race in early August. He took an early lead over Republican candidate Mark Rich, but trailed incumbent Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich. An early Emerson College poll put Johnson at 21% vs. Rich's 11% and Heinrich's 39%. That turned out to be the high-water mark for Johnson; his support collapsed in subsequent polls. News outlets called the race on Tuesday night for Heinrich.
It's tough out there for third-party candidates. Dissatisfied voters who plan to spurn the two major parties often come around and cast a lesser-of-two-evils vote for one or the other. Johnson, for instance, was polling at 10% at various points in 2016, but the final tally -- while still the strongest showing for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot -- was just over 3%.
Johnson's loss is not unexpected, but it's still a pity. An independent senator willing to challenge Trump and the Democratic Party would have been a welcome change of pace. Alas, the two-party duopoly is tough to break, no matter how many Americans would prefer a wider variety of choices.
Robby Soave writes for the libertarian magazine Reason . Follow him on Twitter @robbysoave
Haroon Moghul: Ojeda represented something unusual
I wanted Richard Ojeda to win, not just because he is a Democrat, but because he represented something as important as it is unusual. A one-time Trump supporter, the military veteran switched sides, not out of crass political calculation -- West Virginia, whose 3rd Congressional District he ran in, is obviously not a blue state -- but out of genuine conviction. He believed, and rightly, that the President was not keeping his promises, that his fellow West Virginians were better represented by a party that cared for and fought for them. Ojeda represented, in other words, the possibility of partisan fluidity.
It may be that, in a district where he had little, if any, realistic chance of victory, there is no larger lesson to be learned. It could be, though, that this speaks to a disquieting obstacle; that, come 2020, Democrats will be doomed by a terrible trinity: gerrymandering, an Electoral College that slights majorities and party loyalty impossible to transcend.
But in the same state where Ojeda lost to Carol Miller, the state Trump won by a whopping 42%, Democratic incumbent Sen. Joe Manchin held on. However, Manchin voted to confirm Kavanaugh. That's another kind of partisan fluidity.
Be careful what you wish for.
Haroon Moghul is Fellow in Jewish-Muslim Relations at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, and author of "How to be a Muslim: An American Story."
Errol Louis: DeSantis benefited from the Trump boost
Andrew Gillum's potential loss to Ron DeSantis in the race for Florida governor continues a pattern: Democrats, who have frequently carried the Sunshine State in presidential contests, have not won the governor's mansion since 1998, despite coming within 1% of victory three times.
The race was nasty from the very start, with DeSantis drawing criticism for warning supporters not to "monkey this up" by losing to Gillum -- a statement immediately condemned as racist by DeSantis critics.
Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, at first looked like the candidate to change the Democrats' luck. He led in 34 out of 37 polls leading up to election day; the final pre-election sounding by NBC News/Marist found Gillum leading DeSantis by a healthy 50% to 46%.
Gillum rolled up decent majorities in urban areas, including Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami and his base in Tallahassee. But last-minute campaigning by President Donald Trump boosted the turnout for DeSantis in Republican strongholds, as well as many suburban and exurban communities surrounding the Democratic cities.
One bright sign on the horizon for Democrats is the passage of a voter referendum that abolishes Florida's onerous practice of banning ex-felons from voting for life unless a special pardon was granted. The restoration of voting rights could add more than 1 million voters to the rolls. That could be a game-changer in a future race.
Errol Louis is the host of "Inside City Hall," a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel.
Tara Setmayer: It may be another generation before we see a New Jersey GOP Senator
Democratic incumbent Bob Medendez won his third term handily, despite his ethics-plagued tenure. His Republican challenger, Bob Hugin, tried to make the race a referendum on Menendez's scandals by spending $36 million of his own money in what became one of the nastiest Senate races in the country. Hugin spent millions on TV ads alone, hammering Menendez on his alleged corruption and outspending the incumbent two to one . But he could not overcome Trump's unpopularity in a state where the blue wave crashed ashore with a vengeance.
Hugin gave Democrats a scare when he pulled within single digits of Menendez, prompting the party to infuse almost $8 million into a race that shouldn't have been competitive in the first place. Menendez's ethical issues in office created lukewarm support for him within the party. Democrats were already in a tough spot defending multiple Senate seats in red states that Trump won in 2016. The last thing they wanted to do was spend that kind of money in a reliably blue state like New Jersey. It took home state elected officials like Senator Cory Booker and Governor Phil Murphy to use their political capital to convince reluctant Democrats to hold their noses and support Menendez.
Given how well Democrats performed in New Jersey, turning three long-time Republican congressional districts blue, it may be another generation before we see a GOP senator from the Garden State.
Tara Setmayer, a CNN political commentator, is the host of the "Honestly Speaking with Tara" podcast. Follow her on Twitter @tarasetmayer. ||||| He did astoundingly well for a Texas Democrat. He’s already got a national profile. He’s proved he can raise a ton of money without indebting himself to corporations. His Uplifting Articulate Guy persona presents a clear alternative to Trumpism without coming across as scolding or patronizing. While he lost his Senate race, he has experience in Congress, but not so much experience that past votes will haunt him. He’s shown a rare willingness to answer tough questions. And as the clip above indicates, he has the charisma to make a live-TV F-word somehow come across as endearing and wholesome. Beto 2020—why not?
Support our journalism Help us continue covering the news and issues important to you—and get ad-free podcasts and bonus segments, members-only content, and other great benefits. Join Slate Plus Join Slate Plus | Beto O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz, but the elegies for the 46-year-old are in many cases reading a lot more like a 2020 presidential pitch. What's being said about the Texas Democrat's loss and the future of both the candidate and the party in the state: At Slate, Ben Mathis-Lilley makes the case for Beto 2020 (though he also suggests no case needs to be made: "Don't Overthink It, Just Nominate Beto," reads his headline). Elements of his argument: "His Uplifting Articulate Guy persona presents a clear alternative to Trumpism without coming across as scolding or patronizing. While he lost his Senate race, he has experience in Congress, but not so much experience that past votes will haunt him." At CNN, Raul Reyes says "Beto" has become a "household name" that won't soon disappear from our tongues. He runs through the what-ifs of his loss (among them: "Maybe O'Rourke should have run a more traditional campaign, instead of refusing to run negative ads") while acknowledging the way O'Rourke ran his campaign is the reason why he "captured national attention." Reyes raises the possibility of a presidential run, too: "O'Rourke has shown that a progressive Democrat can mount a serious challenge in a red state ... and he did this while refraining from personal attacks and staying true to his inclusive values." |
The First Amendment inspires everything we do.
From our relentless defense of all the rights guaranteed us — like peaceable assembly, free speech, the exercise of religion, and of course, a free press.
To our battles to protect individual liberty and ensure against secrecy and the harassment of journalists and their sources.
To our passion for the new technology and perspectives that are connecting the world in ways never before imagined.
Because democracy is a conversation that thrives when all voices are heard. And everything we do makes sure that conversation continues. ||||| The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.
According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.
The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the individual in possession of the device.
The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely” been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic.
One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children, spouses and family members.
Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.”
As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike.
“Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is there,” he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it. It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it gets very shady.”
The former drone operator also says that he personally participated in drone strikes where the identity of the target was known, but other unknown people nearby were also killed.
“They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities.”
What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.
“People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations kill terrorists with the utmost precision.
In his speech at the National Defense University last May, President Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.” He added that, “by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.”
But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other fallible surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. A recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone strikes have taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties.
The NSA declined to respond to questions for this article. Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, also refused to discuss “the type of operational detail that, in our view, should not be published.”
In describing the administration’s policy on targeted killings, Hayden would not say whether strikes are ever ordered without the use of human intelligence. She emphasized that “our assessments are not based on a single piece of information. We gather and scrutinize information from a variety of sources and methods before we draw conclusions.”
Hayden felt free, however, to note the role that human intelligence plays after a deadly strike occurs. “After any use of targeted lethal force, when there are indications that civilian deaths may have occurred, intelligence analysts draw on a large body of information – including human intelligence, signals intelligence, media reports, and surveillance footage – to help us make informed determinations about whether civilians were in fact killed or injured.”
The government does not appear to apply the same standard of care in selecting whom to target for assassination. The former JSOC drone operator estimates that the overwhelming majority of high-value target operations he worked on in Afghanistan relied on signals intelligence, known as SIGINT, based on the NSA’s phone-tracking technology.
“Everything they turned into a kinetic strike or a night raid was almost 90 percent that,” he says. “You could tell, because you’d go back to the mission reports and it will say ‘this mission was triggered by SIGINT,’ which means it was triggered by a geolocation cell.”
In July, the Washington Post relied exclusively on former senior U.S. intelligence officials and anonymous sources to herald the NSA’s claims about its effectiveness at geolocating terror suspects.
Within the NSA, the paper reported, “A motto quickly caught on at Geo Cell: ‘We Track ’Em, You Whack ’Em.’”
But the Post article included virtually no skepticism about the NSA’s claims, and no discussion at all about how the unreliability of the agency’s targeting methods results in the killing of innocents.
In fact, as the former JSOC drone operator recounts, tracking people by metadata and then killing them by SIM card is inherently flawed. The NSA “will develop a pattern,” he says, “where they understand that this is what this person’s voice sounds like, this is who his friends are, this is who his commander is, this is who his subordinates are. And they put them into a matrix. But it’s not always correct. There’s a lot of human error in that.”
The JSOC operator’s account is supported by another insider who was directly involved in the drone program. Brandon Bryant spent six years as a “stick monkey” – a drone sensor operator who controls the “eyes” of the U.S. military’s unmanned aerial vehicles. By the time he left the Air Force in 2011, Bryant’s squadron, which included a small crew of veteran drone operators, had been credited with killing 1,626 “enemies” in action.
Bryant says he has come forward because he is tormented by the loss of civilian life he believes that he and his squadron may have caused. Today he is committed to informing the public about lethal flaws in the U.S. drone program.
Bryant describes the program as highly compartmentalized: Drone operators taking shots at targets on the ground have little idea where the intelligence is coming from.
“I don’t know who we worked with,” Bryant says. “We were never privy to that sort of information. If the NSA did work with us, like, I have no clue.”
During the course of his career, Bryant says, many targets of U.S. drone strikes evolved their tactics, particularly in the handling of cell phones. “They’ve gotten really smart now and they don’t make the same mistakes as they used to,” he says. “They’d get rid of the SIM card and they’d get a new phone, or they’d put the SIM card in the new phone.”
As the former JSOC drone operator describes – and as classified documents obtained from Snowden confirm – the NSA doesn’t just locate the cell phones of terror suspects by intercepting communications from cell phone towers and Internet service providers. The agency also equips drones and other aircraft with devices known as “virtual base-tower transceivers” – creating, in effect, a fake cell phone tower that can force a targeted person’s device to lock onto the NSA’s receiver without their knowledge.
That, in turn, allows the military to track the cell phone to within 30 feet of its actual location, feeding the real-time data to teams of drone operators who conduct missile strikes or facilitate night raids.
The NSA geolocation system used by JSOC is known by the code name GILGAMESH. Under the program, a specially constructed device is attached to the drone. As the drone circles, the device locates the SIM card or handset that the military believes is used by the target.
Relying on this method, says the former JSOC drone operator, means that the “wrong people” could be killed due to metadata errors, particularly in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. “We don’t have people on the ground – we don’t have the same forces, informants, or information coming in from those areas – as we do where we have a strong foothold, like we do in Afghanistan. I would say that it’s even more likely that mistakes are made in places such as Yemen or Somalia, and especially Pakistan.”
As of May 2013, according to the former drone operator, President Obama had cleared 16 people in Yemen and five in Somalia for targeting in strikes. Before a strike is green-lit, he says, there must be at least two sources of intelligence. The problem is that both of those sources often involve NSA-supplied data, rather than human intelligence (HUMINT).
As the former drone operator explains, the process of tracking and ultimately killing a targeted person is known within the military as F3: Find, Fix, Finish. “Since there’s almost zero HUMINT operations in Yemen – at least involving JSOC – every one of their strikes relies on signals and imagery for confirmation: signals being the cell phone lock, which is the ‘find’ and imagery being the ‘unblinking eye’ which is the ‘fix.’” The “finish” is the strike itself.
“JSOC acknowledges that it would be completely helpless without the NSA conducting mass surveillance on an industrial level,” the former drone operator says. “That is what creates those baseball cards you hear about,” featuring potential targets for drone strikes or raids.
President Obama signs authorizations for “hits” that remain valid for 60 days. If a target cannot be located within that period, it must be reviewed and renewed. According to the former drone operator, it can take 18 months or longer to move from intelligence gathering to getting approval to actually carrying out a strike in Yemen. “What that tells me,” he says, “is that commanders, once given the authorization needed to strike, are more likely to strike when they see an opportunity – even if there’s a high chance of civilians being killed, too – because in their mind they might never get the chance to strike that target again.”
While drones are not the only method used to kill targets, they have become so prolific that they are now a standard part of U.S. military culture. Remotely piloted Reaper and Predator vehicles are often given nicknames. Among those used in Afghanistan, says the former JSOC drone operator, were “Lightning” and “Sky Raider.”
The latter drone, he adds, was also referred to as “Sky Raper,” for a simple reason – “because it killed a lot of people.” When operators were assigned to “Sky Raper,” he adds, it meant that “somebody was going to die. It was always set to the most high-priority missions.”
In addition to the GILGAMESH system used by JSOC, the CIA uses a similar NSA platform known as SHENANIGANS. The operation – previously undisclosed – utilizes a pod on aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or other electronic devices that are within range.
One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden is written by a SHENANIGANS operator who documents his March 2012 deployment to Oman, where the CIA has established a drone base. The operator describes how, from almost four miles in the air, he searched for communications devices believed to be used by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in neighboring Yemen.The mission was code named VICTORYDANCE.
“The VICTORYDANCE mission was a great experience,” the operator writes. “It was truly a joint interagency effort between CIA and NSA. Flights and targets were coordinated with both CIAers and NSAers. The mission lasted 6 months, during which 43 flights were flown.”
VICTORYDANCE, he adds, “mapped the Wi-Fi fingerprint of nearly every major town in Yemen.”
The NSA has played an increasingly central role in drone killings over the past five years. In one top-secret NSA document from 2010, the head of the agency’s Strategic Planning and Policy Division of the Counterterrorism Mission Management Center recounts the history of the NSA’s involvement in Yemen. Shortly before President Obama took office, the document reveals, the agency began to “shift analytic resources to focus on Yemen.”
In 2008, the NSA had only three analysts dedicated to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. By the fall of 2009, it had 45 analysts, and the agency was producing “high quality” signal intelligence for the CIA and JSOC.
In December 2009, utilizing the NSA’s metadata collection programs, the Obama administration dramatically escalated U.S. drone and cruise missile strikes in Yemen.
The first strike in the country known to be authorized by Obama targeted an alleged Al Qaeda camp in the southern village of al-Majala.
The strike, which included the use of cluster bombs, resulted in the deaths of 14 women and 21 children. It is not clear whether the strike was based on metadata collection; the White House has never publicly explained the strike or the source of the faulty intelligence that led to the civilian fatalities.
Another top-secret NSA document confirms that the agency “played a key supporting role” in the drone strike in September 2011 that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as another American, Samir Khan. According to the 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, “The CIA tracked [Awlaki] for three weeks before a joint operation with the U.S. military killed” the two Americans in Yemen, along with two other people.
When Brandon Bryant left his Air Force squadron in April 2011, the unit was aiding JSOC in its hunt for the American-born cleric. The CIA took the lead in the hunt for Awlaki after JSOC tried and failed to kill him in the spring of 2011.
According to Bryant, the NSA’s expanded role in Yemen has only added to what he sees as the risk of fatal errors already evident in CIA operations. “They’re very non-discriminate with how they do things, as far as you can see their actions over in Pakistan and the devastation that they’ve had there,” Bryant says about the CIA. “It feels like they tried to bring those same tactics they used over in Pakistan down to Yemen. It’s a repeat of tactical thinking, instead of intelligent thinking.”
T
hose within the system understand that the government’s targeting tactics are fundamentally flawed. According to the former JSOC drone operator, instructors who oversee GILGAMESH training emphasize: “‘This isn’t a science. This is an art.’ It’s kind of a way of saying that it’s not perfect.”
Yet the tracking “pods” mounted on the bottom of drones have facilitated thousands of “capture or kill” operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan since September 11. One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden notes that by 2009, “for the first time in the history of the U.S. Air Force, more pilots were trained to fly drones … than conventional fighter aircraft,” leading to a “‘tipping point’ in U.S. military combat behavior in resorting to air strikes in areas of undeclared wars,” such as Yemen and Pakistan.
The document continues: “Did you ever think you would see the day when the U.S. would be conducting combat operations in a country equipped with nuclear weapons without a boot on the ground or a pilot in the air?”
Even NSA operatives seem to recognize how profoundly the agency’s tracking technology deviates from standard operating methods of war.
One NSA document from 2005 poses this question: “What resembles ‘LITTLE BOY’ (one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War II) and as LITTLE BOY did, represents the dawn of a new era (at least in SIGINT and precision geolocation)?”
Its reply: “If you answered a pod mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) that is currently flying in support of the Global War on Terrorism, you would be correct.”
Another document boasts that geolocation technology has “cued and compressed numerous ‘kill chains’ (i.e. all of the steps taken to find, track, target, and engage the enemy), resulting in untold numbers of enemy killed and captured in Afghanistan as well as the saving of U.S. and Coalition lives.”
The former JSOC drone operator, however, remains highly disturbed by the unreliability of such methods. Like other whistleblowers, including Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, he says that his efforts to alert his superiors to the problems were brushed off. “The system continues to work because, like most things in the military, the people who use it trust it unconditionally,” he says.
When he would raise objections about intelligence that was “rushed” or “inaccurate” or “outright wrong,” he adds, “the most common response I would get was ‘JSOC wouldn’t spend millions and millions of dollars, and man hours, to go after someone if they weren’t certain that they were the right person.’ There is a saying at the NSA: ‘SIGINT never lies.’ It may be true that SIGINT never lies, but it’s subject to human error.”
The government’s assassination program is actually constructed, he adds, to avoid self-correction. “They make rushed decisions and are often wrong in their assessments. They jump to conclusions and there is no going back to correct mistakes.” Because there is an ever-increasing demand for more targets to be added to the kill list, he says, the mentality is “just keep feeding the beast.”
For Bryant, the killing of Awlaki – followed two weeks later by the killing of his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al Awlaki, also an American citizen – motivated him to speak out. Last October, Bryant appeared before a panel of experts at the United Nations – including the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, who is currently conducting an investigation into civilians killed by drone strikes.
Dressed in hiking boots and brown cargo pants, Bryant called for “independent investigations” into the Obama administration’s drone program. “At the end of our pledge of allegiance, we say ‘with liberty and justice for all,’” he told the panel. “I believe that should be applied to not only American citizens, but everyone that we interact with as well, to put them on an equal level and to treat them with respect.”
Unlike those who oversee the drone program, Bryant also took personal responsibility for his actions in the killing of Awlaki. “I was a drone operator for six years, active duty for six years in the U.S. Air Force, and I was party to the violations of constitutional rights of an American citizen who should have been tried under a jury,” he said. “And because I violated that constitutional right, I became an enemy of the American people.”
Bryant later told The Intercept, “I had to get out because we were told that the president wanted Awlaki dead. And I wanted him dead. I was told that he was a traitor to our country…. I didn’t really understand that our Constitution covers people, American citizens, who have betrayed our country. They still deserve a trial.”
The killing of Awlaki and his son still haunt Bryant. The younger Awlaki, Abdulrahman, had run away from home to try to find his dad, whom he had not seen in three years. But his father was killed before Abdulrahman could locate him. Abdulrahman was then killed in a separate strike two weeks later as he ate dinner with his teenage cousin and some friends. The White House has never explained the strike.
“I don’t think there’s any day that goes by when I don’t think about those two, to be honest,” Bryant says. “The kid doesn’t seem like someone who would be a suicide bomber or want to die or something like that. He honestly seems like a kid who missed his dad and went there to go see his dad.”
Last May, President Obama acknowledged that “the necessary secrecy” involved in lethal strikes “can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.”
But that, says the former JSOC operator, is precisely what has happened. Given how much the government now relies on drone strikes – and given how many of those strikes are now dependent on metadata rather than human intelligence – the operator warns that political officials may view the geolocation program as more dependable than it really is.
“I don’t know whether or not President Obama would be comfortable approving the drone strikes if he knew the potential for mistakes that are there,” he says. “All he knows is what he’s told.”
Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program of targeted assassination, he and his top advisors have repeatedly made clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation and takes full responsibility for it. Obama once reportedly told his aides that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people.”
The president added, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
Ryan Devereaux contributed to this article. ||||| Media Matters
The controversial columnist is the public face of a billionaire-backed new media play. And that could mean problems for a venture with ambitions way beyond the Snowden-verse.
Investigative reporter and columnist Glenn Greenwald was barely five minutes into his appearance Sunday on CNN’s Reliable Sources—an interview promoting the long-awaited online launch of First Look Media, eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s ambitious digital journalism startup—before he called the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee a liar.
“He’s not only lying—and he is lying—but he knows that he’s lying,” Greenwald said about Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, who suggested last week that journalists who’ve disseminated classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden might be guilty of “fencing stolen material.”
“This is what Mike Rogers is notorious for in Washington,” Greenwald went on, “just making things up and smearing political opponents and journalists he doesn’t like.”
The retort was a familiar-sounding one for the 46-year-old Greenwald, a former trial lawyer who tends to treat policy disagreements as blood feuds and is never reluctant to question motives and fling rather personal insults. With documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras and Oscar-nominated foreign policy muckraker Jeremy Scahill, among other colleagues, he will in the next day or so unveil a digital magazine devoted at first to heretofore unpublished documents from Snowden’s voluminous top-secret cache revealing “a host of new and disturbing revelations,” according to a blog post by Omidyar and First Look editorial strategist Eric Bates.
As of the weekend, the precise timing of the magazine’s launch was being kept under wraps—“we just say early next week,” Bates told me. Even its frequency, masthead and title were hush-hush, although wags in the journalism game are already calling it “The Snowden Weekly.” (Shortly before 1 a.m. Monday, the project went live, leading with a story about the NSA's unreliable use of electronic surveillance over human intelligence to target lethal drone strikes; the actual name of the new magazine is The Intercept.)
Bates, a former executive editor of Rolling Stone when Omidyar recruited him last November to help staff and structure a planned $250 million enterprise, stressed that the Greenwald/Poitras/Scahill project is merely the first in a series of digital magazines, each with a distinctive voice and visual style and covering the waterfront from politics to show business, that will be introduced in coming months.
But since last fall the pugnacious Greenwald—constantly making television appearance by satellite from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where he lives with his domestic partner, David Miranda—has seemed to be the camera-ready face of First Look Media. Bates, however, said that’s all wrong.
“I think the way the news of the founding of it got leaked led to that misperception, because every time you saw the initial headlines for months, it was a ‘Glenn Greenwald-led organization funded by Pierre Omidyar,’ as if Pierre was simply writing the checks,” Bates told me. “And I think we’ve done a better job of making it clear that’s just not the case… Our ambitions and aspirations are much broader.” Indeed, Bates described the $250 million being spent by the press-shy Omidyar—whose personal fortune is estimated at $9 billion—as an “initial” investment.
But the question is: how much top-flight talent can they recruit if Greenwald remains the organization's apparent front man?
Greenwald and Scahill, especially, have positioned themselves as fearless warriors against “modern establishment journalism” as practiced by mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times and NBC News (on which Greenwald engaged in a memorable brawl over Snowden with Meet The Press host David Gregory).
At last summer’s 2013 Socialism Conference in Chicago, Scahill spoke of “lapdog stenographers posing as journalists,” prompting cheers from the audience, and Greenwald inveighed against “the corruption of American journalism,” “actors who play the role of journalists on TV,” and even former Times executive editor Bill Keller, who “defines good journalism by how much you please the people in power you’re covering.”
That would have come as news to Keller who in a December 2005 showdown at the Oval Office defied President Bush and his demand that the Times not publish an exposé of the NSA’s warrantless electronic eavesdropping program targeting people inside the United States. The story—by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau—earned Keller the Bush White House sobriquet of “traitor” and was a worthy predecessor to Greenwald’s NSA/Snowden scoops last June in The Guardian, for which Greenwald and Poitras are on the short list for a prestigious George Polk Award.
Some mainstream journalists who would otherwise be logical recruits to work on national security issues with Greenwald & Co.—such as the Times’s Risen, who didn’t respond to my voicemail message, or The New Yorker’s Amy Davison and The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman, who declined to comment for this story—haven't signed on with First Look, at least not so far. Perhaps they're loath to identify themselves with a worldview that leaves so little room for nuance.
“I think if people had those sorts of concerns,” Bates said, “then they probably wouldn’t work on the magazine that Glenn and Laura and Jeremy are launching.” Greenwald, meanwhile, argued on Reliable Sources that because of their reputations for protecting confidential sources and reporting aggressively “even if the government doesn’t like it... journalists know that about us and I think that some will be willing to work with us.”
Greenwald and Poitras—who have control over some, but not all of the Snowden cache—have also taken fire from the left for allegedly privatizing documents of great public interest in the service of potential corporate profits.
Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
“Edward Snowden has popularly been compared to major whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning and Jeffrey Wigand,” wrote Pando Daily’s Mark Ames, citing the whistleblowers at the center of the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks and the unmasking of Big Tobacco. “However, there is an important difference in the Snowden files that has so far gone largely unnoticed. Whistleblowing has traditionally served the public interest. In this case, it is about to serve the interests of a billionaire starting a for-profit media business venture. This is truly unprecedented.” (That's also not quite right; First Look's journalism will be housed in a non-profit venture, while the technologies being built to operate the magazines will be done under a for-profit umbrella.)
Noting that such outlets as The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times have also enjoyed access to parts of the Snowden collection, Bates said it was Snowden’s choice to first turn to Greenwald and Poitras because “he wanted to give them to someone he thought would do an aggressive and responsible job of looking into them… and Glenn and Laura have been working tirelessly to do exactly that. So there’s nothing different about that arrangement than the time-honored tradition of honoring the wishes of your source.”
Bates also defended Greenwald’s publication of NSA revelations with competing news outlets since his arrival at First Look—notably the Canadian Broadcasting Co. and, ironically, NBC News—explaining that Greenwald had urgent stories to break and, until now, no platform on which to share them. | America's drone program is "absolutely" killing innocent people because it launches strikes solely based on NSA phone metadata and tracking technologies, a former drone pilot tells Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, in the first post for Greenwald's much-hyped new media venture, The Intercept. The NSA's involvement with the drone program has been previously reported, but the Intercept piece focuses on the flaws of the approach, which eschews traditional human intelligence. Most notably: The terrorists appear to have caught on. Aware that the NSA geolocates cell phones, militants will now carry extra SIM cards, or worse, pass cell phones to civilians, says the drone pilot, who's a Joint Special Operations Command member. He says he's participated in strikes where the target's phone was found, but someone else was killed. "People get hung up that there's a targeted list of people," he says. "It's really like we're targeting a cellphone." But Greenwald does describe him as "adamant" that the tactic has eliminated actual terrorists. Greenwald is largely being touted as the face of First Look Media, a new venture from eBay mogul Pierre Omidyar, a strategy that the Daily Beast worries could prove problematic given Greenwald's aggressive style. In announcing The Intercept, First Look made clear that the Greenwald vehicle would be "the first of what will eventually be a family of digital magazines." |
Jeb Bush announces the suspension of his presidential campaign in Columbia, S.C., on Feb. 20. (Mark Makela/Getty Images)
With apologies to Winston Churchill, the tale of the Jeb Bush campaign might be summarized as “Never before have so few spent so much to achieve so little.”
Before suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Bush and his team spent more than $125 million on political consultants, mostly those specializing in the production and placement of paid media. An analysis of Federal Election Commission filings for Bush’s campaign committee and super PAC, Right to Rise, shows that the vast majority of these expenditures were executed through two consulting firms — Oath Strategies and Revolution Agency — that together were responsible for more than 95 percent of the ad budget.
Although the vast majority of this money — more than $100 million — went to purchase air time on local television stations, the advertising barrage probably generated several million dollars in consulting fees and commissions (detailed expenditure data is available here).
Graph by Adam Sheingate
Why did Bush spend so much on ads, especially given how little it seemed to help his ill-fated campaign? One reason may be because the super PAC Right to Rise was run by Mike Murphy, a Republican media consultant who served as a top adviser to Bush’s 1998 and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns. Murphy is also a founding partner of the Revolution Agency, the same consulting firm handling media for the campaign. The bulk of spending, almost 90 percent, passed through Oath Strategies. The firm remains something of a mystery, but Oath Strategies shares an address with another consulting firm, Media Ad Ventures, started by Brad Mont, who previously worked with Murphy.
It should come as no surprise that a super PAC run by a media consultant would direct resources toward advertising. However, campaign strategies are also shaped by the commercial incentives of the consulting industry. Advisers such as Murphy channel significant amounts of money to firms they directly own a stake in or those owned by their associates.
The Bush campaign is not alone in this feature. So far, presidential candidates have spent $400 million on consulting services, about three times as much as was spent at a similar period in the 2012 campaign. A look at how each campaign allocates money to firms tells us something about their strategy and the structure of the consulting industry.
Take Ben Carson’s campaign. The bulk of its spending has been directed toward consulting firms specializing in fundraising, including digital tools such as email solicitations and data analytics that have become a hallmark of contemporary campaigns. More than half of the $37 million his campaign paid to consultants went to just three firms, Eleventy Marketing Group, InfoCision and TMA Direct. All three have close ties to Carson advisers. Ken Dawson, chief marketing officer for Carson’s campaign, is president of Eleventy Marketing, a fundraising firm based in Akron, Ohio. Dawson’s previous employer was InfoCision, a telemarketing firm also based in Akron. Senior campaign adviser Mike Murray is president and chief executive of direct-mail specialist TMA Direct.
In some cases, influential figures surrounding the candidate, including big-money donors, shape how campaign resources are allocated. Ted Cruz’s campaign, for instance, paid $4.75 million so far to Cambridge Analytica, a research and data analytics firm started by Robert Mercer, who has given $11 million to the pro-Cruz super PAC Keep the Promise.
During his presidential announcement in June, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told a hypothetical story about taxing goods manufactured outside the United States, saying he is "really rich" and wouldn't kowtow to donors. (AP)
As in so many areas of this year’s campaign, Trump remains the outlier, managing to spend relatively little because of his ability to generate free media. The largest beneficiary of the Trump campaign thus far is Jones Day, a law firm specializing in compliance and financial consulting. Trump’s legal counsel, Donald McGahn, is also a partner at Jones Day, which has received about $500,000 in payments from the campaign.
On the Democratic side, several firms are profiting from their close ties to presidential candidates. Jim Margolis, media adviser for Hillary Clinton, is a founder of GMMB, a Democratic consulting firm that has billed the campaign more than $12 million. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has paid $1.7 million to the polling firm run by their chief strategist Joel Benenson.
The two Democratic campaigns also show the influence of consulting firms created by veterans of President Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012, especially those specializing in fundraising and digital tools. The Clinton campaign has paid Bully Pulpit Interactive, a firm started by the head of online advertising for Obama’s 2012 reelection bid, $5.8 million. Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign has paid another Obama campaign spin-off, Revolution Messaging, $9.3 million to build a formidable online fundraising machine.
At the current pace, the price tag for this year’s presidential race could exceed $4 billion. This figure should remind us that politics is a business and that the current presidential campaign presents a lucrative opportunity for the handful of consulting firms able to cash in on the record spending.
It may be difficult at this stage to predict each party’s nominee, much less whom the next president will be, but the current campaign illustrates something approaching an iron law of American politics: the consultant always wins.
Adam Sheingate is associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University and the author of “Building a Business of Politics: The Rise of Political Consulting and the Transformation of American Democracy.” ||||| Jeb Bush, the Republican establishment’s last, best hope, began his 2016 campaign rationally enough, with a painstakingly collated operational blueprint his team called, with NFL swagger, “The Playbook.”
On page after page kept safe in a binder, the playbook laid out a strategy for a race his advisers were certain would be played on Bush’s terms — an updated, if familiar version of previous Bush family campaigns where cash, organization and a Republican electorate ultimately committed to an electable center-right candidate would prevail.
Story Continued Below
The playbook, hatched by Sally Bradshaw, Mike Murphy and a handful of other Bush confidants in dozens of meetings during the first half of 2015 and described to POLITICO by some of Bush’s closest and most influential supporters, appealed to the Bush family penchant for shock-and-awe strategy. The campaign would commence with six months of fundraising for the Right to Rise super PAC and enough muscle to push aside Mitt Romney. There would be a massive, broad-based organizational effort to plant roots in March states at a time when other campaigns were mired in Iowa and New Hampshire. The plan outlined Bush’s positive, future-focused message with an emphasis on his decade-old record of accomplishment as Florida governor.
And it included several pages about Bush’s case to prosecute against top rivals — dire political threats such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker.
The plan roundly underestimated threats: Bradshaw, his closest adviser and longtime defender, for example, told at least one campaign aide that Marco Rubio wouldn’t challenge Bush. Besides, Bradshaw and other top advisers believed, it would be next to impossible for someone with so little experience to beat him. “They thought there was going to be much more reverence and respect for the fact that Jeb Bush, a Bush, was getting into the race,” said one Florida-based supporter, an alumnus of Bush’s gubernatorial campaigns and former staffer. “When they got Romney to step aside, they figured everyone else would too.”
Most critically, the playbook, people who have read it tell POLITICO, contained nothing about Donald Trump, who would spend the next excruciating year turning Bush into his personal patrician piñata.
“The rules all changed this year. It was all about taking on the establishment,” said a Republican operative close to the Bush family. “When you’re the son and brother of former presidents, the grandson of a U.S. senator, how do you run in a year like this? It is just a year of personality, not message. All of a sudden, there was no path for him. They just kept falling back on his record as governor, which is all he has — and no one gives a shit.”
Bush suspended his campaign Saturday night after a fourth-place finish in the South Carolina primary.
Interviews with more than two dozen Bush insiders, donors and staff members illuminate the plight of an earnest and smart candidate who was tragicomically mismatched to the electorate of his own party and an unforgiving, mean media environment that broadcast his flaws. The entire premise of Bush’s candidacy, these insiders tell POLITICO, was an epic misread of a GOP base hostile to any establishment candidate, especially one with his baggage-weighted last name.
And Bush, known for toughness and hard-work ethic in Tallahassee, just couldn’t project the kind of Reagan-on-’roids strength demanded by Trump.
“They were just captive to it,” one Washington-based Bush donor said. “And they didn’t adjust very nimbly.”
***
By August, just six weeks after officially launching his campaign, the only thing Bush’s staff could agree on was the problem: Donald J. Trump.
They’d paid no attention to the New York celebrity’s launch in June, just a day after their own. In early August, well after Trump began to dominate news coverage of the race, they still believed he was a blessing in disguise who would deprive Bush’s lesser-known rivals of the media oxygen needed to break through. But as Labor Day neared, Bush found himself on the defensive, peppered daily with questions from reporters asking him to react to Trump’s hard-line positions and seemingly outrageous statements on immigration.
But almost immediately, Trump baited Bush into a fight, staking out a position to the far right of the Floridian by calling for an end to automatic citizenship to any baby born in America. He ridiculed Bush’s earlier comment that immigrants who come to the United States illegally do it as an “act of love” for family, and called him unelectable.
Bush fired back, poorly. He went on conservative radio and used the derogatory term “anchor babies” when making the case that he would be a tough enforcer of immigration laws — opening the floodgates of criticism.
The following week, inside a Mexican restaurant in McAllen, Texas, just a few miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, Bush compounded the problem he was trying to clean up when he explained rather didactically that he was referring to Asians, not Mexicans, whom he argued were more guilty of taking advantage of the country’s birthright citizenship provision.
Inside his Miami headquarters, Bush’s senior staffers were coming to the collective realization that the race was veering out of their control.
But that’s where the consensus ended.
David Kochel, the early-state strategist initially hired to serve as campaign manager, and senior adviser Trent Wisecup, a protégé of Murphy’s, suggested that Bush challenge Trump to a one-hour, live televised debate on birthright citizenship, perhaps on “The O’Reilly Factor.” The Fox News host, they argued, supports birthright citizenship, and his show would offer a high-profile platform for Bush to demonstrate his policy knowledge and articulate his more unifying message, bringing the contrast between himself and Trump into sharper relief.
But Bradshaw, the most senior figure in the operation, and campaign manager Danny Diaz couldn’t be convinced it was a risk worth taking, according to high-level campaign staff.
By early August, Bush's team all agreed their main problem was Donald Trump, who had begun baiting Bush into fights almost immediately after his campaign launched. Above, the three candidates at the New Hampshire debate in early February. | AP
Days later, on Aug. 25, Trump was on stage at a rally in Dubuque, Iowa, when he offered an impression of Bush and characterized him as “low energy,” a critique he’d come up with after the first debate a few weeks earlier.
Bush’s team was stunned, first by the insult and then that it stuck. Kochel and Wisecup raced to respond and saw their already planned event that very same day — on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina — as the perfect opportunity for Bush to respond forcefully and directly to Trump. They envisioned Bush in Pensacola, Florida, speaking straight to Trump: “You think I’m low energy, why don’t you come down here and talk to these people about how I took charge in a crisis.”
But once again, Bradshaw and Diaz couldn’t be convinced. Trump, they decided, wasn’t in Bush’s “lane” and so the campaign need not worry about responding to him. They went ahead with the event as planned, rolling out a two-minute video telling the story of Bush’s leadership during several hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. The following day, the headlines mainly served to remind readers of another Bush with a less-heralded record on Katrina—George W. “One Bush gets praise for his handling of hurricanes” was The Washington Post’s version.
They got defined as �?low energy’ by a guy who took an escalator to his own announcement.”
“The Jeb people knew that literally every day when he was governor, he’d walk the steps of the Capitol at a jog pace,” one longtime Bush bundler and confidant said recently. “The building was 30 stories high. You’d hide because you wouldn’t want him to catch you and make you walk the stairs. He’d email you at 5:30 a.m. This was not at all a low-energy guy. It wasn’t true, but it stuck.”
“They got defined as �?low energy’ by a guy who took an escalator to his own announcement.”
***
Those pivotal days in late August were one of the most critical inflection points for Bush’s troubled presidential campaign—the moments when Bradshaw, Kochel and Diaz might have reconsidered the assumptions made months earlier and redirected their candidate. They didn’t, because that redirection wasn’t part of the playbook.
“You cannot run a political campaign and not have the ability to adapt, to pivot,” one longtime Bush donor who has supported all five of the family’s presidential campaigns. “To sit there and say �?We have a book’ just shows the immaturity.”
Bradshaw, who remained based in Tallahassee throughout the campaign, not the Miami headquarters, is exceedingly close to Bush. She has run all of his gubernatorial campaigns and served as his chief of staff. She acts as his strategist, his confidante and his muscle, defending him from critics and acting as a wall between Bush and almost everyone else. But some donors worried that she and other Bush loyalists wouldn’t be able to see his flaws as a candidate.
Early on, Murphy warned some incoming top aides about the loyalists. “If Jeb walks into a room and asks for a coconut,” Murphy told them, “the loyalists would drop everything to make sure Jeb got a coconut.”
When Bradshaw held her first meeting with about 40 of the campaign’s most connected donors in Washington, D.C., last spring, laying out the playbook, explaining the structure of the operation and confidently asserting the high likelihood of Bush becoming the GOP nominee, she left the sleek law-firm conference room without assuaging some donors’ doubts about the plan — specifically, the decision to focus the first half of 2015 almost exclusively on raising unlimited amounts of cash for the super PAC and the structure of the campaign itself — or her willingness to speak tough truths to Bush himself.
“She told this story about how Jeb upset the young kid tasked with collecting and distributing the [news] clips because he said he didn’t want anyone reading the clips, he wanted them focused,” a top Bush bundler who attended the meeting recalled. “And she said she told the kid, �?Don’t worry, just take Jeb off the list and keep doing them.’ She’s in a room with 40 of us basically saying that she’s hiding things from the principal. We were like, �?Why are you telling us this?’”
Bradshaw brushed off donors’ concerns that focusing so much on filling the super PAC’s coffers might leave the campaign cash-poor. At the time, so much money was rolling in, that situation was hard to imagine. Bush’s finance team, led by Heather Larrison and Jack Oliver, was confident it would have the money it needed and instructed Kochel, then serving as the unofficial campaign manager, to build out a massive campaign with ballot-access teams working every state and senior staffers earning more than $200,000 annual salaries. Early on in the campaign, for example, Bush hired scores of policy aides — a reflection, perhaps, of his own wonkiness. Yet it was a luxury: Most of the campaigns hired only a small number of policy aides.
Once Diaz was named campaign manager in June, he went on a cost-cutting spree — implementing painful across-the-board cuts that affected staffers at nearly every corner of the campaign. Even junior staffers making mid-five figures found their salaries reduced. By late fall, the campaign was no longer leasing a second office space on the sixth floor of its Miami headquarters, with so many staffers having been either laid off or relocated to Iowa and New Hampshire.
“[Sally] would be the one who could be direct with Jeb about his flaws — but she doesn’t see the flaws,” said a GOP operative who has worked with Bradshaw. “She doesn’t understand how other people don’t see it, and anyone who is critical of Jeb is dead to her.”
Bradshaw especially was obsessed with Rubio, whose audacity in simply entering the race and challenging his friend and former mentor was, to many Bush loyalists, unforgivable. Once the GOP debates began in August, sparking new interest in the golden-tongued Rubio, Bush’s team agreed it was time to engage with a challenger who, in its view, posed a greater obstacle to Bush consolidating support from mainstream Republicans.
In October, Bush began laying the groundwork to prosecute his case against Rubio, dinging the first-term senator for his poor attendance record and missed votes in the Senate. Heading into the third GOP debate in Boulder, Colorado, on Oct. 28, Bush and his entire team were on the same page — and brimming with confidence. They hinted at what was coming, planting stories and calling reporters on debate day to ensure that the attack on Rubio was the dominant storyline.
They’d rehearsed the attack on Rubio dozens of time during debate prep, but when it came time to execute on stage, Bush “just whiffed,” one senior staffer lamented later. “That stuff he said about being one of Marco’s constituents and being disappointed, that wasn’t anything we’d practiced,” the staffer continued. “He’s Jeb Bush. No one is going to empathize with him as someone who needs his senator to work on his behalf.” When Rubio hit back, dismissing Bush’s attack by citing the fact that “we’re now running for the same position,” Bush failed to respond.
“Sometimes you just fuck up,” the Bush staffer said.
It wasn’t until that debacle that Bush’s advisers decided to address the candidate’s poor performances themselves, hiring Jon Kraushar, who generally works with television anchors, as a public speaking coach.
***
Looking back now after his early exit from a nomination battle he vowed to be in “for the long haul,” his slow, awkward stumble from August through October encapsulates everything that caused the operation viewed as “Jeb!, Inc.” to fail. Bush was on the wrong side of the most galvanizing issues for Republican primary voters; he himself was a rusty and maladroit campaigner and his campaign was riven by internal disagreements and a crippling fear that left it paralyzed and unable to react to Trump.
The problem, many donors say they believe, is that there wasn’t anyone on the team who both recognized his shortcomings and was willing to point them out to the principal himself.
“He did not put an adult as the chairman of the campaign and a lot of the mistakes flow from that,” said one longtime Bush donor. “Reagan put Bill Casey in that position. 41 put Jim Baker. 43 had Don Evans. You always had someone above the campaign manager who could tell people and the candidate what needed to happen, who could see the big picture. By putting Sally, who loves you, in charge, you don’t get the fair perspective, the right perspective.”
But the blame is not Bradshaw’s alone. The entire premise of Bush’s candidacy now looks like a misread of an electorate that wasn’t amenable to establishment candidates—and a misunderstanding of a modern media environment ill-suited to a policy wonk who speaks in paragraphs, not punchy sound bites. He couldn’t sell experience to an electorate that wanted emotion. He couldn’t escape his last name. His millions couldn’t buy popular support.
Given how the race has gone, the real mystery of Jeb Bush’s campaign isn’t why he failed — but why anyone ever thought he would succeed.
Glenn Thrush and Alex Isenstadt contributed to this report.
Eli Stokols is a national politics reporter. | Some $130 million later, Jeb Bush is out of the running for president, but at least he had fun. He should have, anyway, according to campaign finances cited by the New York Times. In between dinners at the Yale Club and Nantucket's Westmoor Club, Bush and his aides stayed at luxurious hotels on the Las Vegas Strip and bit into thousands of dollars' worth of pizza, funded by the Bush campaign and the super PAC Right to Rise. The Times breaks down some numbers: $3.3 million on airfare $84 million on advertising, per the Times, though the Washington Post reports more than $100 million went toward TV airtime $48,544 on Vegas hotels, including the Bellagio, the Wynn, and the Venetian $10 million on consultants $4,837 on pizza $88,387 on branding, including this exclamation point $15,800 on valets $8.3 million on campaign staff $94,100 on dinner and event tabs Politico has Bush's tab at a higher $150 million, while the Post reports the total cost of the 2016 campaign for all candidates could top $4 billion. (Here's what pundits say doomed Bush.) |
Title II of the Social Security Act, as amended, establishes the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, which is generally known as Social Security. It provides cash benefits to retired and disabled workers and their dependents and survivors. Workers become eligible when they have enough years of earnings covered under Social Security; they and their employers pay payroll taxes on those covered earnings. In 1999, about 96 percent of all U.S. jobs are covered , and over 40 million people received $386 billion in benefits, which averaged about $800 per month or $9600 per year. The benefit formula takes into account the lifetime history of earnings and replaces a higher percentage of earnings for lower earners than for higher earners. In contrast, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides income support to eligible aged and disabled persons regardless of their earnings history. Funds for SSI benefits come from general revenues, not payroll taxes. Persons with income or assets that exceed certain thresholds are not eligible for SSI. In 2001, the maximum federal SSI monthly benefit is $531 for an individual and $796 for a couple and is reduced to reflect receipt of other income, including OASDI benefits. In December 1999, over 6.5 million people received federally-administered SSI benefits; of these about 6.3 million received a federal benefit and about 2.4 million received an SSI state supplemental benefit. In December 1999, the average monthly federal benefit was $342; the average monthly federally-administered state supplement was $111. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance benefits are generally provided automatically and free of premiums to persons aged 65 or older who are eligible for Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits. Similarly, individuals who have been entitled to Social Security or Railroad Retirement disability benefits for at least 24 months are entitled to such benefits. In addition, Supplementary Medical Insurance benefits are available on a voluntary basis with a monthly premium to cover doctors’ services, tests, and a variety of over medical services. In 1999, Medicare paid a total of $210 billion in benefits and covered nearly 40 million enrollees. According to current estimates, the Hospital Insurance trust fund will be exhausted in 2029. Medicare beneficiaries and others who have low incomes and limited resources may also receive help from the Medicaid program. In 1998, Medicaid made $142 billion in payments for medical services for 41 million recipients, of which about 4 million were aged 65 or older and 6.6 million were disabled. Average payments were about $10,200 for the aged and $9,100 for the disabled. Roughly $32 billion was paid for nursing facilities. According to the OASDI Trustees’ 2001 intermediate, or best-estimate, assumptions, Social Security’s cash flow is expected to turn negative in 2016. In addition, all of the accumulated Treasury obligations held by the trust funds are expected to be exhausted by 2038. Social Security’s long- term financing shortfall stems primarily from the fact that people are living longer while having fewer children. As a result, the ratio of workers paying into the system to beneficiaries has been falling and is projected to decline from 3.3 today to about 2 by 2030. To address the program’s long-term financing shortfall, a variety of proposals have been offered. In choosing among proposals, we have suggested that policymakers should consider three basic criteria: the extent to which the proposal achieves sustainable solvency and how the proposal would affect the economy and the federal budget; the balance struck between the twin goals of individual equity (rates of return on individual contributions) and income adequacy (level and certainty of benefits); and how readily such changes could be implemented, administered, and explained to the public. Moreover, as we have said, reform proposals should be evaluated as packages that strike a balance among individual reform elements and important interactive effects. Overall evaluation of each proposal depends on the weight individual policymakers place on each criterion. From its inception, Social Security was intended to help reduce the extent of dependency on public assistance programs. As it has evolved, the program’s design has reflected that objective. Over time, that objective has come to be stated more broadly as helping ensure adequate incomes. While the Congress has never explicitly defined what constitutes an adequate level of benefits, it stated as early as 1939 that its objective was to “afford more adequate protection.” However, individual savings and other resources were also expected to play a significant role. In response to the grave economic problems of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Committee on Economic Security in 1934 to study the economic insecurity that individuals faced and to make recommendations on how to address it. The committee’s recommendations became the basis of the Social Security Act of 1935, which created several programs to meet the needs of different population groups, including the aged. Two programs specifically addressed the aged population—Title I’s Old-Age Assistance (OAA) program and Title II’s Old- Age Insurance (OAI) program. OAA benefits, administered by the states with both state and federal funds, were intended to provide immediate cash income for millions of elderly persons without sufficient income for a decent subsistence. OAI benefits, administered by the federal government and funded by equal contributions from both employees and employers, were designed for younger workers to build up their rights to annuities in old age gradually. In effect, the contributions would purchase insurance to protect workers against lost wages when they became too old to work. In debating the creation of OAI, proponents made a variety of arguments in its favor and mentioned several objectives that it would serve. Of these, helping reduce dependency on public assistance was arguably the most fundamental. The Congress was clearly concerned that an increasing number of people were becoming dependent upon the public for their well-being; Social Security would eventually provide benefits that workers and their employers would pay for. Other objectives that were discussed in the debate included stimulating the economy by providing cash income that people would spend and opening up jobs for younger workers by freeing older workers to retire. Implicitly, the Congress designed Social Security benefits with a focus on replacing lost wages. The original formula computed benefits as a percentage of lifetime wages covered under the program in a way that favored lower earners, reflecting a special concern for their benefit levels. Social Security’s framers had targets in mind for benefit levels, but these targets did not appear to be based on any type of scientific research or data analysis. While the Congress made no assertions concerning whether the resulting benefits would be adequate, Senate and House reports stated respectively that under Social Security it would be possible to provide “more than reasonable subsistence” and “not merely subsistence but some of the comforts of life.” The House report also noted that the “benefits provided for workers who have been employed during substantially all their working life will probably be considerably larger than any Federal-aided State pensions could be.” As time passed, the Social Security program grew and evolved. Even before the first monthly benefits were paid in 1940, the Congress enacted amendments in 1939 to “afford more adequate protection to more of our people,” as House and Senate committee reports put it. Changes to benefit levels, coverage of earnings, and eligibility are especially relevant to the program’s adequacy goals. In addition, the introduction of new programs addressed specific needs, such as covering health care costs, promoting retirement saving, and promoting and protecting employer-sponsored pensions. Changes to monthly benefit levels came in different forms at different times. From 1939 until 1950, there were no changes to the benefit formula, and benefit levels, after adjusting for inflation, fell as a result. The 1948 Trustees’ Report expressed concern that inflation was diminishing the adequacy of Social Security benefits and presented a chart showing the decline in inflation-adjusted benefit levels. The 1950 amendments to the Social Security Act increased benefit levels substantially. Then, until 1972, periodic amendments made various ad hoc adjustments to benefit levels. Economic prosperity, along with actuarial methods that often left the Trust Funds with substantial surpluses, facilitated gradual growth of Social Security benefit levels through these ad hoc adjustments. In light of the steady growth of benefit levels, the 1972 amendments instituted automatic adjustments to constrain the growth of benefits as well as to ensure that they kept pace with inflation. Parameters of the benefit formula were automatically adjusted to reflect inflation, and the adjustments affected levels of benefits for both existing and new beneficiaries. However, wages grew more slowly and prices grew more quickly in the 1970s than they had historically. As a result, initial benefit levels grew faster than intended. The program’s first benefit reductions in 1977 attempted to correct for those unintended consequences of the 1972 amendments, and the resulting pattern of increasing and then declining benefit levels has become known as the “notch.” In the process, the benefit formula was redesigned so that initial benefits would generally increase with wages for each new group of beneficiaries. As individuals aged, annual cost-of-living adjustments would then increase benefits to keep pace with inflation. In effect, the new formula’s design would generally replace pre-retirement wages for similar individuals at a consistent rate across age groups. Implicitly, this episode illustrates the focus of the Congress on replacing wages and also identifies benefit levels that the Congress considered higher than they intended. The only other significant benefit reductions came in 1983 when the Congress delayed cost-of-living adjustments primarily to address short-term financing problems and gradually increased the retirement age to address long-term financing problems. In addition, a variety of other types of program changes had effects on the extent to which the program helped ensure income adequacy. As amendments extended Social Security coverage to more jobs, more workers would eventually receive benefits. Initially, Social Security only covered the roughly 60 percent of workers in “commerce and industry” whose wages could most easily be taxed and tracked. As the program matured, coverage was gradually extended to new groups of workers, such as farm workers, domestic workers, self-employed workers, and some federal and state government workers. Today, Social Security covers about 96 percent of all U.S. jobs . Moreover, various amendments extended eligibility to more types of beneficiaries. Under the 1935 act, only some retired workers were to receive benefits. The 1939 amendments extended benefit eligibility to wives, widows, children, and dependent parents age 65 and older. The 1956 amendments extended eligibility to disabled workers, and the 1958 amendments extended eligibility to their dependents. In addition, the 1956 and 1961 amendments extended eligibility to women and men, respectively, at age 62 for retired workers, spouses, and widow(er)s, though worker and spouse benefits taken before the full retirement age were reduced to take account of the longer period over which they would be paid. Outside Social Security, other legislation also addressed income adequacy in various ways. Other benefit programs were created and changed to help ensure adequate incomes. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid were created to alleviate the historically increasing strains on incomes from paying for health care. In 1972, Title XVI’s Supplemental Security Income replaced Title I’s Old-Age Assistance. Moreover, as both House and Senate reports noted in 1939, “individual savings and other resources must continue to be the chief reliance for security.” Over the years, the Congress has enacted legislation to promote employer-sponsored pensions and make them more secure. The Congress has also enacted legislation to promote individual retirement savings and encourage greater work-force participation by the aged and disabled. Various measures have been developed to examine different aspects of income adequacy, but no single measure offers a complete picture. A universally accepted definition of “income adequacy” does not exist; focusing on a single measure would implicitly endorse the concept of adequacy it measures while dismissing other concepts. Several examples of three broad types of measures illustrate the range of relevant measures. Each measure has characteristics that reflect different outlooks on the issue, including how it is calculated, how it accounts for different types of households, how it accounts for geographic variations, and how it is updated over time. In addition, for any type of measurement, what types of income are counted presents a key issue. The first type of measure includes variations of dependency rates. Dependency rates speak to Social Security’s fundamental objective of reducing dependence on public assistance programs, such as SSI or state and local general assistance programs. Some sources have reported dependency rates over the years that reflect a wide variety of sources of income support while other sources report rates that only reflect federal income support programs. For example, as cited by congressional reports, the dependency rate of over 50 percent of the elderly in the 1930s reflected dependence on family members and private charities as well as public assistance. Moreover, public assistance includes a variety of federal, state, and local programs in addition to OAA and SSI. As a result of the extensive effort required to identify all sources of support, the most readily available annual dependency rate data reflects only dependency on OAA and SSI. Accounting for different types of households, geographic variations, and changes over time are not critical concerns in calculating the rates because the rates simply measure whether individuals or households receive public assistance, wherever they are, and whatever the eligibility criteria happen to be. However, the issues of geography and eligibility do raise questions about how to interpret the rates because benefit standards and eligibility provisions for public assistance programs have varied considerably by location and over time. The second type of measure includes rates that express the percentage of the population that has incomes below a given adequacy standard. For example, the poverty rate shows the percentage of individuals whose household income falls below the official poverty thresholds, which attempt to specify an income that would afford a minimal standard of living. Different thresholds apply for different types and sizes of households but are the same for every location in the country. The official poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963 and were built upon a government family food plan. Initially, the thresholds were updated to reflect the change in the cost of the food plan, but since 1969, they have been updated annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In 1969, the Bureau of the Budget established the thresholds as the official definition of poverty for statistical use in all executive departments. The poverty threshold is only one of many adequacy standards that have been developed over the years. Moreover, various government programs and descriptive statistics use different percentages of the poverty threshold, for example, 125 or 150 percent of poverty in determining benefits or eligibility. Some standards focus on determining the income level needed for a moderate subsistence, not merely a minimal one. The bases of the various standards include government-developed family budgets, expenditure data, income data, and even public opinion polls. The various adequacy standards have also used different approaches to capture household and geographic variations and to reflect changes over time. A variety of studies have evaluated the poverty threshold and explored possible changes to it. (See app. II.) The third type of measure, the replacement rate, speaks to Social Security’s objective of replacing lost wages, which is implicit in the program’s benefit formula. In contrast to other types of measures, it focuses on whether retirement income is sufficient to maintain the standard of living a given household enjoyed before retirement, not just meet some socially defined standard of adequacy. Generally, it is calculated as the ratio of retirement income in the first year of retirement to household income in the year immediately preceding retirement.However, the actual experience of a given household could easily involve phased-in retirement or situations where one spouse retires while the other continues to work. Such irregularities present problems in interpreting replacement rates for actual households. Still, these rates can be useful for demonstrating the effects of program changes by focusing on illustrative workers with standardized work experiences. With replacement rates, geographic variations and updating the measure over time are not relevant issues because the household’s own experience is the basis for the measure regardless of location or year. All of these types of measures depend significantly on what types of income are counted. Some dependency rates look only at specific sources of public assistance, while others attempt to reflect all types of public assistance and some even try to reflect dependency of private charities and family members. In the case of poverty rates, one criticism has been that before-tax income is compared with thresholds based on after-tax income. In the case of replacement rates, researchers have noted that the measures of retirement and pre-retirement incomes should be consistent, especially with respect to before- or after-tax status. Finally, a wide range of noncash benefit programs, notably Medicare and Medicaid, also support the standards of living of their beneficiaries though such benefits are not always reflected in measures of income adequacy. For example, replacement rates typically only consider cash income before and after retirement. Also, noncash benefits are not included as income in determining poverty status, and the living costs they support are not explicitly reflected in the poverty threshold against which income is compared. In particular, considerable debate surrounds how to treat medical care needs and resources in measuring adequacy. The adequacy of income for the elderly has generally increased since the 1930s, according to various measures. For example, dependence on public assistance has fallen, as have poverty rates for the elderly. The largest changes occurred in the first few decades of the program’s history; improvements in the past 20 years have slowed or even stopped, depending on the measure used. At the same time, Social Security has become the most important source of income for the elderly and disabled. Savings and other assets, employer-sponsored pensions, and earnings have also increased as sources of income. Still, relatively high poverty rates remain for subgroups that typically have low life-time earnings, whether for old-age or disabled beneficiaries. The dependency rate for the elderly has fallen from almost 22 percent in 1940 to about 6 percent in 1999, using a rate that only reflects OAA or SSI benefits and does not include dependency on relatives and friends. Meanwhile, receipt of Social Security benefits among the elderly has grown significantly from less than 1 percent to over 90 percent. (See fig. 1.) A 1938 Social Security Bulletin reported a dependency rate of 65 percent, which included assistance to those who were totally or partially dependent on friends and relatives. Among the elderly, OASDI beneficiaries outnumbered OAA beneficiaries for the first time between 1950 and 1955 and, by 1960, a majority received Social Security benefits. Since 1980, roughly 90 percent of the elderly have received benefits. The rapid increase in the percentage receiving benefits and the eventual leveling off illustrates the natural maturing of the Social Security system. When monthly benefits were first paid in 1940, only those just turning 65 received benefits; older individuals were not eligible. As each year passed, one additional age group was added to the beneficiary rolls, and more individuals from the earlier, ineligible age groups died. Poverty rates for the elderly have also declined, from 35 percent in 1959 to about 10 percent in 1999. (See fig. 2.) Since 1959, the elderly population has experienced the greatest reduction in poverty rates, compared with children 18 years and younger and adults aged 18 to 64. Examination of dependency and poverty rates for the elderly reveal that much of the improvements occurred during the early decades of the program. (See figs. 1 and 2.) The dependency rate declined at a much faster rate in the early years until about 1965 when declines slowed to a more level trend. Declines in the poverty rate for the elderly were most dramatic from 1959 to 1974 (more than 1 percent per year on average) and have continued since then, but at a slower rate. Over the same period that the income adequacy has increased for the elderly, Social Security has become the single largest source of retirement income. As discussed below, program changes have increased the real value of benefits, and more and more elderly have received benefits as the program has matured. Other sources of retirement income have also grown. Periods of economic prosperity have contributed to the growth of all sources of retirement income. Social Security’s benefit levels have generally increased over the years. Replacement rates for illustrative workers with steady lifetime earnings histories show how changes in the benefit formula have affected benefit levels because using such workers holds other factors equal that might also have an effect. (See fig. 4.) For example, using illustrative workers filters out the effects of changes in the covered population or changes in work and retirement patterns. The declining replacement rates during the early years reflect that no benefit increases were enacted until 1950; fig. 4 also shows a sharp increase in replacement rates that coincides with the 1950 amendments. From 1950 until the early 1970s, replacement rates fluctuated noticeably more from year to year than over other periods; this pattern reflects the ad hoc nature of benefit increases over that period. The rapid increases in the 1970s and the rapid decline in the early 1980s reflects the effects of the notch and efforts to correct it. The smoother pattern that appears since that time reflects the automatic indexing of benefits as enacted in 1977. While there have been many changes in the program for many reasons at different points in time, the replacement rates experienced by today’s new retirees are notably consistent with the levels that Social Security’s designers envisioned for a fully mature system over 60 years ago. At the same time that benefit levels have increased, so has the share of elderly receiving benefits. This is also true of employer-sponsored pensions, earnings, and income from saved assets. Like figure 1, figure 5 shows that the percentage of the elderly receiving Social Security benefits has increased as dependence on public assistance has declined. Figure 5 also shows that Social Security provides income to more elderly households than any other source of retirement income, although other sources have also increased in importance. The percentage of the elderly who receive income from employer pensions increased from 5 percent in 1937 to 43 percent in 1998. The percentage receiving income from saved assets increased from about 15 percent to over 60 percent. The percentage receiving earned income increased from 1937 to 1962 but dropped from 1962 to 1998. In addition to sources of cash income, noncash benefit programs that did not exist in the 1930s now play a major role in supporting the standards of living of Social Security beneficiaries. For example, Medicare is available to all Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and older and all disabled beneficiaries after 24 months, among others. In addition to providing some income to nearly all elderly persons, Social Security is the largest source of income for most. In 1998, Social Security provided more than 50 percent of total income for 63 percent of aged beneficiaries, and it was the only source of income for about 18 percent of aged beneficiaries. Still, other sources of retirement income largely determine who will have the highest retirement incomes. Elderly households with the highest levels of income tend to have substantial income from employer pensions, earnings from employment, and saved assets, while those with the lowest incomes do not. For example, in 1996, 18 percent of all aged beneficiary units without earnings from employment were poor as compared with only 2 percent who received earnings. Income adequacy has also improved substantially for specific subgroups of beneficiaries, such as the very old (85+ years of age), minorities, women, singles, widows, and the disabled. However, even with those improvements, significant levels of poverty remain. This fact largely reflects that lifetime earnings and access to other sources of retirement income tend to be lower among such groups. Social Security is a major component of retirement income for these sub-populations. For example, in 1998, when we exclude Social Security income from total income, 67 percent of unmarried women aged 85 and over have income that falls below the poverty line. As figure 6 shows, poverty rates are higher than average for older age groups, for women, for minorities, and those living alone. Those individuals in older age groups are less likely to have pension benefits or income from saved assets. Women also experience high rates of poverty as compared to men. Of the 3.2 million aged persons who were poor in 1999, 2.2 million were women. Minorities such as Hispanics and blacks experience higher levels of poverty than their white counterparts, as do unmarried women and women living alone. Percent of elderly households with income below poverty Poverty rates also vary by living situation. In 1999, elderly persons living alone were more likely to be poor (14 percent of men and 20 percent of women) than married couple families (6 percent). Of the 1.8 million elderly poor who lived alone in 1999, about 1.5 million were women. Aged African-Americans and Hispanics females living alone are most at risk for living in poverty. In 1999, almost 58 percent of aged Hispanic females living alone were in poverty, while 44 percent of aged African-American females were in poverty. Individuals who fall into more than one group with higher poverty rates are especially at risk of poverty. For example, in 1998, 56 percent of unmarried black females aged 85 and older were poor. Over 60 percent of unmarried Hispanic females aged 75 to 84 were poor. In contrast, 21 percent of white females aged 65 to 74 were poor, and poverty rates for the male counterparts for each category were either less or there were too few cases available to make an assessment. Social Security provides an important source of income for the disabled. In 1999, disabled workers made up 11 percent of all OASDI beneficiaries. As with the elderly, Social Security is a major component (38 percent) of family income for disabled worker families. Also, 48 percent of disabled worker families get half of their income or more from Social Security, while 6 percent have no other income. Unlike the elderly, however, earnings are an equally large source of family income (38 percent) for disabled worker families. At 19 percent, poverty rates are nearly twice as high for the disabled as for the elderly. Still, like the elderly, poverty rates for disabled workers are higher for women, minorities, unmarried persons, and those living alone. Of all disabled beneficiaries, 23 percent of females were poor compared with 15 percent of men. Fifteen percent of disabled beneficiaries were white, 31 percent were black, and 26 percent were Hispanic. Only 12 percent of the disabled who lived with relatives lived in poverty, compared with 35 percent who did not. Ten percent of disabled workers who were married lived in poverty, compared with 27 percent who were not. Disabled workers who were widowed, never married or divorced experienced poverty rates of 30, 25, and 24 percent, respectively. The outlook for future Social Security benefit levels and thus their effect on income adequacy generally will depend on how the program’s long- term financing imbalance is addressed, as well as on the measures used. To illustrate the range of possible outcomes, we developed benchmark policy scenarios that either only increase taxes or only reduce benefits. Even without new benefit reductions, our analysis shows that replacement rates could decrease as the program’s full retirement age gradually continues to increase under current law, depending on the retirement decisions of future retirees. However, even with those reductions, our analysis shows that the adequacy of retirement income would improve markedly using one adequacy standard but change very little using another. Future benefit levels will also depend on the extent and nature of any benefit reductions. More progressive approaches to benefit reductions would result in greater adequacy for lower-earning beneficiaries. In turn, adequacy for various subgroups of beneficiaries would depend in turn on the earnings levels typical of those subgroups. Moreover, the adequacy of total incomes will depend on how individuals adjust their retirement planning in reaction to any program changes and on what happens to other sources of cash and noncash income. In particular, Medicare also faces serious long-term financing problems. However, our analysis does not reflect interactions with other income sources but focuses on the effects of changes in Social Security benefits, holding all else equal. To illustrate a full range of outcomes that might result from alternative approaches to restoring long-term solvency, we developed hypothetical benchmark policy scenarios that would restore solvency over the next 75 years either by only increasing payroll taxes or by only reducing benefits. Our tax-increase-only benchmark simulates “promised benefits,” or those benefits defined under current law, while our benefit-reduction-only benchmarks simulate “funded benefits,” or those benefits for which currently scheduled revenues are projected to be sufficient. These benchmarks used the program’s current benefit structure and the 2001 OASDI Trustees’ intermediate, or best-estimate, assumptions. The benefit reductions are phased in between 2005 and 2035 to strike a balance between the size of the incremental reductions each year and the size of the ultimate reduction. At our request, SSA actuaries scored our benchmark policies and determined the parameters for each that would achieve 75-year solvency. Table 1 summarizes our benchmark policy scenarios. For our benefit reduction scenarios, the actuaries determined these parameters assuming that disabled and survivor benefits would be reduced on the same basis as retired worker and dependent benefits. If disabled and survivor benefits were not reduced at all, reductions in other benefits would be deeper than shown in this analysis. (See app. III for more on our benchmark policy scenarios.) We then modeled future benefit levels with these benchmarks and calculated a variety of measures to look at income adequacy. However, we did not examine any measures of individual equity, such as rates of return, which any of our benchmark policies would also affect. We examined adequacy measures for illustrative workers with different steady lifetime earnings histories, for the entire beneficiary population, and also for different subgroups. To look at representative samples for the beneficiary population and subgroups, we used both SSA’s MINT model and the Policy Simulation Group’s GEMINI model. The MINT model allows us to look at total retirement income in 2020 across different age groups and races while the GEMINI model allows us to focus on specific birth cohorts reaching age 62 in various years, which we selected to look at long-term trends. As with any such simulation models, these models simulate income using a combination of historical data from small samples of the population and a variety of assumptions about future trends. At their best, such models can only provide very rough estimates of future incomes. Still, they can provide valuable comparisons over time and across alternative policy scenarios, holding all else equal. Thus, any analysis should focus on such comparisons rather than on the literal values of the estimates. (See app. IV for more on our modeling analyses.) Our tax-increase-only benchmark illustrates that monthly benefit levels could already decrease as the program’s full retirement age increases under current law, depending on the retirement decisions of future retirees. In turn, replacement rates would decrease by the same proportion because they are defined as the annual benefit amount divided by the last year of earnings. Figure 7 shows future replacement rates under our tax- increase-only benchmark for a range of illustrative retired workers. The full retirement age is the age at which full benefits are paid and historically has been age 65. Under current law, the full retirement age is gradually increasing, beginning with retirees born in 1938, and will reach 67 for those born in 1960 or later. For workers who retire at a given age, an increase in the full retirement age reduces monthly benefits because the actuarial reduction for early retirement increases. For example, for workers who will face a full retirement age of 67 and retire early at 65, monthly benefits will be reduced actuarially by 13.3 percent while their benefits would not have been reduced at all if the full retirement age had been kept at 65. Moreover, the 13.3 percent reduction applies to such workers equally at all earnings levels. As a result, increasing the full retirement age from 65 to 67 implies that replacement rates for illustrative low earners would decline from 57 to 49 percent while for illustrative high earners they would decline from 35 to 30 percent. Therefore, under such a proportional reduction, lower earners face a larger percentage-point reduction than higher earners. Still, the effect of such reductions would be diminished to the extent that workers choose to retire later than today’s workers do. While replacement rate analysis suggests that income adequacy will decline in the future, other ways of assessing adequacy suggest that it will change little or even improve dramatically. The GEMINI model allows us to illustrate this point best by showing changes over long periods of time. Using our tax-increase-only benchmark policy, we calculated the percentage of retired workers with Social Security benefits that fall below two different adequacy standards—the official poverty threshold and one- half median income. The official poverty threshold is adjusted each year to reflect inflation. In contrast, our simulation assumes that the one-half median income threshold will grow at the same rate as Social Security’s Average Wage Index, since wages are the largest component of family income. Figure 8 shows that the percentage of retired workers with benefits below the poverty threshold drops dramatically over time while the percentage with benefits below one-half median income changes very little. The difference in these percentage measures simply reflects differences in the assumptions underlying each adequacy standard. Since initial Social Security benefits are designed to increase with wages, and wages are assumed to grow faster than prices, benefit levels will grow faster than an adequacy standard that grows only by prices. In contrast, benefits will grow at roughly the same rate as a standard that grows by wages. In a fashion similar to poverty rates, dependency rates would also decline relatively rapidly because they focus on SSI benefit standards that increase with prices, not wages. Future benefit levels and income adequacy will also depend considerably on how any benefit reductions are made. Figure 9 shows that the percentage of retired workers with Social Security benefits below the official poverty threshold would be greater under a proportional benefit reduction approach than under a progressive benefit reduction approach. The difference between the two approaches grows slightly over time. The proportional benefit-reduction-only benchmark would reduce benefits by the same proportion for all beneficiaries born in the same year. The progressive benefit-reduction-only benchmark would reduce benefits by a smaller proportion for lower earners and a higher proportion for higher earners. Both benefit reductions benchmark policies would be phased in gradually from 2005 to 2035. The tax-increase-only (no benefit reduction) benchmark estimates are shown for reference. Also, the figure shows that percentage of workers with benefits below the poverty threshold would be slightly higher in our simulations for those retiring in 2032 rather than 2017. This reflects primarily that the benefit reductions in our benchmarks are more fully phased in for the 2032 group. The declines in the percentages from the 2032 to 2047 retirement years largely reflects the effects of the disparity between growth in wages and prices, as illustrated earlier; since the benefit reductions are fully phased in by 2035, the last two age groups experience nearly the same benefit reductions. Percent of cohort with Social Security benefits below poverty 1955 (2017) 1970 (2032) 1985 (2047) Birth year (age 62 year) The differences in adequacy estimates across benefit-reduction scenarios reflect how different benefit reduction approaches will have different effects on workers with different earnings. Lower earners have benefits that are closer to the poverty threshold than higher earners, so a progressive approach to reducing benefits would decrease the chances that lower earners’ benefits fall below that threshold. Figure 10 illustrates how different benefit reduction approaches would produce benefit reductions that would vary by benefit levels. The proportional benefit- reduction benchmark results in identical percentage benefit reductions, while two alternative, progressive benefit-reduction benchmarks would result in smaller reductions for lower earners and larger reductions for higher earners. The so-called “limited-proportional” benefit-reduction benchmark would be even more progressive than the progressive benefit- reduction benchmark because a portion of benefits below a certain level are protected from any reductions while reductions above that level are proportional. The 1985 birth cohort will be subject to the largest benefit reductions of the four cohorts we simulated; therefore, it best illustrates the potential disparity in benefit reductions by benefit level. The different benefit reduction approaches would have different effects on various subgroups of beneficiaries because of the differences in the lifetime earnings levels that are typical of those groups. Women, minorities, and never married individuals all tend to have lower lifetime earnings than men, whites, and married beneficiaries, respectively. Figure 11 shows how future poverty rates mirror these patterns. Moreover, it illustrates again how more progressive benefit-reduction approaches would result in lower poverty rates for these groups in particular. In this case, we present our analysis using SSA’s MINT model because it allows us to examine different races. However, these estimates for the year 2020 reflect benefit reductions that are not fully phased in as well as benefits for beneficiaries from many birth cohorts who will be subject to various levels of the phased-in benefit reductions. For later beneficiaries with fully phased-in benefit reductions, poverty rates could be higher. Tax-increase-only Very old beneficiaries are another subgroup that has tended to be at higher than average risk of poverty. Several factors relating to multiple sources of income have contributed to this risk, and many of these factors can be expected to have similar effects in the future. As people get older, they may spend down their retirement savings, especially as health and long- term-care costs mount up, and they are less likely to work. Also, they are more likely to be widowed. For a couple receiving one retired worker benefit and one spouse benefit, the household’s Social Security benefits would fall by 33 percent when either is widowed. For a couple in which both spouses receive retired worker benefits on their own earnings records, household benefits could fall by as much as 50 percent when either is widowed. In addition, widows might lose employer-sponsored pension benefits, which would happen if their spouse elected a self-only annuity instead of a joint-and-survivor annuity. Also, while Social Security benefits increase each year to reflect inflation, not all employer- sponsored pension benefits do. Of these various factors, all could affect future retirees, though employer pensions have been changing in design. Based on our review, reducing dependency on public assistance appears to have been the primary objective of the Social Security program. While many have noted the importance that Social Security plays in helping ensure adequate incomes for its beneficiaries, the Congress has never explicitly defined the term “adequacy.” In the end, setting benefit levels to address the adequacy issue will always be, as it has always been, a policy decision for the Congress. Still, income adequacy is only one of several criteria to consider in an overall evaluation of comprehensive Social Security reform proposals. Specifically, income adequacy should be balanced against individual equity, or the extent to which benefits are proportional to contributions. Other criteria include the extent to which proposals achieve sustainable solvency, how they would affect the economy and the federal budget, and how readily changes could be implemented, administered, and explained to the public. Current demographic trends confront us with a reality that cannot be ignored. If people will be living longer, then maintaining today’s levels of monthly benefits for all beneficiaries would require either more revenues, from whatever sources, or would require that workers wait longer to collect them. The other alternative of reducing monthly benefits would tend to diminish income adequacy for beneficiaries. However, our analysis shows that more progressive approaches to reducing monthly benefits would have a smaller effect on poverty rates, for example, than less progressive approaches. Also, reductions that protect benefits for survivors, disabled workers, and the very old would help minimize reductions to income adequacy, though they would place other beneficiaries at greater risk of poverty. More broadly, the choices the Congress will make to restore Social Security’s long-term solvency and sustainability will critically determine the distributional effects of the program, both within and across generations. In turn, those distributional effects will determine how well Social Security continues to help ensure income adequacy across the population. As our analysis has also shown, the effects of some reform options parallel those of benefit reductions made through the benefit formula, and those parallels provide insights into the distributional effects of those reform options. For example, if workers were to retire at a given age, an increase in Social Security’s full retirement age results in a reduction in monthly benefits; moreover, that benefit reduction would be a proportional, not a progressive reduction. Another example would be indexing the benefit formula to prices instead of wages. Such a revision would also be a proportional reduction, in effect, because all earnings levels would be treated the same under such an approach. In addition, holding all else equal, such an approach would implicitly result in future poverty rates that would be close to today’s rates instead of falling as they would with the current benefit formula. Therefore, in finding ways to restore Social Security’s long-term solvency and sustainability, the Congress will address a key question, whether explicitly or implicitly: What purpose does it want Social Security to serve in the future? to minimize the need for means-tested public assistance programs; to minimize poverty; using what standard of poverty; to replace pre-retirement earnings; to maintain a certain standard of living; or to preserve purchasing power? The answer to this question will help identify which measures of income adequacy are most relevant to examine. It will also help focus how options for reform should be shaped and evaluated. Our analysis has illustrated how the future outlook depends on both the measures used and the shape of reform. While the Congress must ultimately define Social Security’s purpose, our analysis provides tools that inform its deliberations. Still, changes to benefit levels would typically only be part of a larger reform package, and Social Security is only one part of a much larger picture. As we have said in the past, reform proposals should be evaluated as packages that strike a balance among their component parts. Furthermore, Social Security is only one source of income and only one of several programs that help support the standard of living of our retired and disabled populations. All sources of income and all of these programs should be considered together in confronting the demographic challenges we face. For example, changes to Social Security could potentially affect SSI benefits, employer-sponsored pensions, retirement savings, and the work and retirement patterns of older workers. Such interactions should actively be considered. Moreover, several programs provide noncash benefits that also play a major role in sustaining standards of living for their beneficiaries. Importantly, examining the adequacy of cash income alone would ignore the major role of noncash benefits and the needs they help support. This is especially critical in the case of Medicare beneficiaries. Considering these important noncash benefits in any adequacy analysis could have a very material effect on both the absolute and relative positions of senior citizens as compared to other groups of Americans. We provided a draft of this report to SSA. SSA provided a number of technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me on (202) 512-7215. Key contributors are listed in appendix V. Several methods have been used to measure the level of adequate income—what it costs to live. We identified 11 methods that have been used to develop measures against which income from Social Security benefits might be compared for determining adequacy. These methods include the current poverty thresholds, experimental poverty thresholds, family budgets, family expenditures, material hardship, median family income, one-half median family income, per capita personal income, public assistance, public opinion, and earnings replacement rates. These methods vary along a number of dimensions. These include their purpose, features of their construction, years for which they measure adequacy, and frequency of publication. In some instances where the method has been used to develop more than one measure, we selected one of the measures as an example of the method and used it for the description of the method. The methods also vary in whether they are absolute or relative. Absolute measures are derived from a fixed bundle of goods and services that does not vary in mix, quantity, or quality regardless of when or where it is applied. For example, an absolute measure would be one based on a list of goods and services that are judged to be necessary for a family to meet its basic needs. The list of goods and services would need to be changed periodically to reflect changes in living standards over time. In contrast, relative measures change with current income or consumption. Measurement experts who have served on various panels to study the issue have not agreed on which is more appropriate to determine how much it costs to live. Table 2 provides an overview of the 11 methods with regard to several dimensions. Table 2 is followed by a fuller description of each method, with particular attention to how each is constructed, its uses, and issues that panels and experts have raised regarding the measure. The poverty thresholds are a measure that attempts to specify the minimum money income that could support an average family of a given composition at the lowest level of living consistent with a country’s prevailing standards of living. The poverty thresholds are an absolute measure whose initial purpose was to measure year-to-year changes in the number and characteristics of poor people. The poverty thresholds, as originally published by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in 1963, represent a minimal amount of funds a family needed to rear its children, what the author termed “crude indexes” of poverty. Later the crude indexes were extended to families without children. If a family’s total money income is less than the poverty threshold for that family’s composition, which is based on family size, age of the family’s head, and number of children under 18 years old, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor. In 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the thresholds for statistical and program planning purposes. The Bureau of the Budget established the thresholds as the official definition of poverty for statistical use in all executive departments in 1969. This definition was reconfirmed in Statistical Policy Directive No. 14, after the bureau became the Office of Management and Budget. Poverty thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes, such as estimating the number of Americans in poverty each year. This official measure of poverty is used to measure the nation’s progress in reducing the extent of poverty and is used to allocate funds and to identify target populations for various public assistance programs. Policymakers use trends in poverty rates—the proportion of persons whose family income is below the poverty threshold—over time and across population groups to make judgments about particular policies. Poverty statistics are also used to evaluate government programs for low-income persons and the effects of policies on the distribution of income. SSA’s 1963 publication based the poverty thresholds on information from a 1955 food consumption survey and the 1964 costs of a food plan. The author determined from U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey that families of three or more people spent approximately one-third of their after-tax money income on food. The author then tripled the 1964 costs of USDA’s economy food plan for various compositions of families. Different procedures were used to calculate poverty thresholds for two-person families and single individuals. Separate thresholds were estimated for single individuals and 2-person families headed by an individual 65 years and over, as well as an individual under 65 years old. There were separate sets of thresholds for farm and nonfarm families, as well as thresholds by sex of the head of the family. The thresholds that were based on the sex of the family’s head and by farm residence were eliminated in 1981. There is no geographic variation of the poverty thresholds. Although there were regional costs for the USDA food plan, they were not used to account for regional variation when the poverty thresholds were developed. Two methods have been used to update the original poverty thresholds. Initially, the change in the cost of USDA’s economy food plan was used to annually update the poverty thresholds. In 1969, the method of updating the thresholds was changed to price changes of all items in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The poverty thresholds are increased each year by the same percentage as the annual average CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The Census Bureau annually updates and publishes the poverty thresholds. Numerous alternative poverty thresholds have been proposed since the official adoption of the measure developed in 1963. One such alternative is the experimental thresholds recommended by a Committee on National Statistics of the National Academy of Science (NAS) study panel in 1995. The NAS poverty threshold is a relative measure whose stated purpose was “to lead to an initial threshold that is reasonable for purposes of deriving poverty statistics.” The NAS poverty thresholds have been solely used for research. Census published a report in 1999 to provide information for evaluating the implications of many of the NAS panel’s recommendations for a new poverty measure. To do so, Census reported how estimated levels of poverty for 1990 through 1997 differed from official levels as specific recommendations of the NAS panel are implemented individually and how estimated trends differed when many recommendations are implemented simultaneously. The NAS poverty thresholds represent a dollar amount for basic goods and services—food, clothing, shelter (including utilities)—and a small additional amount to allow for other common, everyday needs (e.g., household supplies, personal care, and nonwork-related transportation). First, to develop a threshold for a reference family, a specified percentage of median annual expenditures from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) data is used to determine an amount of food, clothing, shelter expenditures. The reference family consists of two adults and two children. The median annual expenditure amount is next increased by a modest additional amount to allow for other necessities. An equivalence scale is then applied to the reference family threshold to adjust for families of different sizes and composition. Further adjustments are made to account for geographic differences in the cost of housing. The NAS panel developed an index of 41 geographic areas that is presented by area and population size. These index values are applied to the thresholds to adjust for differences in the cost of housing. The NAS panel also recommended a method for updating the initial threshold that would reflect changes in nominal growth in food, clothing, housing, and shelter expenditures. To do so, 3 years of the most recent data from the CEX would be used to determine the threshold for the reference family. The CPI-U would be used to update these expenditure data to the current period. Then, the procedures as outlined above are followed to estimate thresholds for families of other sizes by geographic areas. The NAS panel said that its method of updating the thresholds represented a middle ground between an absolute approach of simply updating the thresholds for price changes, which ignores changes in living standards over time, and a relative approach of updating the thresholds for changes in total consumption. One of the NAS panel members dissented from the panel because the major recommendations and conclusions for changing the measurement of poverty were the “outcome of highly subjective judgments” and were not based on scientific evidence. In his dissent, the member said that there was no scientific basis to support the use of food, clothing, and shelter expenditures upon which to develop the thresholds. He also objected to using the median level of expenditures of these items rather than the CPI to update the poverty thresholds; he said to do so would change the measure from an absolute to a relative measure. He had two other objections in that the NAS panel did not treat medical care as basic service and that the panel suggested that the poverty line fell within a range of values, of which he stated did not have the scientific community’s consensus. Family budgets are an income adequacy measure that dates back to the 19th century. The measure described in this appendix is for the city worker’s family budget, whose origins closely relate to the budgets that the Works Progress Administration constructed in 1935 for a urban family of four. The city worker’s family budget represents the estimated cost of a list of goods and services that the 4-person family would need to live at a designated level of well-being. The level designated in the city worker’s family budget for 1946 was intended to represent a modest but adequate standard of living. The same level of well-being was used in the interim city worker’s family budget with 1959 costs. In the mid-1960s, two levels of well-being were added—lower and higher—and the name of the modest but adequate level was changed to intermediate. Also, the name of the city worker’s family budget was changed to family budgets. The city worker’s family budget was an absolute measure that was used to determine the adequacy of income—what it costs to live—for a city worker’s family who was defined as a husband, aged 38 and employed full time; a wife who did not work outside the home; a boy aged 13; and a girl aged 8. The city worker’s family budgets were used as benchmarks in determining individual family needs, establishing interarea differences in living costs, and documenting changes in living standards over time. The budget cost levels were used by federal, state, and local governments as thresholds for eligibility in administrative programs. The city worker’s family budgets were widely used in employment compensation determinations, such as wage negotiations and geographic wage adjustments. Since the costs of the budgets were city specific, the budgets were also used to construct indexes of living costs. These indexes showed interarea variations in living costs and individuals and financial planners used them to examine interarea cost-of-living differences. The budgets were also used in private and public legal actions. Researchers continue to construct family budgets to examine the adequacy of Social Security benefits, as well as the adequacy of wages paid to single parents. In a number of countries, budget standards are used as reference points in devising or monitoring income maintenance programs. For example, the Commonwealth Department of Social Security commissioned the development of a set of budget standards for Australia. Published in 1998, the budget standards are expected to inform future Australian governments in relation to adequacy standards. The measure involved the formulation of a budget, listing the items and their quantities that comprised the level of well-being chosen, the pricing of these items, and computing the aggregate annual cost of the budget. A group of experts developed a list of goods and services using scientific standards of requirements, such as the recommendations of the Committee on Nutrition of the National Research Council for the food segment of the budget. Where standards had not been developed for the various segments of the budget, records of family expenditures by 4- person families were used. These data were studied to determine the level of purchases in expenditure categories where the families began to purchase higher quality items in the same expenditure category of items or started to save their income. BLS published the costs of the city worker’s family budget for 34 cities for 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950, and 1951. The cost of the interim city worker’s family budget was published for 20 cities for 1959. The family budgets at three cost levels were published for 1967 through 1981 (the cost of the intermediate level was also published for 1966) for urban United States, 40 individual metropolitan areas, and 4 nonmetropolitan regions. The early city worker’s family budgets could not be used for families other than those consisting of a husband, wife, and two young children. In 1960, BLS published equivalence scales that could be used to adjust the costs by family composition. BLS updated the equivalence scales in 1968. The city work’s family budgets are no longer published. With the release of the 1981 budget costs, BLS terminated the family budgets program because funding was not available for a revision. In addition to re-specifying the lists of items in a revision, two methods were used to update the city worker’s family budget costs. The first method recollected price data for the individual items on the budget list and then aggregated those costs for an annual amount. The other method, which was used to estimate the 1949 through 1951 and the 1969 through 1981 costs, was to use the CPI’s component index numbers to update the costs for the segments of the budgets. Revisions of the budgets occurred in 1959 and 1966 when the lists of goods and services were re-specified by experts to account for changes in the modest but adequate standard of living. In response to a congressional mandate and in recognition that the family budgets needed to be improved, in the 1970s, BLS contracted with the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty to recommend revisions in the Family Budgets program. In 1980, the Expert Committee on Family Budget Revisions recommended that the methodology be changed and that scientific standards no longer be used. The committee asserted that a scientific basis does not exist by which to develop commodity-based lists for the budgets. One of the reasons the Expert Committee on Family Budget Revisions recommended a change in methodology was that it found that large elements of relativity and subjective judgment entered into the development of the lists of goods and services, including those for which scientific standards were used. The committee recommended that actual overall levels of expenditures be used to measure adequacy. Specifically, it recommended that median expenditure of two-parent families with two children be used to develop the “prevailing family standard” budget and that three other standard budgets be developed as proportions of the prevailing family standard budget amount. In a dissent, a committee member said that a measure of well-being that uses an average (or median) of total family expenditures, which is obtained from a consumer expenditure survey, does not take into consideration the specifics of what that amount will buy or whether the actual quantities of goods and services available within the amount are enough to supply what is needed. Family expenditures are the averages of consumer purchases that are recorded in survey data arrayed by family characteristics, such as age of reference person. Family expenditures is a relative measure whose purpose is to describe consumer spending and to determine cost-of-living indexes. The basic premise is that the living standards of society can be measured with current consumption expenditure levels and patterns. The early family expenditure surveys, which were conducted in the late 19th century, were concerned with the cost of living of the “working man” and his family, that is the amount of dollars a family needed to live. Family expenditure data are used by government and private agencies to study the welfare of particular segments of the population. The data are used by economic policymakers interested in the effects of policy changes on various groups. CEX data are used to estimate aggregate family expenditures. There are three basic methods to measure family expenditures: current consumption, used in the CEX before 1980; total expenditures, used in the CEX since 1980; and current outlays, an alternative measure used to approximate out-of-pocket expenditures, which is also used in the CEX since 1980. Current consumption expenditures method includes the transaction costs of goods and services, excise and sales taxes, the price of durables (e.g., vehicles) at the time when the purchased, and home mortgage interest payments. It excludes the payment of principal on loans, gifts to persons outside the family, personal insurance, and retirement and pension payments. The total expenditures method is the same as the current consumption expenditures method, except it includes gifts, personal insurance, and retirement and pension payments. The total outlays method differs from total expenditures in that payments of principal for home mortgages and financed vehicles are included and the purchase price of vehicles is excluded. Data from the continuing CEX have been collected quarterly on an ongoing basis since 1980. Prior to the continuing CEX, the survey was conducted periodically about once every 10 or so years. BLS annually publishes average annual expenditures from the continuing CEX for consumer units. Expenditure data are published by type of area (urban and rural) and for four regions of residence. According to BLS, the published expenditure amounts are averages for consumer units with specified characteristics, regardless of whether or not a particular consumer unit purchased an item in the expenditure category during data collection. Therefore, the average expenditure for an item may be considerably lower than the average for those who actually purchased the item. Also, the average may differ from those who purchased the item as a result of frequency of purchase or the characteristics of the consumer units that purchased the item. For example, since all consumer units do not purchase a new vehicle every year, the average expenditure for new vehicles will be lower than the average for those who actually purchased a new vehicle because the average expenditure includes those who did not purchase a new vehicle that year. Even among those who purchase the item, consumer units may have dissimilar demographic characteristics. Material hardship measures identify individuals who do not consume minimal levels of goods and services, such as food, housing, clothing, and medical care. The material hardship measure presented here is one developed in the 1980s by Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks in their study of Chicago residents. This material hardship measure focused on the following hardships: hunger, cut off of utilities to the home, living in crowded or dilapidated housing, eviction, inadequate health care, and unmet needs for dental care. Material hardship is a measure whose purpose is to provide a means for policymakers to measure the goal of reducing specific forms of material hardship. Researchers have used material hardship measures to supplement traditional measures of poverty, such as to provide a nonmonetary perspective of those who are experiencing economic difficulties. The measures are used by researchers to create point-in-time estimates of hardship, describe trends in hardship, identify predictors of hardship, and develop hardship indicators to evaluate welfare reform. Respondents are asked to make self-assessments of specific events in their lives. For example, they are asked if there was a time in the previous year when they needed food but could not afford to buy it or could not get out of the home to get food. Generally asked in a yes/no format, these indicators are reported individually but are then summed into a composite deprivation index. In some instances, respondents are asked to report the hardship on the basis of a scale. For example, respondents might be asked to categorize the food eaten in their household as (1) having enough of the kinds of food they want, (2) enough but not always the kinds they want, (3) sometimes not enough to eat, or (4) often not having enough to eat. Other than periodically conducting the surveys, there is no method to update the material hardship measure. Until Census began collecting data from a nationally representative sample, data had been collected of single mothers in Chicago, Illinois, and of selective populations in other cities. Median income is the amount which divides an income distribution into two equal groups, half having incomes above the median and half having income below the median. The concept of using the midpoint of the income distribution as an adequacy measure is that people are social beings and that full participation within society requires that they “fit in” with others. Individuals are not able to participate fully in society if their resources are significantly below the resources of their members of society, even if they are able to eat and physically survive. Median family income is a relative measure whose purpose is to estimate the income of the family at the middle of an income distribution. Researchers, analysts, and policymakers use median family income to follow historical trends and annual changes in income. A relative measure, such as median family income, is used to provide a perspective of an adequacy measure that keeps up to date with overall economic changes in the society. Current Population Survey (CPS) data are used to calculate median family income. The measure is updated annually through data collection. The median is based on money income before taxes and does not include the value of noncash benefits, such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, public or subsidized housing, and employment-based fringe benefits. The Census Bureau has annually published median family income since 1947. Median family income data are published by various family characteristics. The data are also presented by four regions of residence and by type of residence—inside or outside metropolitan areas. The metropolitan areas are further broken down by over or under 1 million in population and by inside or outside central cities. One-half of median family income (see the previous method for description of median family income) is a relative poverty standard. One-half median family income is a relative measure that researchers use to demonstrate the absolute nature of the official poverty thresholds.One-half of median income for four-person families is also used in comparative analyses of poverty across nations. Researchers use one-half of the value of median family income as the measure. No standard method is used to establish the measure of a minimal level of adequacy with median family income. The most commonly proposed measure used for poverty determination is 50 percent of the median. The standard could be implemented in several ways, for example, one-half of the median for each family size. However, median income by family size is bell shaped with the peak at the four-person family. Per capita personal income is the amount of personal income from the U. S. national income and product accounts (NIPA) that would be available to each individual if all income received by persons was distributed equally among all people in the nation. Per capita personal income is a relative measure whose purpose is to present a measure of a nation’s personal income on a per person basis. Government and private decision makers, researchers, and the public at large who need timely, comprehensive, and reliable estimates use per capita personal income as a measure of the value of and changes in average income at the national and regional level. Because per capita personal income is conceptually and statistically consistent with the official measure of output (Gross Domestic Product), productivity, and other key economic indicators, national estimates of per capita personal income are key inputs to the formulation and monitoring of economic activity by the Federal Reserve Board and to the preparation of projections of federal receipts by the Congressional Budget Office. Regional level estimates, which are consistent with the national estimates, also are used by state governments for similar purposes and are used in the allocation of federal funds for key programs. Per capita personal income data are used as a measure of the economy’s capacity to pay. For example, the Medicaid funding formula uses state per capita personal income to provide higher matching percentages for states that have more limited resources to finance program benefits and more low-income people to serve. Personal income is calculated as the sum of incomes received by persons from production and from transfer payments from government and business. “Persons” consists of individuals, nonprofit institutions that primarily serve individuals, private noninsured welfare funds, and private trust funds. Wage and salary disbursements, other labor income, proprietors’ income, rental income, dividend income, interest income, and transfer payments to persons, less personal contributions for social insurance are summed to calculate personal income. In most cases, only market transactions are used. In a few cases, nonmarket transactions are used in personal income. These transactions include home ownership, financial services furnished without direct payment, and employer contributions for health and life insurance. The summation of the personal income components is then divided by the nation’s population to provide per capita personal income. Population is the total population of the United States, including military personnel. Each component of personal income is prepared independently using the most up-to-date and reliable source data. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis prepares the estimates of personal income and calculates per capita personal income. Per capita personal income estimates are released monthly at the national level, quarterly at the state level, and annually at the county and metropolitan area levels. Per capita personal income is published at both the national and regional—state, county, and metropolitan area—levels. The base of per capita personal income, personal income, is updated on a regularly scheduled basis, where the schedule of updates are timed to incorporate newly available and revised source data. Comprehensive revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals. Population estimates are revised to reflect the results of the latest decennial census of population. The definition of personal income, which is based on the NIPA definition, is not what one usually equates to family or household income. For example, it includes income of “persons” as defined for the NIPAs, which includes income of individuals as well as income of nonprofit institutions serving individuals and the investment income of pension plans. It excludes realized capital gains or losses and incomes that reflect transfers from other individuals, such as alimony or gifts. Although, in general, incomes are recorded when received, benefit payments from pension plans are not included when the benefits are actually paid. Instead, employer contributions to these plans are recorded as income to employees when the contributions are made and the investment income of the plans is recorded when earned. Also, although Social Security benefit payments are included in personal income, total personal income is reduced by personal contributions to Social Security. If an individual is dependent upon others for cash assistance, then the individual has inadequate income. Since data about sources of income provided by others is difficult to obtain, statistical indicators of such dependency often resort to administrative data from public assistance programs. As used in this appendix, the receipt of public assistance is a measure to denote individuals who meet program eligibility criteria and have resources below a level that is specified by a state (or federal government) for its public assistance program. The dependency on others appears to be the basis on which President Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic Security made its recommendations in 1935. Supporting materials prepared for the committee indicate that it used a “danger line” amount that was used in some of the states for their old-age public assistance programs. The danger line was an amount ($300 per year) that placed older persons in a dependent class. As an example of this adequacy measurement method we use the Supplement Security Income (SSI) program and its predecessor the old-age assistance program. The federal SSI program was created to provide a positive assurance that the nation’s aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below poverty-level incomes. SSI was conceived as a guaranteed minimum income for the aged, blind, and disabled. It was to supplement the Social Security program and to provide for those who were not covered or minimally covered under Social Security or who had earned only a minimal entitlement under the program. In 1972, SSI replaced the federal-state old-age assistance programs in which state benefit amounts were matched by the federal government up to a specified monthly amount. Under those programs the states were able to set benefit amounts and the basis for those amounts was unclear. The purpose of a measure that examines the receipt of public assistance is to determine if the person is dependent upon others for his/her economic well-being. In staff reports prepared for the 1934 Committee on Economic Security, the dependency on others is used as a measure of inadequate income. For example, Edwin Witte, executive director for the committee, estimated that 2.7 million of the 6.5 million persons 65 and older were supported by others, including those who obtained public assistance. The National Resources Planning Board in 1942 used the receipt of public assistance to determine whether old-age and survivors benefits that were payable in 1940 were adequate for the needs of the recipients. The board said that a large volume of supplementation of social insurance benefits by other forms of aid would lead it to conclude that insurance payments were not adequate for a considerable proportion of qualified workers. The measure is simply the number of persons who receive public assistance. SSA administrative data are used to determine the number of persons who receive federally administered SSI benefits. The number of SSI recipients is continually updated with administrative data. SSA publishes the data quarterly and annually. The data are published for the United States and by state. By the nature of SSI’s benefit structure and eligibility criteria, administrative data can be used to identify the type of family unit, or lack of, in which the recipients live. For example, there are different benefit levels for couples, individuals living alone, recipient living in someone’s household, or individuals in a Medicaid facility. Public opinion polls have been used to solicit subjective estimates from individuals on the amount of income that one needs to live. The concept underlying a public opinion poll to ascertain a subjective measure of adequacy is that individuals are able to tell a pollster what the minimum amount of income (or consumption) is that people need to maintain a minimally adequate level of living. Subjective measures of adequacy are grounded in the everyday and necessarily subjective perceptions of typical individuals as to the material requirements associated with differing levels of economic well-being. The direct question approach is based on the assumption that people are the experts on the needs of their families and/or those living in their communities. The only relatively consistent series of money amounts corresponding to a living-standard threshold based on judgment of representative samples of the public is one developed by the Gallup polling organization. The subjective measure presented here is the “get-along” measure that was collected by the Gallop Organization. The purpose of a subjective measure of well-being that has been obtained through a public opinion poll is to track the size of groups enjoying different standards of living. To do so, the societal views about the income levels required to support alternative living levels are compared with average levels of family economic resources. The primary use of the subjective measure has been to demonstrate the absolute nature of the official poverty thresholds. For example, the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academy of Science study panel and researchers compared trends in the official poverty threshold, one-half of family median income, and the get-along amount to document that the official poverty measure is no longer consistent with the society’s definition of measures of need. Subjective measures have also been used to produce subjective minimum income thresholds. The responses to the following question are used as the subjective measure: “What is the smallest amount of money a family for four (husband, wife, and two children) needs each week to get along in this community?” The response when converted into an annual amount is generally referred to as the “get along” amount. The Gallup Organization queried samples of adults about the get-along amount 38 times from 1946 through 1992. There was no regular publication of the data. Although the get-along question was asked in the context of the respondent’s community, no presentation has been made of geographic differences among the values reported. Other than periodically making an inquiry through a poll or survey, there is no method to update the public opinion measure. As part of a study of subjective assessments of economic well-being, researchers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that respondents have definite emotional reactions to their financial situations and are willing and able to discuss them. They also found that the terms used in subjective questions were ambiguous. In addition, if the respondent was the designated bill payer, the person’s responses were found to differ from those in the family who did not pay the bills. One common measure of retirement income adequacy is the replacement rate, which represents the income in retirement for a single worker or household in relation to a measure of pre-retirement earnings, such as earnings in the year before retirement. The purpose of the earnings replacement rate is to compare the level of retirement income with the level of pre-retirement income to help illustrate the extent to which pre-retirement standards of living can be sustained in retirement for particular individuals or households. The replacement rate is a relative measure in that it is relative to an individual’s or household’s own income, not to some absolute standard of adequacy. The earnings replacement rate has been used both with respect to Social Security and to employer-sponsored pensions. As noted in this report, the Social Security benefit formula is defined in a way that focuses on replacing earnings. When calculating replacement rates, SSA typically uses the ratio of initial Social Security benefits to pre-retirement covered earnings. A number of researchers have used replacement rates in analyzing Social Security benefits for many years. Also, an SSA actuarial note observes that “policymakers are interested in replacement ratios: (1) as a means of communicating to prospective beneficiaries approximately how much they can expect to receive from Social Security, relative to their earnings; and (2) as a means of deciding if and how the Social Security program should be changed to meet the needs and desires of the public…” Replacement rates have also been used with respect to employer- sponsored pensions and retirement income more broadly, using total income amounts in the ratio. For example, available data suggest that typical pension replacement rates for a 30-year career worker have been in the 20- to 40-percent range across the earnings distribution and that lower earners have received slightly higher replacement rates than higher earners. More generally, many benefit professionals currently consider a 70 to 80 percent replacement rate as adequate to preserve the pre- retirement living standard. In contrast, Social Security replacement rates for workers who retired in 2001 at age 65 with a history of average earnings had a replacement rate of roughly 40 percent. Construction of replacement rates raises a variety of methodological issues, most notably, how retirement income is measured, how pre- retirement income is measured, how the two are compared, and for whom. How these issues are addressed depends on the purpose at hand. For example, in measuring retirement income, some researchers feel that income in the first year of retirement should be used, rather than trying to reflect changes in retirement income over time. In measuring pre- retirement income, some researchers use income in the year immediately before retirement. In comparing the two, the two measures should be consistent with one another, for example, with respect to before- or after- tax status. For whom the comparison is made might include specific individuals or households for their own retirement planning purposes, illustrative workers such as the steady-earners used in figures 4 and 7 of this report, or some sample of individuals or households in the population. If the purpose of the analysis is to isolate the effects of certain program changes, then the use of illustrative steady earners in which all are assumed to retire at a given age might be appropriate. In contrast, if the purpose is to describe the experience of a population, then using a sample might be appropriate. The issues of updating and geographic variation are not especially applicable to the replacement rate by its nature. It is a ratio that is relative to the earnings of the individuals or households examined, which themselves change across cohorts. While replacement rates can be useful for some purposes, such as illustrating the effects of program changes over time, the meaning of a specific value of a replacement rate is not clear. For example, a very low earner could have a high replacement rate and still have very low income, while a high earner could have a low replacement rate and live quite comfortably. Thus, desired or target replacement rates can vary significantly by income level and other factors. Also, the standard that pension professionals consider an adequate replacement rate has changed over the years. While a 50 percent replacement rate might have been considered adequate in the 1930s, when Social Security was instituted, many benefit specialists and researchers would apply a higher standard today. Moreover, the actual experience of a given household could easily involve phased-in retirement or situations where one spouse retires while the other continues to work. Such irregularities present problems in interpreting replacement rates for actual households. We examined the characteristics of the 11 measures, which are described in appendix I, that might help examine income adequacy. Through this examination, we determined that each had limitations that precluded using any single measure by itself for our analyses. Given these limitations, we selected four measures that would, as a group, be more appropriate measures for our analyses. These are the current poverty thresholds, median family income, public assistance, and earnings replacement rates. Public assistance and earnings replacement rates reflect the concern that the framers of the Social Security Act had about dependency on others and a means to support people who no longer worked. The current poverty thresholds and median family income, respectively, provide a lower and upper bounds of the congressional expectation for Social Security to provide more than a minimal subsistence level, which is at a level above that estimated by the current poverty thresholds. We decided not to use three measures—family budgets, material hardship, and per capita personal income—because they were outdated or because they did not allow us to make the comparisons our analyses required. We elected not to use the family budgets measure because the database on which it was constructed was 40 years old and because it was no longer officially published. We elected not to use the material hardship measure because it produced a nonmonetary value that could not be compared to Social Security benefit amounts or income dollar amounts. We chose not to use per capita personal income because by definition it includes income other than that held by people, specifically, money income held by nonprofit institutions and pension plans. In examining the four measures we used, we determined that each had limitations that precluded using any single measure by itself. Below, we document the recognized limitations of each for use in our analyses. Several limitations have been identified regarding the use of current poverty thresholds for estimating the number of people who live in poverty each year. Some of these limitations were identified as a result of two federally sponsored studies in the 1970s and 1990s. Although these studies did not assess the thresholds as an adequacy measure, the limitations they identified shed light on the thresholds’ ability to identify those whom do not have the resources to meet subsistence or minimal needs. We also include concerns expressed by the developer of the current poverty thresholds. A 1976 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) mandated study of poverty measures noted that several limitations stemmed from the fact that the current thresholds were based on one needs standard— food—and its costs in relation to other nonfood expenditures. The HEW study stated that other than food there were no other commonly accepted standards of need. In addition, it noted that the amount of money a family spends on food was only an approximation of a family’s food needs. The report also stated that the multiplier that was applied to the food costs was a rough measure of nonfood requirements. According to two federally sponsored studies, some of the limitations of the current poverty thresholds relate directly to their inability to reflect changes in living standards. The poverty thresholds are an absolute measure in which the mix of goods and services the thresholds represent has not been changed for nearly 40 years and, therefore, are not consistent with prevailing American standards of living. Although the current poverty thresholds are updated by price changes as reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as indicated in these two studies, the items that are updated reflect a mid-20th century mix in terms of quality and quantity of goods and services. The current poverty thresholds do not reflect how the proportion of income dedicated to food has changed with rising living standards, according to a 1995 study panel of Committee on National Statistics of the National Academy of Science (NAS). A research study illustrates how living standards based on food rise over time—as the population becomes more prosperous, on average, it devotes a smaller proportion to food expenditures and larger proportions to nonfood expenditures. The study recalculated the poverty thresholds using USDA’s 1965 Household Survey to determine the portion of family income dedicated to food purchases and USDA’s 1975 Thrifty Food Plan to approximate the cost of food. The thresholds re-estimated for 1977 were about 40 percent higher for the 1- person households and about 20 percent higher for 4-person families. A recent study estimated that the poverty thresholds for 4-person families would have been 68 percent higher in 1987 if they had been recalculated with methodology similar to that used to develop the current poverty thresholds. The 1976 HEW study and the 1995 NAS study panel noted that, although the current poverty thresholds are updated by changes in prices paid by consumers, they do not change with the standard of living. The 1995 NAS study panel said that the thresholds do not incorporate changes in total consumption that include spending on luxuries, as well as necessities, or declines in the standard of living. The 1976 HEW study noted, however, that the current poverty thresholds were updated using a relative means— changes in prices—using the CPI. However, the developer of the current poverty thresholds voiced concern about updating the thresholds with the CPI. She noted the uncertainty about the appropriateness of the CPI as a measure of price changes for the poor. She doubted that one price index could capture how families at different income levels adjust their spending to accommodate to price changes. For example, poor families may react to a 10 percent increase in the price of utilities by reducing expenses in other essential consumption areas; whereas wealthy families would have more options and could address the increase in a different manner. Another limitation of the current poverty thresholds identified by the 1995 NAS study panel is that the thresholds do not account for the fact that working families pay taxes on their earnings and families on public assistance do not pay taxes on the cash assistance they receive. According to the NAS panel, this occurs because the determination of whether or not a family is poor is based on a comparison of before-tax income with thresholds based on after-tax income. This comparison ignores the fact that payment of taxes lowers disposable income. As a result, the comparison of before-tax income with the current poverty thresholds can make it appear as if low-income working families are better off than poor families receiving public assistance. The NAS study panel indicated that this limitation might affect the manner in which policymakers view the poverty population. For example, because of the comparison of before-tax income with an after-tax poverty measure, the adverse effects of tax policy changes for low-income working families are not captured in the resulting poverty statistics. The NAS panel identified another limitation of the current poverty thresholds in that the value of noncash benefits, such as housing subsidies, are not included as income in the determination of poverty status. According to the panel, the extent of poverty among the recipients of such benefits is overstated and the efficacy of government income-support measures is understated because the current poverty thresholds do not take into account the receipt of noncash public benefits. According to the developer of the current poverty thresholds, the thresholds are inappropriately applied to all types of families. The developer stated that a major limitation of the thresholds was the failure to differentiate between a social minimum appropriate for a worker and his family and a more stringent standard appropriate for a family dependent on public assistance. She indicated that the same standard was inappropriately applied to both types of families. Furthermore, the developer and the NAS study panel said the current poverty thresholds inability to address needs that are specific to families with different living situations was a limitation. The NAS panel stated that the thresholds do not accurately portray the relative poverty status of working families with childcare expenses and those without such expenses. The developer also voiced concern about the tradeoffs that families make and cited the limitation of the thresholds to address, for example, how higher expenditures in health care affect other areas of family living. The NAS panel also said that the thresholds do not distinguish among the health care needs of different kinds of families or reflect the role of insurance coverage in reducing families’ medical care expenditures. According to the studies, the current poverty thresholds have limitations in the manner in which they differentiate for family size and do not account for geographic differences in the cost of living. The NAS panel questioned the equivalence scale adjustments for family size—especially thresholds for single persons and those for aged individuals and couples— because the composition of families and households has changed since the 1960s. Both the 1976 HEW study and the 1995 NAS report state that the thresholds are limited in that they do not adjust for interarea price differences and therefore do not incorporate geographic differences in the cost of living. Median family income has not been used in any official capacity. Therefore, only general observations have been documented about its limitations as an adequacy measure. Limitations are generally expressed in terms of using 50 percent of family median income as a measure of poverty status. According to one researcher in the field, one limitation concerns the public’s ability to understand the measure’s income base when it is accustomed to a measure based on basic needs. The researcher noted that an income-based measure was less closely linked to the basic concept of minimum adequacy than an absolute measure. In other words, the public would have difficulty grasping how it could be a measure of adequacy if it was not linked to one’s basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. According to the NAS study panel, another limitation is that median family income changes directly with aggregate income and is difficult for people to understand its movement when the economy changes. One researcher said that a relative measure like median family income would fall in real terms during a recession and that this was less than ideal because the needs of the poor do not fall similarly. The 1995 NAS study panel also noted the behavior the measure would demonstrate during recessions and economic upturns and said it would be hard to explain and justify changes in the measure that are not simply a reflection of price changes. The researcher noted that opponents of a relative adequacy measure, such as median family income, say it presents too much of a moving target for policy assessment purposes and that it is unreasonable to judge the effectiveness of antipoverty efforts against such a measure. Limitations also revolve around how to implement median family income as an adequacy measure, according to the NAS panel. It noted the problems in selecting the median family income for a particular family size. The panel discussed several approaches that have been used to develop an adequacy measure and limitations of these approaches. For example, it noted that one approach is to apply an equivalence scale to the income amounts in order to develop a per capita equivalent income for the reference family. The panel noted that this approach was sensitive to the particular equivalence scale that was used. In this report, we used median family incomes by family size as published by the Census Bureau. For single individuals we used one-person household median income; for two persons we used two-person family median income. As noted in Ruggles, this approach also has its limitations in that median family income has a bell-shaped distribution peaking at the four-person family size. Another limitation the NAS panel identified concerned the definition and sources of income that are used to produce median family income. The NAS panel noted conceptual problems in using median income as an adequacy measure because it does not reflect disposable income in the way it handles taxes, childcare expenses, and other work-related expenses. The NAS panel also said that median family income does not include noncash benefits, such as food stamps, but said that is not much of a problem since families at the median do not generally receive such benefits. The receipt of public assistance has not been recently reviewed by a group of experts as an adequacy measure. Therefore, the limitations identified for this measure are those applicable to the federal-state old-age assistance program. The National Resources Planning Board said, in 1941, that using the receipt of public assistance as an indicator of whether Social Security beneficiaries had adequate income had several limitations. It stated that some of the states, in 1940, were providing a level of living considerably lower than that provided by Social Security. The board also reported that some states did not have funds to provide for all of their needy applicants and chose not to supplement those who received Social Security benefits. We used administrative data to report the proportion of the elderly who received old-age assistance or SSI benefits. We note that some Social Security beneficiaries who may meet all eligibility criteria may not receive benefits. The chief limitation of replacement rates is that the meaning of a specific value of a replacement rate is not clear. A very low earner could have a high replacement rate and still have very low income, while a high earner could have a low replacement rate and live quite comfortably. Also, the standard that pension professionals consider an adequate replacement rate has changed over the years. Another important limitation arises in trying to define replacement rates for actual households. For example, the actual experience of a given household could easily involve phased-in retirement or situations where one spouse retires while the other continues to work. According to current projections of the Social Security trustees for the next 75 years, revenues will not be adequate to pay full benefits as defined under current law. Therefore, estimating future Social Security benefits should reflect that actuarial deficit and account for the fact that some combination of benefit reductions and revenue increases will be necessary to restore long-term solvency. To illustrate a full range of possible outcomes, we developed benchmark policy scenarios that would achieve 75-year solvency either by only increasing payroll taxes or only reducing benefits. In developing these benchmarks, we identified criteria to use to guide their design and selection. We also identified key parameters that could be used to describe and calibrate the policies to achieve 75-year solvency. We asked SSA’s Office of the Actuary to score the policies and determine the precise parameter values that would achieve 75-year solvency in each case. Once we defined and fully specified our benchmark policies, we used them to estimate the range of potential future benefit levels using two representative sample microsimulation models as well as an SSA benefit calculator for illustrative workers. (See app. IV.) According to our analysis, appropriate benchmark policies should ideally be evaluated against the following criteria: 1. “Distributional neutrality”: the benchmark should reflect current law as closely as possible while still restoring solvency. In particular, it should try to reflect the goals and effects of current law with respect to redistribution of income. However, there are many possible ways to interpret what this means, such as a) producing a distribution of benefit levels with a shape similar to the distribution under current law (as measured by coefficients of variation, skewness, kurtosis, etc.); b) maintaining a proportional level of income transfers in dollars; c) maintaining proportional replacement rates; and d) maintaining proportional rates of return. 2. Demarcating upper and lower bounds within which the effects of alternative proposals would fall. For example, one benchmark would reflect restoring solvency solely by increasing payroll taxes and therefore maximizing benefit levels while another would solely reduce benefits and therefore minimize payroll tax rates. 3. Ability to model: the benchmark should lend itself to being modeled within the GEMINI and MINT models. 4. Plausibility: the benchmark should be politically within reason as an alternative; otherwise, the benchmark could be perceived as a strawman. 5. Transparency: the benchmark should be readily explainable to the reader. We used only one tax-increase-only benchmark policy scenario because policies that only increase payroll tax rates have no effect on benefits. Our tax-increase-only benchmark would raise payroll taxes once and immediately (in the next calendar year) by the amount of the OASDI actuarial deficit as a percent of payroll. It results in the smallest ultimate tax rate of those we considered and spreads the tax burden most evenly across generations; this is the primary basis for our selection. The later that taxes are increased, the higher the ultimate tax rate needed to achieve solvency, and in turn the higher the tax burden on later taxpayers and lower on earlier taxpayers. We consider this policy to be plausible because it would involve less than a 1 percentage point increase on employers and employees each. Still, any policy scenario that achieves 75-years solvency only by increasing revenues would have the same effect on the adequacy of future benefits in that promised benefits would not be reduced. Nevertheless, alternative approaches to increasing revenues could have very different effects on individual equity. We developed three benefit-reduction benchmarks for our analysis. For ease of modeling, all benefit-reduction benchmarks take the form of reductions in the PIA formula factors; they differ in the relative size of those reductions across the three factors, which are 90, 32, and 15 percent under current law. Each benchmark has three dimensions of specification: scope, phase-in period, and the factor changes themselves. For our analysis, we want the benefit reductions in our benchmarks to apply very generally to all types of benefits, including disability and survivors benefits as well as old-age benefits. Our objective is to find policies that achieve solvency while reflecting the distributional effects of the current program as closely as possible. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to reduce some benefits and not others. If disabled and survivor benefits were not reduced at all, reductions in other benefits would be deeper than shown in this analysis. We selected a phase-in period that begins with those reaching age 62 in 2005 and continues for 30 years. We chose this phase-in period to achieve a balance between two competing objectives: 1) minimizing the size of the ultimate benefit reduction and 2) minimizing the size of each year’s incremental reduction to avoid notches and unduly large incremental reductions. Since later birth cohorts are generally agreed to experience lower rates of return on their contributions already under current law, minimizing the size of the ultimate benefit reduction would minimize further reductions in later cohorts’ rates of return. The smaller each year’s reduction, the longer it will take for benefit reductions to achieve solvency and in turn, the deeper the eventual reductions will have to be. However, the smallest possible ultimate reduction would be achieved by reducing benefits immediately for all new retirees by over 10 percent; this would create a huge notch, that is, creating some marked inequities between beneficiaries close in age to each other. Our analysis shows that a 30-year phase-in should produce incremental annual reductions that would be of palatable size and avoid significant notches. Therefore it would be preferable to longer phase-in periods, which would require deeper ultimate reductions. In addition, we feel it is appropriate to delay the first year of the benefit reductions for a few years because those within a few years of retirement would not have adequate time to adjust their retirement planning if the reductions applied immediately. The Maintain Tax Rates (MTR) benchmark in the 1994-96 Advisory Council Report also provided for a similar delay. When workers retire, become disabled, or die, Social Security uses their lifetime earnings records to determine each worker’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), on which the initial benefit and auxiliary benefits are based. The PIA is the result of two elements—the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) and the benefit formula. The AIME is determined by taking the lifetime earnings earnings record, indexing it, and taking the average. To determine the PIA, the AIME is then applied to a step-like formula, shown here for 2001. PIA = 90% ! (AIME ≤ $561) + 32% ! (AIME > $561 and ≤ $3381) + 15% ! (AIME > $3381) where AIME is the applicable portion of AIME. All three of our benefit-reduction benchmarks are variations of changes in PIA formula factors and all are special cases of the following generalized form, where F represents the 3 PIA formula factors, which are 90, 32, and 15 percent under current law. ! x ! weight) – y ! weightt = the year of the factor, x = constant proportional benefit reduction, y = constant “subtractive” benefit reduction, and weight and weight determine the relative effects of x and y and sum to 1. Our three potential benchmarks can now be described as follows: Proportional Offset: weight = 1 and weight = 0. The value of x is calculated to achieve 75-year solvency, given the chosen phase-in period and scope of reductions. The formula specifies that the proportional reduction is always taken as a proportion of the base year factor value rather than the prior year. This maintains a constant rate of benefit reduction from year to year. In contrast, taking the reduction as a proportion of the prior year’s factor value implies a decelerating of the benefit reduction over time because the prior year’s factor gets smaller with each reduction. To achieve the same level of 75-year solvency, this would require a greater proportional reduction in earlier years because of the smaller reductions in later years. The proportional offset hits lower earners especially hard because the constant x percent of the higher formula factors results in a larger percentage reduction over that segment of the formula, while the higher formula factors apply to the lower earnings segments of the formula. For example, in a year when the cumulative size of the proportional reduction has reached 10 percent, the 90 percent factor would then have been reduced by 9 percentage points, the 32 percent factor by 3.2 percentage points, and the 15 percent factor by 1.5 percentage points. As a result, earnings below the first bendpoint would be replaced at 9 percentage points less than current law, while earnings above the second bendpoint would be replaced at only 1.5 percentage points less than current law. Still, the proportional offset is easily described as a constant percentage reduction of current law benefits for everyone. In the example, beneficiaries of all earnings levels would have their benefits reduced by 10 percent. Progressive Offset: weight = 0 and weight = 1. The value of y is calculated to achieve 75-year solvency, given the chosen phase-in period and scope of reductions. This offset results in equal percentage point reductions in the formula factors, by definition, and subjects earnings across all segments of the PIA formula to the same reduction. Therefore, it avoids hitting lower earners especially hard as the proportional offset does. As it happens, this offset produces exactly the same effect as the offset we used in our 1990 analysis of a partial privatization proposals. Social Security: Analysis of a Proposal to Privatize Trust Fund Reserves. GAO/HRD-91-22, Dec. 12, 1990. not to the PIA. The contributions to a hypothetical account are proportional to earnings. Therefore, a benefit reduction based on such an account would also be proportional to earnings; that is Benefit reduction = y !AIME Therefore, the new PIA would be PIAnew =90% ! AIME + 15% ! AIMEPIAnew =(90% - y) ! AIME + (32% - y) ! AIMEThus, the reduction from a hypothetical account can be translated into a change in the PIA formula factors. Because this offset can be described as subtracting a constant amount from each PIA formula factor, it is reasonably transparent, especially in comparison to describing it as a hypothetical account offset. Limited Proportional Offset: Other analyses have addressed the concern about the effect of the proportional offset on low earners by modifying that offset to apply only to the 32 and 15 percent formula factors. The MTR policy in the 1994 to 1996 Advisory Council Report used this approach, which in turn was based on the Individual Account (IA) proposal in that report. However, the MTR policy also reflected other changes in addition to PIA formula changes. Our recent report on disability and Social Security reform also used this “limited proportional” approach but using PIA formula changes alone to achieve solvency. Advisory Council on Social Security. Report of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1997. Social Security Reform: Potential Effects on SSA’s Disability Programs and Beneficiaries (GAO-01-35, Jan. 24, 2001). Using the generalized form above, this can be expressed as weight = 1, weight = 0 ! x ! weight) – y ! weightfor i = {32,15}, where x differs for the first 10 and second 20 years of the phase-in period and is 1 percentage point higher in the second part than in the first. Table 3 summarizes the features of our four benchmarks. For our analysis of future Social Security benefits, we used two alternative policy microsimulation models and illustrative worker analysis. We used the MINT (Modeling Income in the Near Term) model, developed and used by the Social Security Administration’s Office of Policy, and the GEMINI model, developed by the Policy Simulation Group. For both models the developers produced multiple output data sets based on the PIA formula changes specified by the policy benchmarks. See appendix III for more information on the policy benchmark results. sources. For example, assuming no change in consumption during working years, our tax increase benchmark may overestimate total retirement income because no provision is made to decrease income from saved assets that might diminish as higher payroll taxes reduce disposable income before retirement. The MINT model has not been well validated against other micro or macroeconomic projection models. However, SSA analysts note that there are not many models against which to validate MINT. Moreover, they note a panel of demographers, economists, and outside experts oversaw the development of MINT. Additionally, the 1990 to 1993 SIPP data are the most recent available SIPP data for most income sources other than earnings. In short, more recent nonearnings income data would be ideal. Nevertheless, the intention of this report is to present comparisons of distributions between policy benchmarks. Thus, income-related MINT point estimates should not be considered as literally as differences between the policy benchmarks. Methodologically we chose MINT for this report for its capability to project total income and therefore permit analysis of the adequacy of total income; its ability to prospectively assess and model various Social Security programmatic alternatives; its ability to examine a large portion (those age 60 to 89) of the Social Security population at a point in time; its ability to examine various subgroups, notably by race and ethnicity; and its use as a policy tool already employed by SSA. GEMINI is a policy microsimulation model developed by the Policy Simulation Group (PSG). For our report, PSG produced simulated samples, sometimes called synthetic samples, of lifetime histories, including earnings, marriage, disability, death, and Social Security benefits, for the cohorts born in 1935, 1955, 1970, and 1985. Key descriptive statistics for each of the four birth cohorts are identified through a variety of sources. These statistics describe life expectancy, educational attainment, employment patterns, and marital status at age 60. Where possible these targets are set to be consistent with the 2001 Trustees’ Report or generally available methodologies from the SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary. After the calibration targets are determined, complete life histories for each birth cohort are produced that match the targets. These life histories are produced by the Pension Policy Simulation Model (PENSIM), a complementary PSG model integrated with GEMINI. Once the cohort samples have been generated, each sample is input into GEMINI, a microsimulation model that has the same Social Security benefit calculation capabilities as the microsimulation model of SSASIM, which past GAO reports have used to analyze Social Security reforms. Each sample is run twice through each of the our benchmark policies and produces output files that contain detailed information on each member of the sample, including Social Security benefits for sample individuals and their spouses. Because GEMINI cannot yet stochastically determine the age at which a member of the sample applies for benefits, one output file assumes that the all workers retire at age 62 and the other assumes that they retire at age 65. Table 4 shows results for GEMINI compared to the 1998 Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin. Average benefits are high by only 0.9 percent for men and high by only 1.6 percent for women. However this comparison may suffer from a selectivity problem caused by the fact that, in the actual data, not everyone eligible to apply for retired worker benefits does so at age 62. If the propensity to retire early at age 62 varies by lifetime earnings level, then the fact that only about sixty percent actually apply at 62 will complicate the comparison with statistics from the GEMINI simulation, which assumes everyone applies at age 62. After adjusting for the selectivity problem we find that benefits are low by 0.4 percent for men and are low by 4.6 percent for women. Methodologically, we chose GEMINI for this report for its ability to examine the effect of Social Security programmatic changes on a cohort population and its ability to project cohorts and examine policy effects well out into the 75 year actuarial period (the year 2050). The MINT takes real people and projects their behavior out into the future while GEMINI develops a synthetic sample and validates it to recent data. While these models were developed separately and take somewhat different modeling approaches, we can see that actual results compare somewhat favorably. Table 5 compares median annual Social Security benefit income for the 1955 cohort by marital status for both models. For married and divorced individuals, the results compare very favorably as the MINT results fall within the same range as the GEMINI results. The results for never married and widowed individuals do not align as nicely, though they are within 8.9 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively, of the lower bound of GEMINI benefits. However, the intent of the report is not to focus on actual values produced by the models, but how values change across benchmark scenarios. For analysis of future replacement rates, we use four illustrative workers. These illustrative workers are constructed according to the methodology employed for steady workers by SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary. Additionally, our analysis of future steady workers assumes that the average wage increases according to Alternative II assumptions of the 2001 Trustees Report. As defined by SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary, the steady earnings pattern assumes that the worker is a steady full-time employee with no interruption in employment. The steady worker begins working in covered employment at age 22, and the worker’s earnings increase each year at the same rate as Social Security’s Average Wage Index. For our analysis, workers are continuously employed between the ages of 22 and 62 (i.e., they do not experience a period of disability or die). For the steady earnings pattern, the following four levels of earnings are used: low (annual earnings equal to 45 percent of the average wage), average (annual earnings equal to the average wage), high (annual earnings equal to 160 percent of the average wage), and maximum (annual earnings equal to the OASDI Contribution and Benefit Base). To calculate the worker’s monthly Social Security benefit, we used SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary’s ANYPIA program. Finally, to calculate replacement rates, we annualized the monthly benefit and divided the result by the worker’s age 64 earnings. In actuality, the year-to-year earnings of most workers do not follow steady earnings patterns. However, illustrative steady workers offer the advantage of showing programmatic variation by utilizing a consistent worker profile. More realistic lifetime earnings profiles would be more significant if timing of payroll contributions are important to the worker, such as a policy of contributing a portion of payroll taxes to individual accounts. The most important metric of adequacy for a life time earner is the workers’ PIA, which can be arrived from any number of different earnings patterns. Examination of actual workers PIAs to the illustrative steady worker types shows that women and men are “best represented”by different worker types. Table 6 shows that in 1999 the low earner “best represents” female workers as 71.7 percent fall closest to that category and the high earner best represents male workers as 41.1 percent fall closest to that category. Percentages indicated above reflect the status of workers retiring in 1999. These percentages would likely be different for workers retiring in earlier or later years. For instance, the increasing employment rates for women over the last several decades is expected to result in relatively greater increases in career-average earnings for women than for men in the future. Thus, the difference in the distributions of male and female retired workers by benefit levels is expected to diminish in the future. In addition to those named above, Ken Stockbridge, Kimberly Granger, Charles Ford, Brendan Cushing-Daniels, Nila Garces-Osorio, Kim Reniero, Daniel Schwimer, and Kathleen Scholl made key contributions to this report. | Before Social Security, being old often meant being poor. Today, dependency on public assistance has dropped to a fraction of its Depression-era levels, and poverty rates among the elderly are now lower than for the population as a whole. At the same time, Social Security has become the single largest source of retirement income for more than 90 percent of persons aged 65 and older. Automatic adjustments were introduced in 1972 to reflect increases in the cost of living. Other program changes gradually increased social security coverage to larger portions of the workforce and extended eligibility to family members and disabled workers. Other benefit programs, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicare, and Medicaid, have also been added over the years. With regard to measuring income adequacy, various measures help examine different aspects of this concept, but no single measure can provide a complete picture. For various subgroups of beneficiaries that have lower lifetime earnings, poverty rates have also declined. Although the Social Security benefit formula favors lower lifetime earners, their lower earnings and work histories can leave them with incomes below the poverty level when they retire or become disabled. The outlook for future Social Security benefit levels and income adequacy depend on how the program's long-term financing imbalance is addressed, as well as on the measures used. GAO concludes that reductions in promised benefits and increases in program revenues will be needed to restore the program's long-term solvency and sustainability. Possible benefit changes might include adjustments to the benefit formula or reductions in cost-of-living increases. Possible revenue sources might include higher payroll taxes or transfers from the Treasury's general fund. |
The President famously promised that you could keep your health plan and doctor. For many people, both of those pledges are turning out to be false. And now, you might not be able to keep your medicine, either.
There are two reasons why. The first has to do with the higher out of pocket costs patients will face. The second issue may be even more significant.
Simply put, many drugs may not be covered at all, and the costs patients incur by buying them with cash won't count against out of pocket caps. This has repercussions for drug makers with big portfolios of specialty and primary care drugs (more on that later). But most of all, it has implications for patients.
Drugs on your health plan’s formulary will typically have fixed co-pays. These costs usually count toward your deductible and the out of pocket and lifetime limits on the total amount of money that your health plan can ask you to spend.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, these co-pays can already be substantial, pushing people quickly to their annual out-of-pocket limits -- $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families (after which insurers pay the full tab).
People whose annual income is at or below 250% of the Federal Poverty Level will qualify for cost-sharing reductions. (That comes out to families of four earning less than about $60,000, or individuals earning less than $30,000). But people qualify for these cost-sharing subsidies only if they enroll in a higher cost, "silver" Obamacare plan.
Take, for example, the drug Copaxone for multiple sclerosis.
Someone on a bronze plan would be responsible for paying about 40% of the drug’s costs out of pocket, on average. That comes out to about $1,980 a month.
If you buy the highest cost platinum plan, the out of pocket costs drop to $792 a month. But you’re probably better off with the cheaper bronze plan anyway.
Since you’re going to hit your out of pocket cap regardless of your plan, you might as well save money on the premium (which doesn’t count against your deductible or out of pocket limits) and race to the $12,700 spending cap as quickly as your family can.
After all, the provider networks (and formularies) used by low cost "bronze" and high cost "platinum" plans are often the same. The only thing that varies between different “metal” plans is typically the co-pay structure. Why pay higher premiums just to lower your co-pays when you're going to hit the out of pocket caps anyway.
By purchasing a costlier, gold or platinum plan, you typically can’t "buy up" to a higher benefit. What you’re really doing is just prepaying the cost sharing.
But at least -- in this model case -- the drug Copaxone was partially covered under the Obamacare plan's formulary. Consider an even bigger problem lurking inside the law.
The co-pay structure, and the out of pocket caps on consumer spending only apply to costs incurred on drugs that are included on a plan’s drug formulary. This is the list of medicines that the health plans have agreed to provide some coverage for.
If the drug isn’t on this formulary list, then the patient could be responsible for its full cost (with little or no co-insurance to help offset that cost). Most of the Obamacare plans have "closed" formularies where non-formulary drugs aren't covered. Moreover, the money consumers spend won’t count against their deductibles or out of pocket limits ($12,700 for a family, $6,350 for an individual).
These are the ways that Obamacare cheapens the health coverage in order to pay for all of its expensive mandates. Obamacare is a throwback to the old HMO model of the 1990s, which promised a broad package of coverage for primary care benefits like vaccines, and routine doctor visits. But to pay for these benefits, the Obamacare plans skimp on other things – principally the number of doctors you’ll have access to, and also, the number of costlier branded drugs that make it onto formularies.
Many Americans rejected these restrictive HMO model plans in the 1990s, in favor of PPO-style plans that had higher cost sharing for routine health services, but offered broader access to doctors and have bigger drug formularies. What Obamacare says, in effect, is that Americans made the wrong choice when they rejected those HMO plans in favor of PPOs. The President thinks the more comprehensive, but restrictive HMOs were the better choice after all.
In response to the drug formulary issues, and the potential for important drugs to remain completely uncovered, staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is arguing that patients will have the option to appeal formulary decisions -- to try and compel a health plan to cover a given drug.
But this appeals process can take months. And there is no sure chance of winning.
If a drug costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, how many patients will be able to foot that bill out of pocket until they win an appeal. Or take the chance that they could lose the appeal, and be stuck with the full cost of the drug?
The biggest problem in all of this is that consumers will have a very hard time figuring out where they stand. In many cases, the health plans being offered in the Obamacare exchanges don’t make information about their drug formularies readily available. In some cases, it doesn’t seem to be published anywhere.
The government was supposed to mandate that plans made this information easily accessible. But in many cases, that never happened.
In fact, state and federal regulators must have approved the health plans without reviewing final drug formularies. Many plans are also not publishing information about their networks of doctors, or when they do; the information is unreliable (listing, for example, doctors who argue that they aren’t part of the plans).
There are some things we know about these formularies.
Under the law, the Obamacare plans benchmarked their drug formularies off of one of the health plans already operating in each state.
In selecting this benchmark, they could have to select from one of four options:
They could choose from: 1) One of the three largest small group plans in the state by enrollment; 2) one of the three largest state employee health plans by enrollment; 3) one of the three largest federal employee health plan options by enrollment; or 4) the largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market by enrollment.
Because there’s a wide variation in the breadth of the drug formularies maintained by these four options, there is also wide variation in the Obamcare plans.
The formulary you’ll get depends most of all on which state you live in (and which benchmark was chosen by the state regulators).
It also appears that the final regulation on all this, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, gave states some latitude to nix drugs that might otherwise be listed on the benchmark formularies they selected. That regulatory wiggle room seems to undermine the whole idea of having a benchmark plan.
So can you find a good drug plan in Obamacare?
It’s difficult.
Generally speaking, the benchmark plans that are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have the best drug formularies, some of the large HMOs, the worst. In many cases, states benchmarked their Obamacare plans to state employee health programs, which usually fall in the middle.
But there is a lot of variability.
For example, when it comes to costly, molecularly targeted cancer drugs, some benchmark plans cover 11 drugs, but other plans cover as few as seven. I found one plan in North Carolina that doesn’t cover Actonel for osteoporosis, Aubagio for multiple sclerosis, or Xeljanz for severe rheumatoid arthritis, among other “non formulary” drugs.
In California, a state that Obamacare’s architects are holding up as the model of success, some of the major exchange players—including Anthem, Blue Shield of California and Health Net—have posted their exchange formularies on their websites. Unfortunately, they’re not easy to find -- and incomplete.
As another excellent analysis finds, a lack of standardization and on-line tools makes it hard for consumers to compare between plans.
Some of the published lists do not show all of the covered drugs. For instance in California, Blue Shield’s document states that only the most commonly prescribed drugs are shown in its published formulary. Anthem’s published list is also not comprehensive.
Some analysts have tried to look across the plans, but comparisons are as hard for experts to make as they are for consumers.
One study by Avalere Health of 22 carriers in six states looked at the benchmark plans that the Obamacare plans would be tied to. It found that the numbers of drugs listed as available on formularies ranged from about 480 to nearly 1,110.
Even if your drug makes it onto the Obamcare plan’s formulary, getting access to a medicine can still be a costly affair for patients.
In the same study, researchers found that 90% of the lowest-cost bronze plans require patients to pay 40% (on average) for drugs in tiers 3 and 4, compared with 29% co-pays in current commercial plans. Most of the Obamacare silver plans also require patients to pay 40% for the highest-tier drugs.
Drug makers with big portfolios of specialty and primary care drugs, for their part, will have to fight on a state-by-state level to make sure that the benchmark formularies that state regulators adopt allow open access to their medicines.
There's word that companies like Pfizer [NYSE:PFE] and Merck [NYSE:MRK] have been beefing up their state operations for just this purpose.
They are late to the challenge.
Drug makers were focused on a condition that health plans must have more than one drug per class. But these firms may have been focused on the wrong proviso.
Many formularies are shaping up to be very restrictive even while meeting that minimum standard. The biggest challenge will be in getting new drugs onto existing formularies. The process is likely to be long, slow, and austere.
Health plans are cheapening their drug formularies – just like they cheapened their networks of doctors. That’s how they're paying for the benefits that President Obama promised, everything from free contraception and screening tests to a leveling of premiums between older (and typically costlier) beneficiaries, and younger consumers.
But the need to fund these promises will put drug formularies in play for the long run. New medicines will remain off formularies, or make it on after long delays. Patients will find that costlier specialty drugs are simply not covered.
Like a lot other parts of Obamacare, uncertainty around drug costs and coverage is becoming another one of the scheme’s unpleasant surprises.
Also on Forbes:
You can follow Dr. Scott Gottlieb on Twitter @ScottGottliebMD ||||| The nation’s new health-care law says insurers can’t turn anyone away, even people who are sick. But some companies, patient advocates say, have found a way to discourage the chronically ill from enrolling in their plans: offer drug coverage too skimpy for those with expensive conditions.
Some plans sold on the online insurance exchanges, for instance, don’t cover key medications for HIV, or they require patients to pay as much as 50 percent of the cost per prescription in co-insurance — sometimes more than $1,000 a month.
“The fear is that they are putting discriminatory plan designs into place to try to deter certain people from enrolling by not covering the medications they need, or putting policies in place that make them jump through hoops to get care,” said John Peller, vice president of policy for the AIDS Foundation of Chicago.
As the details of the benefits offered by the new health-care plans become clear, patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune diseases also are raising concerns, said Marc Boutin, executive vice president of the National Health Council, a coalition of advocacy groups for the chronically ill.
“The easiest way [for insurers] to identify a core group of people that is going to cost you a lot of money is to look at the medicines they need and the easiest way to make your plan less appealing is to put limitations on these products,” Boutin said.
Insurers say that such accusations are unfounded, and that the drug coverage is more than adequate, with many plans exceeding the minimum levels required by the Affordable Care Act. But they acknowledge that to keep premiums low, they must restrict the use of some costly drugs if there are alternatives. And they say that when high-priced medications must be used, it’s reasonable to expect patients to pick up more of the cost.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for American’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said the exchange plans are designed “to try to give consumers better value for their health-care dollars.”
Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the new health-care law will give many consumers access to the medicines they need for the first time but that if a plan doesn’t cover a particular drug, patients can ask insurers for an exception. She said the government is asking the companies to respond to such requests within three days.
The health-care law has been celebrated by people with serious illnesses, some of whom have been unable until now to obtain coverage. Starting Jan. 1, insurers must take all comers and are barred from imposing lifetime limits on reimbursements. For those who purchase on the marketplace, annual out-of-pocket costs will be limited to $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. (The Obama administration granted a one-year grace period for some group plans to implement the new limit.)
But people who expected the new plans to provide pharmaceutical coverage comparable with that of employer-sponsored plans have been disappointed. In recent years, employers have compelled workers to pick up a growing share of the costs, especially for brand-name drugs. But insurers selling policies on the exchanges have pared their drug benefits significantly more, according to health advocates, patients and industry analysts. The plans are curbing their lists of covered drugs and limiting quantities, requiring prior authorizations and insisting on “fail first” or “step therapy” protocols that compel doctors to prescribe a certain drug first before moving on to another — even if it’s not the physician’s and patient’s drug of choice.
Paul Prince, 52, a former information technology manager from Houston, said he was surprised that some of the health plans in the new federal marketplace wouldn’t pay for one or more of his HIV medications. The policy that seemed to provide the best coverage, he said, would cover only about two-thirds of his monthly $2,400 drug tab, leaving him responsible for $840.
“There was no way I could pay that,” said Prince, who is studying to become a teacher after being laid off from his previous job and losing his insurance.
Prince receives help with buying his HIV medications from the government AIDS Drug Assistance Program for low-income people. But he worries about how he’s going to pay for his drugs when he goes back to work.
“I’m hoping the insurance companies will work this out by then, or else I will be in real trouble,” he said.
And there are fears that the government assistance programs, as well as those sponsored by foundations and drug companies, might be trimmed or eliminated on the premise that most Americans will have insurance — not taking into account that the coverage still will leave them with large bills for drugs.
The success of the health-care law hinges in large part on insurers being able to attract enough healthy people to help subsidize enrollees who are sick. Just 5 percent of the nation’s population — those with the most complex, chronic conditions — accounts for nearly half of all of U.S. health-care spending, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management, a research group funded by insurers. If insurers end up with a surplus of sick people, the result could be financially disastrous.
In the past, insurance companies could reject applicants who were sick — or had risk factors for becoming sick — or charge them higher premiums. The Affordable Care Act did away with that and left insurers with only a few ways to try to balance costs and risk. It allows them to charge more by age group (but the oldest group can be asked to pay only three times more than the youngest) and place of residence and if someone smokes.
But what is considered discriminatory in the design of drug benefits is less clear in the law and regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The health-care law includes mechanisms to reimburse insurers for a portion of the costs for people with very high medical costs and to help carriers whose expenses may exceed the premiums they collect. But these are temporary measures, and insurers have complained that they are insufficient. HHS has said it is looking for ways to provide additional assistance if claims greatly exceed projections.
A new analysis of health plans sold in the federal exchange — which covers 36 states — and 14 state exchanges found that the benefits tend to be skimpier than in most other private insurance in the United States, with drug benefits a particular weak spot. The analysis, by Avalere Health, a health-care consulting company, was based on a sample of 600 insurance plans.
It showed that among “silver” plans — the second-cheapest of four levels of coverage in the exchanges, and the level on which federal subsidies are based — patients are required to pay a higher share of their drug costs than is typical among those who receive insurance through their jobs.
People who rely on extremely expensive drugs could encounter big bills right away. Patients whose medications cost at least $15,000 per month could face out-of-pocket costs of $1,000 to about $6,000 the first month they use their insurance, Avalere found. The analysis is based on the silver plans of the five states running their own marketplaces that have set their own benefits standards.
Dan Mendelson, Avalere’s chief executive, predicted that employers may soon adapt some of the benefit designs in the exchanges’ health plans. “We are already seeing interest,” he said, because they are less expensive for companies, shifting more of the expense to patients.
Daniel Kantor, a neurologist in Florida, said he has serious concerns about patients with multiple sclerosis who have purchased insurance through the exchanges, because some plans don’t cover widely used drugs. In addition, he said, some require doctors to prescribe a specified medicine before they cover others, which could compel people to take drugs more toxic to them, even though they are all similarly priced.
“2014 is going to be a scary year. People are going to have to stop taking medicines they are already stable on because of this,” said Kantor, the immediate past president of the Southern MS Consortium, a group of doctors, social workers and advocates who work with patients with the condition.
Insurers, he said, are hoping “that if they make it inconvenient for people with MS to get treatment, they will leave their rolls.”
Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue related to drug coverage involves people with HIV.
In an October letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a coalition of AIDS groups voiced concern about the lack of coverage for a single-tablet regimen, in which three to four HIV medications are combined into one pill. Studies have shown that the tablets improve adherence to drug regimens and, as a result, reduce hospitalizations and enable people with HIV to stay healthier.
In reviewing health plans nationwide, the coalition found that at least 47 did not cover the single-tablet-regimen pills and other standard frontline treatments for HIV.
Robert Greenwald, director of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard University, said some insurers are reconsidering their decisions and may begin covering the drug.
A spokeswoman for Aetna — which initially left the single-tablet regimen off the formulary, or list of medicine covered, for its exchange plans in at least eight states — has decided to add two of the three commonly used single-tablet regimens to all its plans. WellPoint BlueCross BlueShield said it will add one to its list of covered drugs in the 14 states where it has plans.
In Houston, three of the seven plans offered don’t cover single-tablet regimens and three others cover them only with very high coinsurance payments — as much as $1,200 a month — leaving what patients say is only one reasonable choice of carrier for those with HIV.
“We never expected these drugs to be completely left off some formularies,” said Randall Ellis, vice president of public affairs at Legacy Community Health Services, which treats 2,700 patients with HIV/AIDS. “It’s causing a lot of anxiety and confusion.”
Amy Goldstein and Lena H. Sun contributed to this report. | Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, heath insurers now can't turn away sick people. That's the good news. The bad news: They don't actually have to cover the drugs those patients need. Key drugs are missing from some plans, the Washington Post reports, in what patient advocates believe is a bid to drive sick customers away. Some plans omit certain medicines for HIV, cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and more altogether, or else require patients to pay as much as 50% out-of-pocket—which is often more than $1,000 a month. Consumers might not realize, either; some plan don't detail their formulary (that's the list of covered drugs) until patients formally apply, the Wall Street Journal reports. And, as Scott Gottlieb at Forbes explains, if a drug isn't on the formulary, it won't even count toward your out-of-pocket cap ($12,700 for a family, $6,350 for an individual). The Obama administration says that if your plan doesn't cover a crucial drug, you should ask for an exception; the government is asking insurers to respond to these requests within three days. |
RS21569 -- Geographical Indications and WTO Negotiations July 14, 2003 The Uruguay Round Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) defines geographical indications as"indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory,where a givenquality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin." (1) The term is most often,although not exclusively, applied to wines, spirits, and agricultural products. Examples of geographical indicationsare Roquefortcheese, Idaho potatoes, Champagne, or Tuscan olive oil. Geographical indications protect consumers from the use of deceptive or misleading labels. They also provide consumers withchoices among products and with information on which to base their choices. Producers benefit becausegeographical indicationsgive them recognition for the distinctiveness of their products in the market. They are thus commercially valuable.As intellectualproperty, geographical indications are eligible for relief from acts of infringement and/or unfair competition. (2) The use of geographical indications for wines and dairy products particularly, which some countries consider to be protectedintellectualproperty, and others consider to be generic or semi-generic terms, has become a contentious international trade issue. The TRIPS Agreement provides two levels of protection for geographical indications and lists exceptions to TRIPS rules for theirprotection. TRIPS provides general standards of protection for all geographical indications . WTO members must provide the legal means forinterested parties to prevent the misleading or deceptive use of these terms and other forms of unfair competition. WTO membersmust refuse or invalidate the registration of a misleading trademark which contains or consists of a geographicalindication, if amember's legislation so permits or at the request of an interested party. TRIPS provides additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits . WTOmember countries must provide thelegal means for interested parties to prevent misuse of a geographical indication of wines and spirits even wheresuch use does notmislead the public. No exception is granted even if the true origin of the goods is indicated, the geographicalindication is used intranslation, or is accompanied by expressions such as "kind," "type," "style," "imitation," or the like. Theregistration of a misleadingtrademark for wines or spirits must be refused or invalidated. To facilitate the protection of geographical indicationsfor wines, WTOmembers agreed to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration ofgeographical indications forwines eligible for protection in those members participating in the system. Exceptions to the protection of geographical indications include: where a term has been used for at least 10 years prior to April 15,1994, or in good faith if prior to that date; where a term is also subject to good faith trademark rights; where a termhas significance asa personal name; and where a term has become identified with the common name for a good or service. During the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), the European Union (EU) and Switzerland made proposals for ahigher level of protection for geographical indications than provided in existing international agreements. They alsoproposed amultilateral registry for geographical indications. (3) The EU/Swiss proposal would have eliminated most of the exceptions in Article24 which permit the use, for example, of such names as Chablis, Burgundy, or Champagne based on prior or goodfaith use. TheUnited States, on the other hand, while pressing for strong intellectual property protections in general, proposedmore limitedprotections for geographical indications. (4) The UnitedStates proposed simply (1) that member countries would protect geographicalindications of any products through registration of certification or collective marks (see below), and (2) thatappellations of origin ofwines that had not become generic names would be guaranteed protection against misleading use. The resulting TRIPS provisions for geographical indications represented a compromise between these two positions and postponeddebate over a multilateral registry for wines and spirits and over extending higher protections to agriculturalgeographical indications. The TRIPS compromise on protection of geographical indications reflects more the EU's expansive proposals thanthe United States'more modest ones. In the United States, geographical indications are protected under the U.S. Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.). Section 4 of theTrademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1054) provides for the registration of "certification marks including indications ofregional origin." Thekinds of certification marks recognized in the Trademark Act include marks that certify that goods or servicesoriginate in a specificgeographic region. These would be the kinds of marks most likely viewed as geographical indications underTRIPS. (6) Partiesasserting rights to use a geographical indication can obtain formal protection via use of the trademark systemthrough registration as acertification mark. (7) The U.S. system for recognitionfor geographic indications applies equally to foreign geographic indications. Anexample is U.S. Registration No. 571,798 ("ROQUEFORT") for that French cheese. Other means also would beavailable to protectgeographical indications (see footnote 5 for details). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides protection for some specific geographical indications by recognizingthat Bourbon Whiskey, Tennessee Whiskey, Canadian Whiskey, Tequila, and Mezcal are "distinctive products" inthe NAFTA countries where they are produced (NAFTA, Chapter 3, Annex 313). The so-called D'Amato amendment (Section910 of P.L.105-32 ) provides authority for the use of "semi-generic" names of wines if the true place of origin also isindicated. (8) (This use is amain point of contention in both multilateral and bilateral negotiations with the EU.) Two issues concerning geographical indications are under consideration in the Doha Development Agenda: negotiations concerning amultilateral registry for wine and spirits; and debate over extending additional protections for agriculturalgeographical indications. (1) Negotiating a Multilateral Registry for Wine and Spirits The Ministerial declaration launching the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations established the fifth WTO MinisterialConference (September 10-14, 2003 in Cancun, Mexico) as the deadline for completing negotiations for amultilateral system ofnotification and registration. (9) In the negotiations, the EU has proposed a multilateral system of notification and registration that would create obligations for WTOmember countries to grant exclusive rights for individual geographic indications, rather than allow interested partiesto apply forprotection according to a country's national legal procedures. (10) Participation would be voluntary, but the multilateral registry wouldhave mandatory effect, so that notification of a geographical indication by one country creates a presumption thatit must be protectedeverywhere. Under the EU proposal, a country would be required to grant exclusive rights to producers in thenotifying country,unless it successfully challenged the notification in WTO dispute settlement. The EU lists among the advantages of a registry with mandatory effect the following. It would provide information to members aboutwhich geographical indications are protected in each member's territory. It would make operational the protectionsextended togeographical indications for wines and spirits provided in TRIPS Article 23, without requiring members to enactnew legislation oradministrative procedures. It would provide transparency and legal certainty to international trade in wine andspirits. The United States, Japan, Chile, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and others have all expressed concern about a registry withmandatory effect on grounds that it would lead to new and costly administrative burdens and legal obligations. Theysee the proposedmultilateral registry as a clearing house for information about the protection of specific geographical indications ineach country. Applications for protection of geographical indications would be made through existing legal procedures in a WTOmember country. While multilateral negotiations have been underway, the United States and the EU have been negotiating a bilateral wine agreement. A principal EU objective is to secure an end to U.S. use of "semi-generic" names for wines (see footnote 5). TheEU is also seekingprotection for what it calls traditional terms applied to wines such as "tawny" or "ruby red", among others. Aprincipal U.S. objectiveis to gain acceptance by the EU of U.S. wine-making practices. Because the EU only permits wine made inaccordance with itsregulations to be sold in the EU, a substantial amount of U.S. wine is blocked from that market. Australia and, morerecently, Canadahave concluded bilateral wine agreements with the EU which contain mutual recognition of wine making practicesand agreement byAustralia and Canada to phase out the use of the generic names still permitted under U.S. law. (2) Extending Additional Protection to Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products The second issue under debate in the TRIPS Council is that of extending the protection of geographical indications provided for inArticle 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and spirits. This and other so-calledimplementation issues ofimportance to developing countries were to have been addressed by the end of 2002, but were not. Proposals to extend protection accorded wines and spirits to other agricultural products have been made by the EU (11) and by a groupof European and developing countries. (12) Additional protection for geographical indications of agricultural products is viewed as acorollary of efforts to liberalize agricultural trade and to promote trade of goods with higher added value. Forexample, the EUexplicitly links extending protection for geographical indications to its strategy to promote the development ofquality agriculturalproducts. (13) Proponents also argue that increasedprotection would bring more effective protection of consumers. Negotiations onthis issue are taking place in the TRIPS Council, but the EU has linked reaching agreement on geographicalindications to itswillingness to deal with the agricultural negotiating issues of market access, domestic support, and export subsidies. Conversely, the United States and a number of other countries argue that the existing level of protection provided by TRIPS enablescountries to maintain access to existing markets; maintains ongoing access to trade opportunities in new andemerging markets;provides adequate protection to producers and consumers; and does not impose new administrative costs and legalobligations onmembers. (14) Additional costs cited by the UnitedStates include potential for consumer confusion (from re-naming and re-labelingproducts), potential producer conflicts within the WTO, and a heightened risk of WTO disputes. The debate over extending protection for geographical indications of agricultural products is reflected in the U.S. request forconsultations (the first step in WTO dispute settlement) with the EU on EU regulations for the protection ofgeographical indicationsfor wines and spirits (Community Regulation 1493/99) and for other agricultural products (Community Regulation2081/92). TheU.S. request, which has been joined by Australia, argues that the EU regulations violate the TRIPS Agreement(Article 22) byrequiring specific bilateral agreements, rather than recourse to national legal systems, before according recognitionto other countries'registered geographical indications. Commentators have suggested that this possible challenge to EU regulationsanticipates that EUenlargement to include 10 central and eastern European countries could create additional problems for U.S.registered trademarkowners vis-a-vis EU protected geographical names. (15) A case in point is the U.S.-owned Budweiser beer trademark which, althoughregistered in a number of EU countries, could come into question if the Czech Republic registers and claims thename Budweiser,even in translation, as a protected geographical indication in the EU. Decisions about geographical indications will be on the agenda of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun. The Chairman of theAgriculture negotiating group has identified geographical indications for agricultural products as an unresolvedissue. (16) Congress isclosely monitoring the Doha negotiations; the House Agriculture Committee has scheduled oversight hearings onthe protection ofgeographical indications for agricultural products. Should negotiations result in agreements that require changesin U.S. law coveringgeographical indications, Congress would take up legislation to implement such an agreement under expedited (fasttrack) proceduresestablished in the Trade Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-210 ). | The issue of expanding intellectual property protections for geographical indicationsforwines, spirits, and agricultural products is being debated in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Geographicalindications areimportant in international trade because they are commercially valuable. Some European and developing countrieswant to establish tougher restrictions and limits on the use of geographical names for products, while the United States and associatedcountries arguethat the existing level of protection of such terms is adequate. Decisions about the future scope of protection ofgeographicalindications will be made as the current (Doha) round of multilateral trade negotiations continues. Congress ismonitoring thenegotiations and their potential impacts on U.S. producers. This report will be updated as events warrant. |
In 1995, the District of Columbia established the Highway Trust Fund, as required by the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act. This dedicated trust fund is required to include amounts equivalent to receipts from motor fuel taxes and to be separate from the District’s General Fund. For fiscal year 1999, motor fuel tax revenues were reported to be almost $31 million. The Fund is used to reimburse the District for local capital appropriated expenditures, which are (1) the District’s share (normally 20 percent) of federal aid highway project costs, (2) the salaries of District personnel working directly on transportation capital projects, (3) overhead costs associated with federal aid projects, and (4) other nonparticipating costs. All federal and local capital appropriated expenditures are paid out of DPW’s Capital Operating account and then reimbursed by either the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Fund. DPW is responsible for processing, accounting for, and reporting on the Fund’s financial activities. To accomplish these functions, DPW relies on the System of Accounting and Reporting (SOAR), which is developed and maintained by OCFO. The District also uses SOAR to manage certain District-wide purchasing and financial reporting activities. OCFO maintains SOAR, along with other District payroll, personnel, and tax information, on a computer system at its SHARE computer center. In fiscal year 1999, the District’s two payroll and personnel applications—the Unified Pay and Personnel System and the Centralized Automated Payroll and Personnel System—accounted for more than $1.5 billion in reported expenditures relating to the District payroll and employee benefits. In addition, tax applications residing on this computer system controlled District sales and use, employer withholding, corporate franchise, unincorporated franchise and hotel, personal property, and individual income tax revenues for fiscal year 1999. DPW also relies on its own local area network (LAN), the District’s wide area network (WAN)—which is managed by OCTO—and the Internet to transfer Fund information to and from the SHARE computer center. The District’s WAN not only allows DPW staff to access systems maintained at the SHARE computer center, but also connects other District organizations—such as the Metropolitan Police Department, the District General Hospital, and the District public school system—to these systems and systems at the District’s other five data centers. In addition, some District financial information is maintained on the network. For example, the network-based Real Property Tax 2000 system contains land records, facilitates data analysis for property valuation and tax administration, maintains all District real property tax roll and levy entries, and supports automated management of real property tax accounts receivable adjustments, payment posting, and billing information. Altogether, the District’s WAN serves about 30 sites, which support approximately 60 District agencies and offices. To secure, protect, and preserve District information systems, such as those relied on to account for Fund and other District financial activities, District law requires the Mayor to establish, maintain, and provide consistent computer security policies, principles, and standards for all District departments and agencies. More specifically, District law tasks OCTO with coordinating the development of information management plans, standards, systems, and procedures throughout the District government. Our objective was to evaluate the design and test the overall effectiveness of information system general controls over the Fund’s financial systems, which are maintained and operated by three District organizations: DPW, OCFO, and OCTO. These information system general controls, however, also affect the security and reliability of other sensitive data, including District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information, that is maintained on the same computer system as the Fund’s financial information. Specifically, we evaluated information system general controls intended to protect data and application programs from unauthorized access; prevent the introduction of unauthorized changes to application and provide segregation of duties involving application programming, system programming, computer operations, information security, and quality assurance; assure recovery of computer processing operations in case of a disaster or other unexpected interruption; and ensure adequate computer security program management. To evaluate these controls, we identified and reviewed District policies and procedures, conducted tests and observations of controls in operation, and held discussions with DPW, OCFO, and OCTO staff to determine if information system general controls were in place, adequately designed, and operating effectively. Our evaluation was based on (1) our Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM), which contains guidance for reviewing information system controls that affect the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of computerized data, and (2) the results of our May 1998 study of security management best practices at leading organizations, which identifies key elements of an effective information security program. We performed our work from June through August 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Because the objective of our work was to assess the overall effectiveness of information system general controls, we did not fully evaluate all computer controls. Consequently, additional vulnerabilities could exist. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the District’s Chief Technology Officer. She provided us with written comments, which are discussed in the “Agency Comments” section and reprinted in appendix I. A basic management objective for any organization is to protect its data from unauthorized access and prevent improper modification, disclosure, or deletion of financial and sensitive information. Our review of the District’s information system general controls found that they were not adequately protecting the Fund’s financial activities or other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information that also reside at OCFO’s SHARE computer center. Specifically, the District had not adequately limited access granted to authorized users, properly managed user IDs and passwords, effectively maintained system software controls, or sufficiently protected its networks and other computer systems from unauthorized users. In addition, the risks created by these access control weaknesses were compounded because the District was not routinely monitoring access activity to identify and investigate unusual or suspicious access patterns that could indicate unauthorized access. Consequently, District systems, programs, and data maintained at OCFO’s SHARE computer center risk inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, and unauthorized alteration or destruction occurring without detection. District management has recognized the weaknesses we identified and has expressed its commitment to improving information system controls. Subsequent to our fieldwork, District officials provided us with action plans that, if implemented properly, should correct the weaknesses we identified. The following sections summarize the results of our review of information system general controls over the District financial systems used to manage Fund operations. A key weakness in the District’s internal controls was that it was not adequately limiting the access of employees and other authorized users to Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information maintained at OCFO’s SHARE computer center. Organizations can protect information from unauthorized changes or disclosures by granting employees authority to read or modify only those programs and data necessary to perform their duties. However, we found several examples where the District had not adequately restricted the access of legitimate users on the computer system that maintains Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information. The District allowed all of the more than 4,300 active user IDs full access to 20 system software libraries that are used to perform sensitive system functions that can be used to circumvent all security controls. Such access increased the risk that users could bypass security controls to alter or delete any computer data or programs on this system. Security software on the system that maintains Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information was not implemented to automatically deny unauthorized access attempts. We determined that 689 access rules controlling access to data and program files, including a system software library that could be used to bypass other security controls and a payroll library that contained check processing data, were set to generate a warning message when access violations occurred, but permit the unauthorized access to proceed. Consequently, risk of improper access and changes to critical data files and programs occurring without detection is heightened. More than 265 user IDs on the system used to process Fund and other District financial information were granted the tape bypass label processing privilege that allows users to read and alter any tape regardless of other security software controls. These users included network support staff, database administrators, SOAR application programmers, payroll staff, Department of Human Services staff, and certain application users. As a result, these users have unlimited access to all tape files, including system audit logs and backup copies of sensitive financial and tax information. One reason for the District’s user access problems was that access authority was not being reviewed. Such reviews would have allowed the District to identify and correct inappropriate access. OCFO officials told us that SHARE computer center staff had changed the security software configuration so that all unauthorized attempts are denied and restricted the tape bypass label processing privilege to only those users with a specific business need. OCFO officials also told us that SHARE computer center staff would complete reviewing and limiting access to sensitive system libraries by March 31, 2001. In addition, OCFO officials stated that procedures to periodically review (1) access granted to sensitive system files, (2) security software configuration settings, and (3) access activity allowed by the tape bypass label processing privilege for appropriateness would be implemented by March 31, 2001. In addition to overseeing user access authority, it is also important to actively manage user IDs and passwords to ensure that users can be identified and authenticated. To accomplish this objective, organizations should establish controls to maintain and protect the confidentiality of passwords. These controls should include requirements to ensure that IDs uniquely identify users; passwords are changed periodically, contain a specified number of characters, and are not common words; default IDs and passwords are changed to prevent their use; and the number of invalid password attempts is limited to preclude password guessing. Organizations should also evaluate the effectiveness of these controls periodically to ensure that they are operating effectively. At the District, however, user IDs and passwords were not being managed to sufficiently reduce the risk of unauthorized access to the computer system that maintains Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information. For instance, the system was configured in a manner that did not always require passwords for user authentication. In addition, passwords that existed were not prevented from being (1) fewer than six characters, (2) the same as the user ID, or (3) other easily guessed words. Further, users were allowed the opportunity to circumvent password change requirements by reusing the same password over and over. Consequently, the District faced increased risks that passwords could be compromised to gain unauthorized access to financial and other sensitive information maintained on this computer system. OCFO officials told us that SHARE computer center staff had changed password control settings to require passwords to contain at least six characters and prevent passwords from being easily guessed words, such as the user ID. We also found instances where the District was not promptly removing unused or unneeded IDs or deleting IDs for terminated employees. For example, more than 1,400 user IDs had not been used for at least 7 months. Allowing inactive IDs to persist poses needless risk that unnecessary IDs will be used to gain unauthorized access. We also found cases where terminated employees were provided the opportunity to sabotage or impair Fund and other District financial operations because their user IDs were not promptly disabled. OCFO officials told us that SHARE computer center staff would implement procedures to ensure that inactive IDs and IDs for terminated employees are promptly disabled no later than March 31, 2001. It is also essential to control access to and modification of system software to protect the overall integrity and reliability of information systems. System software controls, which limit and monitor access to the powerful programs and sensitive files associated with computer system operation, are important in providing reasonable assurance that access controls are not compromised and that the system will not be impaired. If controls in this area are not adequate, system software might be used to bypass security controls, gain unauthorized privileges that allow improper actions, or circumvent edits and other controls built into application programs. The District was not properly controlling system software to prevent access controls on the computer system used to process Fund and other District financial, payroll, and tax applications from being circumvented. The system software control weaknesses we identified diminish the reliability of financial and other sensitive information maintained on this computer system and increase the risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, and disruption. In addition, we identified system software configuration weaknesses that could allow users to bypass access controls and gain unauthorized access to Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information. For example, the operating system was set up in a manner that allowed programs in any of the 74 libraries included in the normal search sequence to perform sensitive system functions and operate outside of security software controls. Because users generally have access to such libraries, this greatly increases the risk that unauthorized programs could be introduced to bypass other access controls and improperly access or modify financial, audit trail, or other sensitive information maintained on this computer system. Further, the District had not instituted processes to control changes to system software on this computer system. In the past 2 years, OCFO had implemented several major system software changes, such as installing new versions of database management, communication, access control, and operating system software. However, it was not maintaining a comprehensive log of system software changes, consistently documenting these changes and related test results, or independently testing system software changes before implementation. Consequently, the District faces increased risks of unintended operational problems caused by programming errors or the deliberate execution of unauthorized programs that could compromise security controls. The District was also not adequately reviewing programs in sensitive system libraries to identify and correct weaknesses that could be used to circumvent security controls. Consequently, we found potential problems that, at a minimum, diminish the reliability of system software, but could also be exploited to introduce malicious code or circumvent other access controls. For example, 13 files capable of performing sensitive system privileges did not exist on the volume specified in the table used to manage such files. This increases the risk that unauthorized programs could be substituted for these files without management approval and used to bypass other security controls or inappropriately modify audit trails or sensitive data. Until the District begins actively managing programs in sensitive system software libraries, it will not have adequate assurance that other security controls cannot be bypassed. OCFO officials told us that SHARE computer center staff would implement policies and procedures by June 30, 2001, to (1) review system configuration settings periodically for appropriateness, (2) ensure that system software changes are authorized, independently tested, documented, and approved prior to implementation, and (3) evaluate programs in sensitive system libraries to identify and correct potential problems. The risks associated with the access and system software control problems we identified were also heightened because the District was not adequately protecting access to its networks or restricting access to the system that processes Fund and other District financial applications from the Internet. We found several network user ID and password management weaknesses that could be exploited to gain unauthorized access to District systems. For example, a common default account was available on one DPW network server. In addition, certain network systems on the DPW LAN and/or District WAN were not set up to require password authentication, ensure that passwords were changed periodically, or disable user IDs after a specified number of invalid password attempts. In addition, network system software configuration weaknesses could allow users to bypass access controls and gain unauthorized access to District networks or cause network system failures. For instance, certain network servers and routers were set up in a manner that permitted unauthorized users to connect to the network without entering valid user IDs and password combinations. This could allow unauthorized individuals to obtain access to system information describing the network environment, including user IDs, password properties, and account details. These network security weaknesses not only increased the risk of unauthorized access to information maintained on the network, but also heightened the risk that intruders or authorized users with malicious intent could exploit the user ID and password management weaknesses described above to misuse, improperly disclose, or destroy Fund and other District financial and sensitive information. DPW officials told us that they planned to correct the network ID, password, and system software configuration weaknesses we identified on the DPW LAN. The risks created by the access control problems described above were also heightened significantly because the District was not adequately monitoring system and user activity. Such a program would include (1) network monitoring to promptly identify attempts by unauthorized users to gain access to District systems and (2) examining attempts to access sensitive information once entry to District systems is accomplished. Without these controls, the District has little assurance that improper attempts to access sensitive information would be detected in time to prevent or minimize damage. The District organizations we visited had not implemented proactive network monitoring programs. Such a program would require the District to identify suspicious access patterns, such as repeated failed attempts to log-on to the network, attempts to identify systems and services on the network, connections to the network from unauthorized locations, and efforts to overload the network to disrupt operations, and implement intrusion detection systems to automatically log unusual activity, provide necessary alerts, and terminate sessions when necessary. The District had not installed intrusion detection software on its WAN. In addition, DPW was using available intrusion detection capabilities on only 2 of its 22 network segments. Further, a network server used to allow access through the Internet to the computer system that maintains Fund and other District financial and sensitive information was configured to not log any access activity. DPW officials told us that they would review all network servers and activate intrusion detection capabilities on all servers with these capabilities. OCTO officials told us that in conjunction with their implementation of the District security management program planned for October 1, 2001, a central security group will be established that, among other things, will implement intrusion detection systems to identify suspicious access activities and notify appropriate agency personnel. In addition, the District was not actively monitoring user access activity— to identify and investigate failed attempts to access sensitive data and resources or unusual patterns of successful access to such information— on the computer system used to process Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax information. Routinely monitoring the access activities of authorized users, especially those who have the ability to alter sensitive programs and data, can help identify significant problems and deter users from inappropriate and unauthorized activities. Because the volume of security information available is likely to be too voluminous to review routinely, the most effective monitoring efforts are those that selectively target specific actions. These monitoring efforts should include provisions to identify and investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of access, such as updates to security files that were not made by security staff, changes to sensitive system files that were not made by system modifications to production application programs that were not initiated by production control staff, revisions to production data that were completed by system or deviations from normal patterns of access to Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax data. The District could develop such a program by (1) identifying sensitive system files, programs, and data files on its computer systems and networks, (2) using the audit trail capabilities of its security software to document both failed and successful access to these resources, (3) defining normal patterns of access activity, (4) analyzing audit trail information to identify and report on access patterns that differ significantly from defined normal patterns, (5) investigating these potential security violations, and (6) taking appropriate action to discipline perpetrators, repair damage, and remedy the control weaknesses that allowed improper access to occur. Although the District was maintaining a history log of access activity on the computer system that maintained Fund and other District financial information and was producing standard data set access violation reports, these reports were not targeted to specific actions and the District did not follow up to ensure that violations had been appropriately investigated. In addition, the District had not established a process to identify and investigate failed attempts to gain access to this computer system or suspicious patterns of successful access to sensitive data and resources on this system. OCFO officials told us that SHARE computer center staff had developed and tested programs to produce the types of targeted monitoring reports described above and plan to fully implement a program to routinely identify and investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of access to sensitive computer resources by March 31, 2001. In addition to the access controls described above, there are other important information system general controls that organizations should have in place to ensure the integrity and reliability of data. These controls include policies, procedures, and control techniques to physically protect sensitive computer resources and information, provide appropriate segregation of duties among computer personnel, prevent unauthorized changes to application programs, and ensure the continuation of computer processing operations in case of unexpected interruption. We found weaknesses in each of these areas. The following sections summarize these weaknesses. Physical security controls are important for protecting computer facilities and resources from espionage, sabotage, damage, and theft. These controls involve restricting physical access to computer resources, usually by limiting access to the buildings and rooms where these resources are stored. In the District, physical access control measures, such as locks, guards, badges, and alarms (used alone or in combination), are vital to safeguarding critical financial and sensitive personnel information and computer operations from internal and external threats. However, we found weaknesses in physical security controls over computer systems at OCFO’s SHARE computer center, which processes Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax applications, and network servers connected to the DPW network. Neither DPW nor OCFO had developed formal procedures for granting and periodically reviewing access to the computer resources they controlled. As a result, staff could be granted access or continue to have access to sensitive network and system computer areas even though their job responsibilities may not warrant this access. For example, we identified 60 District employees and contractors who had been granted access to OCFO’s SHARE computer center without evidence of formal authorization. Likewise, DPW did not have complete or accurate records of which employees were permitted access to the network server room. In addition, OCFO staff could not account for 6 of the 95 cards that permitted access to the SHARE computer center computer room. In addition, neither DPW nor OCFO was adequately controlling access by visitors, such as contractors, to sensitive computer areas. For example, we were able to enter and move about both DPW’s network server room and OCFO’s SHARE computer center, including sensitive areas, without providing identification, signing in, or being escorted. Consequently, employees or intruders with malicious intent might also be able to gain improper access to the SHARE computer center or DPW LAN and disrupt these operations. In October 2000, DPW officials told us that they had corrected the physical security weaknesses we identified. In November 2000, OCFO officials told us that they had developed procedures for controlling access to the computer center. Another fundamental technique for safeguarding programs and data is to segregate the duties and responsibilities of computer personnel to reduce the risk that errors or fraud will occur and go undetected. Incompatible duties that should be separated include application and systems programming, production control, database administration, computer operations, and data security. Once policies and job descriptions that support segregation of duties principles have been developed, it is also important to implement access controls to ensure that employees perform only compatible functions. The District had assigned incompatible duties to certain application and system programmers. For example, some of the 24 application programmers that developed computer programs for the District’s main financial system, SOAR, were also responsible for supporting its operation. To perform these incompatible functions, certain application programmers were granted access to SOAR production programs and data. Further, the District had implemented access controls in a manner that permitted the remaining application programmers, who were not responsible for supporting SOAR operations, to also access SOAR production programs and data—a practice that violates basic segregation of duties principles. Allowing application programmers, especially those who have a detailed understanding of the application, to also modify SOAR production programs and data increases the risk of unauthorized modifications, which could lead to improper payments. In addition, all of the 13 system programmers responsible for maintaining the computer system that processes Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax applications were also assigned certain incompatible functions. Some system programmers were also responsible for security administration, while others were also responsible for production control or database administration. Moreover, although each of the 13 system programmers was only responsible for certain incompatible functions, all of the 13 system programmers were granted access privileges that would allow them to also perform security administration, production control, and database administration functions. Allowing system programmers the capability to modify financial and other sensitive data and programs without any compensating controls increases the risks of unauthorized modification of financial information and inappropriate disclosure of sensitive data. In addition, because these individuals had both system and security administrator privileges, they had the ability to eliminate any evidence of their activity in the system. Although District officials told us that they were aware of the potential problems associated with allowing incompatible computer duties to be performed by the same individual, the District had not implemented compensating controls, such as reviewing access activity, to mitigate increased risks. Until the District either restricts individuals from performing incompatible duties or implements compensating controls, Fund and other District financial and sensitive information will face increased risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, or destruction, possibly occurring without detection. In November 2000, OCFO officials told us that they had limited the access of application programmers responsible for SOAR development to only read production programs and data. In addition, OCFO staff told us that system programming and security functions had been separated and that a special ID would be established to allow system programmers the access required to perform security functions. These activities would be logged and reviewed to ensure that only authorized activities are performed. It is also important to ensure that only authorized and fully tested application programs are placed in operation. To ensure that changes to application programs are needed, work as intended, and do not result in the loss of data and program integrity, these changes should be documented, authorized, tested, independently reviewed, and implemented by a third party. District policy did not require changes to its main financial system, SOAR, to (1) be approved or reviewed prior to implementation or (2) include guidelines for testing these changes. While SOAR application developers maintained a standardized change request form, these forms did not always include authorizing signatures or evidence of testing and independent review. For example, documentation for about 30 percent of the 26 changes that were made to correct problems with SOAR programs from October 1, 1999, through July 20, 2000, did not indicate that the change had been tested prior to implementation. In addition, documentation for almost 90 percent of these changes did not specify that an independent technical review had occurred. Further, the District had not established procedures for periodically reviewing SOAR programs to ensure that only authorized program changes had been implemented. Without adequate application change controls, the District faces increased risk that unauthorized or inadequately tested programs or modifications to existing programs could be introduced. OCFO officials told us that policies and procedures to ensure that changes to SOAR programs are authorized, tested, independently reviewed, and approved would be implemented by January 2001. In addition, OCFO’s policies will include a requirement to periodically review changes to SOAR programs to ensure that only authorized changes are made. An organization must take steps to ensure that it is adequately prepared to cope with a loss of operational capability due to earthquakes, fires, accidents, sabotage, or any other disruption. An essential element in preparing for such catastrophes is an up-to-date, detailed, and fully tested disaster recovery plan. Such a plan is critical for helping to ensure that information system operations and data, such as financial processing and related records, can be promptly restored in the event of disaster. None of the District organizations we visited had a complete and fully tested disaster recovery plan. For example, DPW had not developed a disaster recovery plan for its LAN. In addition, neither OCTO nor OCFO had developed comprehensive disaster recovery plans for the District WAN or the SHARE computer center, which processes Fund and other District financial systems. Specifically, these OCTO and OCFO disaster recovery plans did not establish disaster recovery teams with specific roles and responsibilities, specify requirements for testing the plan periodically, or institute a process for reviewing and updating the plan based on test results. OCFO’s disaster recovery plan for the SHARE computer center also did not address different types of risks, such as floods, winter storms, or interruptions in power or communications, that could affect the continuity of operations. Furthermore, neither OCTO nor OCFO had fully tested disaster recovery plans for the District WAN or the SHARE computer center, respectively. OCFO did test the recovery of system software at its SHARE computer center in December 1999, but this test did not cover the center’s critical applications or telecommunications. Until the District develops and fully tests comprehensive disaster recovery plans for the DPW LAN, the District WAN, and the SHARE computer center, it will not be assured that computer operations critical to the Fund and other District financial activities can be restored promptly in the event of a disaster or other unintended interruption. OCFO officials told us that they had developed a disaster recovery plan for the SHARE computer center, which will use the District’s Department of Human Resources’ computer center. They stated that this plan will be fully implemented by June 30, 2001. In addition, DPW officials stated that their staff would develop a comprehensive disaster recovery plan for the DPW LAN by April 1, 2002. A key reason for the District’s information system control problems was that it did not have a comprehensive computer security management program in place to ensure that effective controls were established and maintained and that computer security received adequate attention. Our study of security management best practices found that leading organizations manage their information security risks through an ongoing cycle of activities coordinated by a central focal point. This management process involves (1) assessing risk to determine computer security needs, (2) developing and implementing policies and controls that meet these needs, (3) promoting awareness to ensure that risks and responsibilities are understood, and (4) instituting an ongoing program of tests and evaluations to ensure that policies and controls are appropriate and effective. In contrast, the District had not adequately accomplished any of these objectives. The first key problem with the District was that it had not adequately established a central focal point to coordinate computer security management. Due to the interconnectivity of the District’s networks, coordination and guidance provided by a central focal point becomes even more important, since a compromise in a single system could impact all District agencies. According to District law, OCTO was created to (1) centralize responsibility for the District’s information technology investments and (2) develop and enforce policy directives and standards regarding information technology throughout the District government. However, no single District office was overseeing the architecture, operations, configuration, or security of the District’s networks and systems. For example, each of the District’s five data centers remains responsible for operating and securing its own computer environment without sufficient District-wide guidance or oversight. In addition, while OCTO manages and secures the District WAN, other functional units, such as DPW, still manage their own networks. Consequently, security roles and responsibilities were not clearly assigned, security management was not given adequate attention, and no organization was held accountable for security throughout the District. A second key area of computer security management is assessing risk to determine computer security needs. Risk assessments not only help management to determine which controls will most effectively mitigate risks, but also increase the awareness of risks and, thus, generate support for adopted policies and controls. In this regard, it is important for organizations to define a process, which can be adapted to different organizational units, to continually manage computer security risk. However, District policy did not require risk assessments or provide guidance for managing computer security risk on a continuing basis. Consequently, none of the District organizations we visited were adequately managing risk relating to computer security, as evidenced by the serious weaknesses described above. For example, DPW had not performed a risk assessment for its network. In addition, OCTO had not formally assessed computer security risks relating to the District WAN, which could affect all District agencies connected to this network. Further, OCFO was not routinely assessing and managing information security risks associated with its SHARE computer center, which processes Fund and other District financial, payroll, personnel, and tax systems. During the past year, the SHARE computer center had updated its computer hardware, upgraded its operating system software, and installed a new financial management system for the District. Although all of these events should have warranted a risk assessment, OCFO only performed an initial risk assessment for the new financial management system. A third key element of effective security program management is implementing computer security policies and controls that cover all aspects of an organization’s interconnected environment. Our study of security management practices at leading organizations found that current, comprehensive security policies, which cover all aspects of an organization’s interconnected environment, are important because written policies are the primary mechanism by which management communicates its views and requirements. We also reported that organizations should develop both high-level organizational policies, which emphasize fundamental requirements, and more detailed guidance or standards, which describe an approach for implementing policy. Although District law tasks OCTO with coordinating the development of information management plans, standards, systems, and procedures throughout the District government, OCTO had not yet established District-wide guidance for developing and implementing comprehensive computer security policies and controls. This, along with the fact that a central focal point had not been established to oversee computer security throughout the District, has contributed to unclear security roles and responsibilities. In one case, access to the District financial application had been removed for three terminated District employees, but access to the computer system that processes this and other District financial applications, which is maintained by another District organization, had not been disabled. Consequently these terminated employees still had the opportunity to sabotage or impair other District financial operations. In addition, the District had not developed technical standards for implementing security software, maintaining operating system integrity, or controlling sensitive utilities. Such standards would not only help ensure that appropriate information system controls were established consistently throughout the District, but also facilitate periodic reviews of these controls. The establishment of appropriate information system controls was also hindered because security administration and system programming staff were not provided with adequate technical training. Specifically, OCFO security administration staff at the SHARE computer center had not received security awareness training and had only been provided minimal training on the security software used by the District. In addition, OCFO system programmers at the SHARE computer center had not received technical training on important types of system software, such as the tape management system. A fourth key area of security program management is promoting security awareness. Computer attacks and security breakdowns often occur because computer users fail to take appropriate security measures. For this reason, it is vital that employees who use computer systems in their day-to- day operations be aware of the importance and sensitivity of the information they handle as well as the business and legal reasons for maintaining its confidentiality and integrity. In accepting responsibility for security, employees should, for example, devise effective passwords, change them frequently, and protect them from disclosure. In addition, employees should help maintain physical security over their assigned areas. However, none of the District organizations we visited were adequately promoting security awareness to ensure that such risks and responsibilities were understood. Several of the computer security weaknesses we discuss in this report indicate that users were either unaware of or insensitive to the need for important information system controls, such as secure passwords. We also found little evidence that the District had convinced its employees that it was important to prevent unauthorized access to the SHARE computer center and other sensitive computer areas. As discussed above, we were able to bypass physical security measures and enter and move freely about both OCFO’s SHARE computer center and a DPW telecommunications room without detection or challenge. A fifth key element of effective security management is an ongoing program of tests and evaluations to ensure that computer security policies and controls continue to be appropriate and effective. This type of oversight is an essential aspect of security management because it (1) helps the organization take responsibility for its own security program and (2) can help identify and correct problems before they become major concerns. In addition, periodic assessments or reports on security activities can be a valuable means of identifying areas of noncompliance, reminding employees of their responsibilities, and demonstrating management’s commitment to the security program. Our study of security management best practices at leading organizations found that an effective control evaluation program includes processes for (1) monitoring compliance with established information system control policies and guidelines, (2) testing the effectiveness of information system controls, and (3) improving information system controls based on the results of these activities. None of the District organizations we visited had established such a program, which could have allowed the District to identify and correct the types of weaknesses discussed in this report. Until the District establishes a program to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of information system controls, it will not be able to ensure that its computer systems and data are adequately protected from unauthorized access. OCTO officials told us that they recognize the need for enhanced security and to this end, plan to implement a formal security management program by October 1, 2001. This program will include the key elements described in our study of security management best practices. Information system general controls are critical to the District’s ability to ensure the reliability of Fund and other District financial information and maintain the confidentiality of sensitive personnel and tax information. However, the District’s information system control problems placed sensitive personnel and tax information at risk of disclosure, critical financial operations at risk of disruption, and assets at risk of loss. A primary reason for the District’s information system control problems is that it did not have a comprehensive security management program. Comprehensive computer security management programs are appropriate for achieving an effective information system general control environment. Effective implementation of such a program provides for periodically assessing risks, implementing effective controls for restricting access based on job requirements and proactively reviewing access activities, communicating the established policies and controls to those who are responsible for their implementation, and, perhaps most important, evaluating the effectiveness of policies and controls to ensure that they remain appropriate and accomplish their intended purpose. District management stated that it has recognized the seriousness of the weaknesses we identified and expressed its commitment to improving information system controls. We recommend that you direct the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Technology Officer, and the Director of DPW, as appropriate, to take the following actions. Correct the specific access control weaknesses which are summarized in this report and detailed, along with our corresponding recommendations and the District’s corrective action plans, in a separate report designated for “Limited Official Use,” also issued today. Report to you, or your designee, periodically on progress in implementing the corrective action plans described in the separate report designated for “Limited Official Use.” We also recommend that you direct the Chief Technology Officer to ensure that an effective entitywide security management program, as described in this report and in our study of security management best practices at leading organizations, is developed and implemented. Such a program would include establishing a central focal point to manage an ongoing cycle of the following security management activities: assessing risk to determine computer security needs, developing and implementing policies and controls that meet these promoting awareness to ensure that risks and responsibilities are understood, and instituting an ongoing program of tests and evaluations to ensure that policies and controls are appropriate and effective. In commenting on a draft of this report, the District’s Chief Technology Officer agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated that the District is giving the highest priority to correcting the information security weaknesses we identified. The District has developed an action plan to correct all security weaknesses by April 2002. Specifically, the District is making changes to its security software to reduce the risk of unauthorized access and to strengthen information system controls. In addition, the District plans to implement standard software and procedures across the appropriate computer platforms and to establish a team to address information security as part of normal business operations. OCTO also plans to conduct quarterly reviews to monitor the progress in implementing the corrective action plans associated with our recommendations. The District also stated that it recognized that the key to information security is a sound security management program. By October 2001, with OCTO as the central focal point, the District plans to implement a security management program that will include conducting risk assessments, developing and implementing security policies and procedures, promoting awareness, and testing and evaluating controls to ensure that they are effective. This report contains recommendations to you. The head of the District of Columbia Government is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to submit a written statement on actions taken on these recommendations. You should send your statement to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform within 60 days of the date of this report. A written statement must also be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the District’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this report. We are sending copies of this report to Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Fred Thompson, Representative Dan Burton, Representative Thomas M. Davis, Representative Ernest J. Istook, Representative James P. Moran, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, Representative David R. Obey, Representative Henry A. Waxman, and Representative C.W. Bill Young. We will also send copies to Kenneth R. Wykle, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; Natwar Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia; Charles Maddox, Inspector General of the District of Columbia; Deborah K. Nichols, District of Columbia Auditor; Leslie Hotaling, Interim Director of the Department of Public Works; Suzanne Peck, Chief Technology Officer; and Alice Rivlin, Chairman of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3317 or Dave Irvin at (214) 777-5716. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. The following is GAO’s comment on the District of Columbia’s letter dated December 13, 2000. 1. Attachment A is included only in our report designated for “Limited Official Use.” In addition to the person named above, Lon Chin, Debra Conner, Edward Glagola, David Hayes, Sharon Kittrell, Jeffrey Knott, West Coile, Harold Lewis, Tracy Pierson, Norman Poage, and Charles Vrabel made key contributions to this report. The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: [email protected] 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system) | GAO reviewed information system general controls over the financial systems that process and account for the financial activities of the District of Columbia's Highway Trust Fund. GAO identified serious computer security weaknesses that place District information at risk of deliberate or inadvertent misuse. These general control problems affected the District's ability to (1) prevent or detect unauthorized changes to sensitive data and (2) control electronic and physical access to confidential information. The District's lack of a comprehensive computer management program was the primary reason for its information system control problems. |
CIA briefers told the senators in a closed-door briefing it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to officials. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
CIA briefers told the senators in a closed-door briefing it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to officials. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
The Post's Ellen Nakashima goes over the events and discusses the hacker groups responsible. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.
[U.S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections]
In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.
The Trump transition team dismissed the findings in a short statement issued Friday evening. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again,’ ” the statement read.
Trump has consistently dismissed the intelligence community’s findings about Russian hacking.
“I don’t believe they interfered” in the election, he told Time magazine this week. The hacking, he said, “could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) says he wants to investigate whether Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. election, among claims that Donald Trump's rhetoric on Russia and Vladimir Putin is too soft. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”
The White House and CIA officials declined to comment.
On Friday, the White House said President Obama had ordered a “full review” of Russian hacking during the election campaign, as pressure from Congress has grown for greater public understanding of exactly what Moscow did to influence the electoral process.
“We may have crossed into a new threshold, and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned,” Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.
During her remarks, Monaco didn’t address the latest CIA assessment, which hasn’t been previously disclosed.
Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.
This week, top Democratic lawmakers in the House also sent a letter to Obama, asking for briefings on Russian interference in the election.
U.S. intelligence agencies have been cautious for months in characterizing Russia’s motivations, reflecting the United States’ long-standing struggle to collect reliable intelligence on President Vladimir Putin and those closest to him.
In previous assessments, the CIA and other intelligence agencies told the White House and congressional leaders that they believed Moscow’s aim was to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system. The assessments stopped short of saying the goal was to help elect Trump.
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.
Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[U.S. investigating potential covert Russian plan to disrupt elections]
Though Russia has long conducted cyberspying on U.S. agencies, companies and organizations, this presidential campaign marks the first time Moscow has attempted through cyber-means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election, the officials said.
The reluctance of the Obama White House to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions before Election Day upset Democrats on the Hill as well as members of the Clinton campaign.
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
The White House’s reluctance to take that risk left Washington weighing more-limited measures, including the “naming and shaming” approach of publicly blaming Moscow.
By mid-September, White House officials had decided it was time to take that step, but they worried that doing so unilaterally and without bipartisan congressional backing just weeks before the election would make Obama vulnerable to charges that he was using intelligence for political purposes.
Instead, officials devised a plan to seek bipartisan support from top lawmakers and set up a secret meeting with the Gang of 12 — a group that includes House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of both chambers’ committees on intelligence and homeland security.
Obama dispatched Monaco, FBI Director James B. Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to make the pitch for a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against Russian interference in the election, according to a senior administration official.
Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions.
Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow.
[Putin denies that Russia hacked the DNC but says it was for the public good]
In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.
And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”
The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.
According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.
Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.
McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.
Some Clinton supporters saw the White House’s reluctance to act without bipartisan support as further evidence of an excessive caution in facing adversaries.
“The lack of an administration response on the Russian hacking cannot be attributed to Congress,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was at the September meeting. “The administration has all the tools it needs to respond. They have the ability to impose sanctions. They have the ability to take clandestine means. The administration has decided not to utilize them in a way that would deter the Russians, and I think that’s a problem.”
Philip Rucker contributed to this report.
Read more:
Putin wants revenge and respect, and hacking the U.S. is his way of getting it
Trump and Putin are using the same tactic to deflect questions about the DNC hack
Russia’s anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet era’s ||||| In an extraordinary rebuke of the intelligence agencies he will soon lead as president, Donald Trump broke with his predecessor on Friday and rejected the conclusion that Russia had sought to help him by meddling in the U.S. election.
"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the Trump transition team said in a unsigned press release. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and "Make America Great Again.'"
Story Continued Below
The Trump team's highly unusual statement came after the White House revealed that President Barack Obama has ordered a "deep dive" into the cyberattacks that plagued this year's election -- and news reports suggested that some agencies had already reached conclusions that Trump might find uncomfortable.
Obama has asked the intelligence community to deliver its final report before he leaves office, raising the prospect that agencies may conclude that a foreign power successfully altered the trajectory of the Nov. 8 election just days before Trump's inauguration.
The review will put the spate of hacks — which officials have blamed on Russia — "in a greater context" by framing them against the "malicious cyber activity" that may have occurred around the edges of the 2008 and 2012 president elections, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said during Friday's briefing.
"This will be a review that is broad and deep at the same time," he added.
The Washington Post reported on Friday evening that the CIA had determined in a secret assessment that the Russian government had interfered in this year's election not just to rattle confidence in the system but specifically to help elect Trump, whose fiery response came just hours later.
In an interview days earlier with Time magazine, Trump flatly rejected intelligence agencies' preliminary finding that Russia had hacked Democrats' computer and email systems to influence the election. “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe they interfered,” he said. Asked directly if those conclusions were motivated by partisan politics, he replied: “I think so.”
The White House's announcement follows repeated demands from congressional Democrats for more information about the digital assault that destabilized the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign through much of the election. Schultz insisted the review was "unrelated" to these requests, however.
At a Friday morning event, Lisa Monaco, Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, explained that the country had "crossed into a new threshold."
"It is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what this means, what has happened and to impart those lessons learned," she said at a breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor.
It's not clear how much of the report will be made public, or what actions it might lead to, a potential point of irritation for lawmakers who have urged the Obama administration to publicly strike back against Russia and to declassify more information about the election-season hacks.
Schultz vowed to "make public as much as we can."
"Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information," he added, noting that Congress and "relevant stakeholders," such as state election officials, would be briefed on the findings.
But Schultz did say the review would not spare any country that has digitally meddled in a U.S. election.
In 2008, the campaigns for both Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Obama were bombarded by suspected Chinese hackers, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The digital intruders were reportedly after internal policy papers and the emails of top advisers.
And in 2012, Gawker reported that hackers had broken into Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s personal Hotmail account after correctly answering his backup security question: “What is your favorite pet?”
"We will be looking at all foreign actors and any attempt to interfere with the elections," Schultz said.
View Obama orders deep dive of election-related hacking The White House talks about the election on Friday.
The Obama administration in early October accused the Russian government of directing a digital campaign to disrupt the U.S. election. As part of this effort, U.S. officials said Moscow-backed hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other political organizations.
Emails and documents from some of these groups ended up leaking online through WikiLeaks and other suspicious websites and hackers that researchers alleged were fronts for Russian intelligence services.
Hackers reportedly linked to Russia also breached the personal email accounts of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, and several Democratic staffers.
At Friday’s event, Monaco struck an ominous tone about internet-related dangers, calling them among the most significant national security issues facing the new administration. President-elect Donald Trump’s team will "inherit a rapidly growing threat in this space across all dimensions," she said, including intrusions from both "hacktivists" and "criminal actors."
Trump, however, has repeatedly rejected the intelligence community’s conclusion about the election-related cyberattacks, arguing that the allegations were politically motivated.
The president-elect’s ongoing denial of Russian involvement may have, in part, spurred Obama to act. Administration officials told NBC News that “Obama is concerned that Russia will go unpunished for the behavior unless he acts.”
Obama also moved after a months-long Capitol Hill pressure campaign.
In September, Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and her House counterpart, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), put out a statement accusing Moscow of trying to "influence the U.S. election" with the breaches, weeks before the administration made similar allegations.
The chorus for action ebbed and flowed over the last few months, with Democrats calling on GOP congressional leaders to launch various probes into the Kremlin’s involvement and on the White House to share with the public how it reached its conclusion.
But the campaign surged back into the spotlight this week, when House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and the highest-ranking Democrats on several national security-focused House committees sent a letter to Obama asking for administration officials to brief all members of Congress on Russian efforts to influence the election.
A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday said the White House review "complements the efforts of House Democrats," which also includes a bill from Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) that would create an independent commission to study the election hacks.
Hoyer called for "a complete accounting of what Russia or Russian-backed entities did."
“The American people deserve to know the extent to which a foreign adversary meddled in our democracy," he added.
Cummings said he hopes the upcoming report will help Congress investigate the issue itself and "allow all members of Congress to receive additional intelligence."
“I hope we can get to the bottom of it ... as soon as possible,” said Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
In addition to the Democratic pressure campaign, several Republican committee and subcommittee chairmen have promised to hold hearings on the cyberattacks.
The Washington Post reported Thursday night that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) was readying his own investigation, “working closely” with Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Burr on Friday said his committee "has been, and remains, concerned about Russia’s actions."
Democrats mostly praised the White House on Friday as details of the review emerged, but reiterated calls for Congress to be kept in the loop.
Schiff said he was “pleased," but called on the White House to “declassify as much of it as possible, while protecting our sources and methods, and make it available to the public.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a vocal privacy advocate on the Intelligence Committee who has pressed the administration to release more details about the alleged Russian hacking, echoed Schiff's call.
"This is good news," he said in a statement. "Declassifying and releasing information about the Russian government and the US election, and doing so quickly, must be a priority."
Schiff wants the White House to go further.
“More than that, the administration must begin to take steps to respond forcefully to this blatant cyber meddling, and work with our allies in Europe who have been targets of similar attacks to impose costs on the Kremlin," Schiff added. "If we do not, we can expect to see a lot more of this in the near future."
If Obama doesn't act, Democrats are hoping the report will put pressure on the Trump administration to stand up to Russia.
"President-elect Trump, who openly encouraged foreign hackers to target his political opponent in the campaign, has a responsibility to the American people to confront any foreign government’s efforts to undermine American democracy," Pelosi said in a statement.
But some Republicans were not as charitable to the White House.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) chided the president for having "suddenly awoken to the threat" posed by Moscow.
"As I’ve said many times, the intelligence community has repeatedly failed to anticipate Putin’s hostile actions," Nunes said.
Burr agreed that his panel has always fed the White House the "necessary" intelligence information.
"What our nation’s leaders do with that information, and how they respond to those threats and challenges, is largely the responsibility of other committees," he said.
Nolan McCaskill and Nahal Toosi contributed to this report. ||||| WASHINGTON ― President Barack Obama expects to receive a U.S. intelligence report on security breaches during the 2016 election before he leaves office on Jan. 20, his homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters Friday.
“The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,” Monaco said, speaking at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast event. Congress will be briefed on the report, she said, and Obama’s team will determine how much to share with the public once they see the results.
The U.S. intelligence community announced on Oct. 7 that it believes hackers supported by the Russian government were responsible for meddling in the election process, including by targeting the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton adviser John Podesta and other notable political figures, like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Congressional Democrats have ramped up their pressure for more details on Russian activities since President-elect Donald Trump, who has been notably friendly toward Russia, triumphed over Clinton on Nov. 8. Last month, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee sent Obama a letter asking him to declassify information on the Russian interference. Earlier this week, Democrats on key House committees dealing with national security sent their own letter, asking that all members of Congress be informed of everything the intelligence community knows about Russian activity in 2016.
Obama’s review may satisfy the latter demand.
But it will not necessarily satisfy the interest in giving the public further information about the Russian role. Some Russia experts believe that is essential to prevent exaggerating Russia’s power in a way that helps Moscow and to offer truly effective, rather than hyperbolic, responses.
Monaco emphasized that investigators looking at the election would consider a range of threats that affected it, not just those emanating from Russia.
She noted that she’d had to communicate with the Obama and McCain campaigns in 2008, during her previous job at the FBI, to tell them about Chinese state-sponsored intrusions into their systems.
“We’ve seen in 2008, and this last election system, malicious cyberactivity,” Monaco said. “We may be crossing a new threshold, and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart those lessons learned.”
Of course, the Chinese interference did not have the kind of impact on perceptions of a specific candidate that Moscow’s did this year.
In any case, the review will hardly end the conversation in Washington about how to handle Moscow. The review’s findings could bolster congressional efforts to punish Russia for its attempts to undermine the U.S. and its allies. Top Senate Republicans are already preparing a probe ― defying their party’s putative leader, Trump, who has said he does not believe the intelligence community’s conclusion that Moscow directed meddling.
“They’ll keep doing more here until they pay a price,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Washington Post this week.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, welcomed the Obama administration’ s announcement.
“After many briefings by our intelligence community, it is clear to me that the Russians hacked our democratic institutions and sought to interfere in our elections and sow discord,” Schiff said. “In this, tragically, they succeeded.” | President Obama wants a "full review" of allegations that Russia interfered in the US election via hacking to be completed before he leaves office, reports Politico. Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco made the announcement Friday, noting that the review would also cover threats from outside Russia, per the Huffington Post. The resulting report will be shared with members of Congress, but Monaco didn't say whether it would be made public. The move likely won't please Donald Trump, who again this week dismissed the allegations against Moscow. The White House accused Russia of attempting to interfere in the election back in October, but offered no evidence. The allegations came after breaches of the Democratic National Committee, notes the Washington Post. A research group has since claimed that 15 million Americans perused fake election news spread from Russia. "We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that … to understand what this means, what has happened and to impart those lessons learned," Monaco says. Republican senators previously announced their intention to investigate Russian hacking claims. |
Egyptian anti-government activists pelted police with firebombs and rocks in a second day of clashes Wednesday. Beefed up police forces on the streets quickly moved in and used tear gas, beatings and live ammunition fired in the air to disperse any demonstrations.
Egyptian anti-riot policemen block the way in front of a photojournalists standing outside a journalists syndicate in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. A small gathering of Egyptian anti-government... (Associated Press)
Angery Egyptian activist shouts at anti-riot policemen who block the way leading to journalists syndicate in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. A small gathering of Egyptian anti-government... (Associated Press)
RETRANSMISSION FOR ALTERNATIVE CROP - Egyptian anti-riot police block the way leading to journalists syndicate in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. A small gathering of Egyptian anti-government... (Associated Press)
A plainclothes policeman, center, throws rocks at protesters, in foreground, as others carry sticks and beat a protester behind a parked taxi, right, during clashes in downtown Cairo, Egypt, in the early... (Associated Press)
A protester, right, holds rocks in the air, ready to throw at riot police, as he urges other protesters on, while another protester, left, shows a bruise to a television crew, during clashes in Cairo,... (Associated Press)
Egyptian riot police group to push back protesters, unseen, during clashes in downtown Cairo, Egypt, in the early hours of Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. Egyptian police fired tear gas and rubber bullets and... (Associated Press)
A protester holds rocks in the air, ready to throw at riot police, as he urges other protesters on during clashes in Cairo, Egypt, in the early hours of Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. Egyptian police fired... (Associated Press)
A wounded protester is carried away by others during clashes in Cairo, Egypt, in the early hours of Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. Egyptian police fired tear gas and rubber bullets and beat protesters to clear... (Associated Press)
Police use a water cannon against protesters during a demonstration in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of anti-government protesters, some hurling rocks and climbing atop an armored... (Associated Press)
A protester kicks a tear gas canister at a demonstration in Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of anti-government protesters, some hurling rocks and climbing atop an armored police truck,... (Associated Press)
A wounded protester is helped away after clashes with riot police at a demonstration in Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of anti-government protesters, some hurling rocks and climbing atop... (Associated Press)
Demonstrators deface a poster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Alexandria Egypt, Tuesday Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of protesters marched in Alexandria Tuesday in what was dubbed a "Day of Rage"... (Associated Press)
Egyptian plain cloth policemen arrest Mohamed Abdul Quddus, Rapporteur of the civil Liberties Committee and member of the Press Syndicate Council, outside the journalists syndicate in downtown Cairo,... (Associated Press)
An Egyptian activist shouts anti-government slogans during a protest in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. A small gathering of Egyptian anti-government activists tried to stage a second... (Associated Press)
Egyptian anti-riot police block the way leading to a journalists syndicate in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. A small gathering of Egyptian anti-government activists tried to stage a... (Associated Press)
Egyptian anti-riot police block the way leading to a journalists syndicate in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Jan.26, 2011. A small gathering of Egyptian anti-government activists tried to stage a second... (Associated Press)
Protesters roll an overturned police box into the middle of a bridge over the Nile river to make a barricade during clashes in downtown Cairo, Egypt, in the early hours of Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. Egyptian... (Associated Press)
Anti-government protesters demonstrate in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Hundreds of anti-government protesters marched in the Egyptian capital chanting against President Hosni Mubarak... (Associated Press)
A protester scuffles with a riot policeman as he demonstrates in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Hundreds of anti-government protesters marched in the Egyptian capital chanting against President... (Associated Press)
Protesters are confronted by riot police as they demonstrate in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Hundreds of anti-government protesters marched in the Egyptian capital chanting against President... (Associated Press)
Protesters stop traffic in the middle of a bridge over the Nile river during clashes in downtown Cairo, Egypt, in the early hours of Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. Egyptian police fired tear gas and rubber... (Associated Press)
Police are engulfed by their own tear gas at a demonstration in Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of anti-government protesters, some hurling rocks and climbing atop an armored police truck,... (Associated Press)
A protestor holding a placard in French reading "Mubarak, get out", is surrounded by riot police during a demonstration in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Anti-government protesters marched... (Associated Press)
A protester scuffles with a riot policeman as he demonstrates in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Hundreds of anti-government protesters marched in the Egyptian capital chanting against President... (Associated Press)
Anti-government protesters chants slogans during a demonstration in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of anti-government protesters, some hurling rocks and climbing atop an armored... (Associated Press)
An anti-government protester reaches out to shake the hand of a policeman during a demonstration in downtown Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. Thousands of anti-government protesters, some hurling... (Associated Press)
There were signs that the crackdown on protesters was taking a toll on Egypt's international standing. In Washington, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs would not say whether President Hosni Mubarak, the target of demonstrators' anger and a close U.S. ally, still has the Obama administration's support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the government should allow peaceful protests instead of cracking down.
"We are particularly hopeful that the Egyptian government will take this opportunity to implement political, economic and social reforms that will answer the legitimate interests of the Egyptian people," Clinton said. She appealed to Egypt's leaders to heed calls to open political space for dissent and improve conditions that have led to widespread poverty and unemployment.
A policeman and a demonstrator were killed Wednesday when a car ran them over during a protest in a poor, central Cairo neighborhood, security officials said. The exact circumstances of their deaths were not clear. Officials said earlier the two died when they were hit by rocks but later changed the account. Earlier, three demonstrators were killed in clashes in the city of Suez and one policemen died in Cairo violence.
Security officials said a total of 860 protesters have been rounded up nationwide since Tuesday, when tens of thousands turned out for the largest protests in Egypt in years _ inspired by the uprising in Tunisia. They demanded Mubarak's ouster and a solution to grinding poverty, rising prices and high unemployment.
"What happened yesterday was a red light to the regime. This is a warning," businessman Said Abdel- Motalib said on Wednesday.
After nightfall Wednesday, more than 2,000 demonstrators were marching on a major downtown boulevard along the Nile when dozens of riot police with helmets and shields charged the crowd. Other smaller clashes carried on late into the night around the capital. In one of them, protesters stoned police, who fired back with tear gas from one of the main bridges over the Nile.
Though Wednesday's demonstrations were much smaller, it was significant that protesters were able to sustain the movement over two days given the heavy handedness police have shown and the Interior Ministry's warning that there would be zero tolerance for any more unrest.
They were the latest in outbursts of political discontent in Egypt that have been growing more frequent and more intense over the past year. Protests have erupted sporadically over police brutality, poverty and food prices, government corruption and mismanagement, and more recently sectarian strife between Christians and Muslims. Parliamentary elections in November were widely decried as fraudulent.
Many in Egypt see these events as signs of the authoritarian president's vulnerability in an election year. There is speculation that 82-year-old Mubarak, who has been in power for nearly 30 years and recently experienced serious health problems, may be setting his son Gamal up for hereditary succession. But there is considerable public opposition and, according to leaked U.S. diplomatic memos, it does not meet with the approval of the powerful military. And the regime's tight hold on power has made it virtually impossible for any serious alternative to Mubarak to emerge.
European leaders had harsh words for Egypt and expressed concern, saying the events underlined the need for democratization and respect for human and civil rights.
Activists used social networking sites to call for fresh demonstrations Wednesday. But Facebook, a key tool used to organize protests, appeared to be at least partially blocked in the afternoon. On Tuesday, Twitter and cell phones appeared to be sporadically blocked as well.
The Interior Ministry warned Wednesday that police would not tolerate any gatherings, and thousands were out on the streets poised to crack down quickly on any new signs of unrest after clashes on Tuesday that killed three demonstrators and one police officer.
Early Wednesday, thousands of policemen in riot gear and backed by armored vehicles took up posts in Cairo on bridges across the Nile, at major intersections and squares as well as outside key installations such as the state TV building and the headquarters of Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Party.
Police fired tear gas to disperse a crowd of several hundred activists on a main commercial thoroughfare in central Cairo, chasing them through side streets as both sides pelted each other with rocks with hundreds of onlookers watching anxiously. Plainclothes officers shoved some into waiting vans, slapping them in the face. Protesters hurled rocks at police trucks and set tires and trash on fire as they marched.
Protesters also attacked a military vehicle, smashing its windows and hurling rocks at a couple of green police trucks.
The day's demonstrations began when dozens gathered outside the Journalists' Union in downtown Cairo and renewed the chants heard against Mubarak throughout Tuesday's much larger protests. "Mubarak is leaving, leaving. O Egyptian people, be brave and join us," they chanted. As police charged the crowd, beating them with sticks, they chanted "peaceful, peaceful."
At some of the trouble spots, plainclothes policemen have been ordering passengers on Cairo's ubiquitous minibuses to clear out and then quickly filling them up with detained protesters.
In the city of Suez east of Cairo, an angry crowd of about 1,000 people gathered outside the city's morgue demanding to take possession and bury the body of one of three protesters who died in clashes on Tuesday. The crowd later clashed with riot police and the two sides pelted each other with rocks. Protesters also threw firebombs at police, who responded with rubber bullets and tear gas.
Later, about 300 protesters laid siege to a police station in the city's downtown, throwing rocks. Police responded by firing live ammunition in the air.
"We don't have jobs and now we don't have peace," lamented Zeinab Abdullah, a 45-year-old government employee, who left work early to watch protests in Suez. "There is no way people will be quieted after this. The people of Suez will get angrier and angrier. That is a guarantee."
In the southern city of Assiut, eyewitnesses said riot police set upon some 100 activists staging an anti-government protest Wednesday, beating them up with batons and arresting nearly half of them.
"Down, down Hosni Mubarak," chanted the crowd. "Oh, people, join us or you will be next."
There were protests in at least three other locations across Egypt.
At least eight journalists have been arrested in the troubles. Police arrested an Associated Press Television News cameraman and his assistant early Wednesday while they were filming clashes in Cairo. An AP photographer was beaten by a policeman and had his cheekbone fractured while shooting demonstrations late Tuesday.
Many protesters say they have been inspired by the uprising in Tunisia _ even invoking some of the identical slogans heard in the other north African nation.
On Tuesday, protesters clashed with police, who used rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas and truncheons to disperse them.
Security officials said up to 200 protesters were detained early Wednesday in this Arab nation of some 80 million people. More were likely to be detained as authorities review police video tapes of the protests, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
European reaction to the crackdown was critical. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said he was "very concerned" and called on all concerned to show restraint.
"The situation in Egypt must not escalate," he said. "The current situation in Egypt ... underlines the necessity of democratization, of respect for human and civil rights," Westerwelle told reporters in Berlin, pointing to the need for freedom of opinion, assembly and the press to be respected.
"We are seeing in the last few weeks that a country's stability is not endangered by granting civil rights _ it is through the refusal of civil and human rights that societies become unstable," he said in a reference to Tunisia.
The European Union said Egyptian authorities should listen to their people, deal with their problems and respect their right to demonstrate. The office of EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton urged "Egyptian authorities to respect and to protect the right of Egyptian citizen to manifest their political aspirations."
Protesters have vented anger over a host of ills in Egyptian society.
Nearly half of all Egyptians live under or just above the poverty line, set by the World Bank at $2 a day. The widespread poverty, high unemployment and rising food prices pose a threat to Mubarak's regime at a time when tensions between Muslims and Christians are adding to the nation's woes.
A parliamentary election marred by allegations of widespread fraud that saw Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Party win all but a small number of the chamber's 518 seats.
In recent weeks, Mubarak and his son have repeatedly vowed to ensure that ambitious economic reforms engineered by the younger Mubarak over the past decade filter down to the poor. But that has not happened and there has been a marked increase in the frequency of street protests over the economy.
Egypt's benchmark stock index tumbled more than 6 percent by close Wednesday, the lowest level in about eight months and the first concrete sign that the demonstrations have impacted the country's economy.
___
Associated Press reporter Hadeel Al-Shalchi reported from Suez, Egypt.
(This version CORRECTS Corrects cause of 2 deaths during protests Wednesday; An interactive timeline about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak with a photo gallery of images from recent protests is available in the 'international/egypt-mubarak folder'. AP Video.) ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Jon Leyne: "Anybody gathering here in Cairo, the police have swooped on them"
About 700 people have been arrested throughout Egypt in a crackdown against anti-government protests, security officials say.
The arrests came as police clashed with protesters in two cities following Tuesday's unprecedented protests.
One protester and one policeman were killed as police broke up rallies in Cairo, and in Suez a government building was reportedly set on fire.
Public gatherings would no longer be tolerated, the interior ministry said.
Anyone taking to the streets against the government would be prosecuted, it added.
The BBC's John Leyne in Cairo says the authorities are responding in familiar fashion, treating a political crisis as a security threat.
Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif was quoted as saying the government was committed to "freedom of expression by legitimate means", state news agency Mena reported. Police had acted with restraint, he said.
However, Washington has called on the Egyptian government to lift its ban on demonstrations.
I want to see an end to this dictatorship, 30 years of Mubarak is enough - we've had enough of the state of emergency, prices are going up and up Mostapha al-Shafey , Protester
Protesters have been inspired by the recent uprising in Tunisia, vowing to stay on the streets until the government falls.
They have been using social networking sites to call for fresh demonstrations, but both Facebook and microblogging site Twitter appear to have been periodically blocked inside Egypt.
The government denied it was blocking the sites.
Cabinet spokesman Magdy Rady said it respected freedom of expression and "would not resort to such methods", Reuters news agency reported.
In other developments:
Egyptian Trade Minister Rachid Mohamed Rachid cancels his visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
Activists have called on protesters to observe "Anger Friday", by going to rallies after praying in mosques and churches
In the northern city of Machala, police have cordoned off the headquarters of the Democratic Front opposition party, which is threatening a hunger strike
Hundreds have been arrested in Alexandria, activists say, as police prevent organised rallies
Stone-throwing
Following a "day of revolt" across Egypt on Tuesday, in which four people died, protesters attempted to stage new demonstrations in Cairo on Wednesday.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Police moved to break up demonstrations as they happened
There were scuffles outside the journalists' union building in central Cairo as hundreds of people gathered to protest.
Police beat some with batons and fired tear gas when they tried to break through a cordon.
Protesters burned tyres and threw stones at police.
Reuters news agency reported more clashes outside a central court complex in the city.
Witnesses said riot police had been charging demonstrators throughout the day wherever in Cairo they happened to gather.
Doctors said a policeman and a protester were killed in the clashes, apparently during stone-throwing in a poor neighbourhood of the city.
However, security officials said the deaths were unrelated to the protests.
Meanwhile, in the eastern city of Suez, protesters threw petrol bombs at a government building, setting parts of it on fire, witnesses said.
The headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party in the city was also attacked.
Earlier, protests were held outside the morgue where the body of a victim of Tuesday's protests was being kept. At least 55 people were injured in the city.
One of Tuesday's demonstrators, Mostapha al-Shafey, told the BBC he planned to join protests again on Wednesday.
"I want to see an end to this dictatorship. Thirty years of Mubarak is enough. We've had enough of the state of emergency. Prices are going up and up," he said.
Demonstrations are illegal in Egypt, which has been ruled by President Mubarak since 1981. The government tolerates little dissent and opposition demonstrations are routinely outlawed.
Social media's role
Tuesday's protests were co-ordinated through a Facebook page, where organisers say they are taking a stand against torture, poverty, corruption and unemployment. One page called for protesters all over Egypt to gather after prayers on Friday.
However, Wednesday brought reports that Facebook was being blocked inside Egypt.
Twitter also played a key part, with supporters inside and outside Egypt using the search term #jan25 to post news on Tuesday, but it was blocked later in the day.
BBC technology correspondent Mark Gregory said that while this clampdown had undoubtedly restricted access to information, technically minded protesters had found ways of evading the restrictions.
Many have stayed in touch by routing their messages through proxy servers - web facilities based in other countries.
The government blamed the violence on the banned Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, although this group was reported to have been ambivalent about the protests.
One opposition leader, Mohamed ElBaradei, had called on Egyptians to take part in the protests.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications including on social media sites.
"We believe strongly that the Egyptian government has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic and social reforms to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."
Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted from power and fled the country earlier this month, after weeks of protests in which dozens of people were killed.
Egypt has many of the same social and political problems that brought about the unrest in Tunisia - rising food prices, high unemployment and anger at official corruption.
However, the population of Egypt has a much lower level of education than Tunisia. Illiteracy is high and internet penetration is low.
There are deep frustrations in Egyptian society, our Cairo correspondent says, adding that Egypt is widely seen to have lost power, status and prestige in the three decades of President Mubarak's rule. | With the Facebook-fueled protests against Egypt President Hosni Mubarak showing no signs of letting up, the government has responded with the mass arrests of 700 people or more, the BBC reports. The interior ministry says public gatherings will no longer be tolerated—despite Hillary Clinton's urging of government tolerance earlier today—and the public will seems undiminished. (See video of a protester standing up to a water cannon here.) "I want to see an end to this dictatorship," a protester told reporters. "Thirty years of Mubarak is enough." A police officer and a protester were reportedly run over and killed in Cairo today, though the circumstances remain unclear, reports AP. Four people were reported killed yesterday. In Suez today, demonstrators threw Molotov cocktails at government buildings, including the headquarters of Mubarak's party, setting parts of them on fire. For a roundup of the latest developments, click here. |
UFC fighter Matt Mitrione during UFC 137 at the Mandalay Bay event center. (Photo: Mark J. Rebilas, USA TODAY Sports) Story Highlights On Monday, Mitrione called Fox a 'lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak'
UFC said it was 'appalled' and found the remarks 'offensive and wholly unacceptable'
Two days after his 19-second knockout win over Philip De Fries, UFC heavyweight Matt Mitrione has had his contract suspended by the promotion.
In a Monday appearance on The MMA Hour, Mitrione called Fallon Fox a "lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak."
In response, the UFC issued a statement saying the TUF 10 veteran's contract has been suspended and he will be investigated.
"The UFC was appalled by the transphobic comments made by heavyweight Matt Mitrione today in an interview on 'The MMA Hour,'" the statement read. "The organization finds Mr. Mitrione's comments offensive and wholly unacceptable and – as a direct result of this significant breach of the UFC's code of conduct – Mr. Mitrione's UFC contract has been suspended and the incident is being investigated. The UFC is a friend and ally of the (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community, and expects and requires all 450 of its athletes to treat others with dignity and respect."
The UFC in January announced a code of conduct for its fighters under contract.
Fox has been a near-permanent fixture in MMA news for the better part of the past month after SI.com reported that Fox, 37, had gender reassignment surgery in 2006 along with supplemental hormonal therapy.
Fox holds a 5-0 combined record as a professional and amateur fighter with all five wins coming in the first round. But the controversy has been centered around her potential opponents and whether they're entering into fair fights with her.
Peggy Morgan recently told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) she wasn't convinced that Fox didn't hold a physical advantage over other women in the cage, despite the fact that "socially, yes, she is a woman."
In the interview, Mitrione repeated referred to Fox as "he" and "him" and said he was "appalled" by Fox fighting other women.
"It's an embarrassment to us as fighters, as a sport, and we all should protest that," Mitrione said. "The woman that's fighting him, props to you. I hope you beat his ass, and I hope he gets blackballed and never fights again because that's disgusting and I'm appalled by that."
Mitrione (6-2 MMA, 6-2 UFC) on Saturday snapped a two-fight losing skid at UFC on FUEL TV 9 when he stopped De Fries quickly in the first round in Sweden. How quickly, if at all, he'll be allowed back in the octagon to go after a second straight win remains to be seen.
Mitrione did not immediately return a request for comment.
MMAJunkie.com is a property of USA TODAY Sports Media Group. ||||| Fallon Fox revealed that she had transgender surgery, making her the first such athlete in MMA history. Photo courtesy of Championship Fighting Alliance
There wasn't going to be an easy way for Fallon Fox to do this. She knew it. Her family knew it. Her manager knew it. The biggest battle would come outside the cage.
A fighter, born male and now anatomically a female, wanting to climb into a cage to punch, kick and choke out other women? It would raise a lot of questions. It would bring on a flood of criticism. But to keep Fallon's dream of fighting professionally alive, the price would be her anonymity.
On Tuesday, amidst whispers from snooping journalists and licensing issues looming with two athletic commissions, Fallon bravely stepped forward as the first on-record transgender female athlete to compete in MMA.
Fallon already had three amateur and two professional victories on her record, but her admission quickly shined a light on how an athlete with a unique medical history such as Fallon's should be handled moving forward.
It might be an unfamiliar concept for MMA fans, but transgender athletes are nothing new to professional sports. Such athletes have flourished for decades in boxing, motor racing, track and field, tennis, skiing and muay Thai, to name a few. MMA now joins that growing list.
SI FLASHBACK: THE TRANSGENDER ATHLETE
It wasn't a decision the 37-year-old Fallon took lightly. She'd discussed it with family, friends and mentors for over a year. It was an idea that filled her with fear and anxiety, but in the end it was a necessity.
"This wasn't something that I wanted to come out," said Fallon. "I consider it my personal business, part of my medical history. It's not something I like to discuss with people, but I've been bracing for this for years, thinking when was the phone call going to come?"
In a perfect world, Fallon would not have been obligated to reveal her transsexuality beyond the state athletic commissions that license her. In 2012 the Association of Boxing Commissions drafted a transgender policy for the sport. It just hasn't been needed until now.
What happens to Fallon next will set the groundwork for others to follow, a small consolation as she wades through the misconceptions and misnomers and rises to tackle the discriminatory reactions she'll get in the coming weeks. That's the problem with being first. Trailblazers are usually not revered until that treacherous road snakes long behind them.
When the dust settles, Fallon hopes fans will see that MMA is as much a part of her as it is for Anderson Silva, Georges St.-Pierre or Ronda Rousey. It's as much a part of her identity as her transsexuality is. Fallon has struggled for years to find her identity and she doesn't want to let it go. Should she really have to?
Fallon's Story
"My hair was falling out, which wasn't good for my psyche." Fallon Fox
If one can get past the preconceived notions that the word transgender conjures up for so many, Fallon's story becomes not that different from any other professional fighter's journey. Like many of her MMA peers, she's already dedicated years to perfecting her craft in multiple combative sports disciplines. By 2008, she was dreaming about wrestling and Brazilian jiu-jitsu moves. She'd eventually graduate to purple belt status, competing and placing in regional and national grappling tournaments. In 2010, Fallon added muay Thai and other striking arts to her arsenal. She made her amateur debut in June 2011. She went pro less than a year after that.
Like many of her fighting peers, Fallon was not without her own set of challenges growing up the middle child of a conservatively Christian, ethnically-mixed family in Toledo, Ohio. The ability to overcome great obstacles is one of the key characteristics that all fighters share. It's what gives them their backbone and the courage to pursue a dream that offers no guarantees. Fallon Fox has courage to spare.
It's difficult for Fallon to verbalize what it feels like to be born one gender and know in your heart that you were truly meant to be the other.
"It's hard because the phrase 'woman trapped in a man's body' is thrown around a lot, but that's like shorthand," she says. "It's deeper than that. There's so much more to it."
From as early as age five or six, Fallon recognized that there were these feelings churning inside of her.
"At that age, I didn't understand the subconscious force that was pushing me toward wanting my body to be female," she said. "I didn't know what that meant, so I was always confused and I felt that every other person that was born male was like me and had these same feelings, but knew it was something they weren't supposed to talk about."
As a child, Fallon would steal her mother's and sister's clothes to play dress-up when no one was looking. It felt right, though she didn't yet know why.
When she reached adolescence, these feelings grew more intense. At first, Fallon suspected she might be gay. Transgender didn't enter her vocabulary until age 17, when she watched an episode of Donahue featuring a transsexual woman.
"She talked about her feelings and there was this big exclamation point," recalls Fallon. "That's when I really started to realize that this was a big possibility of what I was."
Still, Fallon had to keep her suspicions to herself. To everyone else, she was a heterosexual man, and was expected to act accordingly. (Years later, when she finally came out to her family, their response would be to send her to a gay conversion therapist. )
"I did experiment, trying to figure out what I did and didn't like," said Fallon. "Around 19, I got a girl pregnant. I really didn't want to get married, but I was raised with the belief to marry that person and take care of our child."
To support her family, Fallon entered the Navy and served as a operations specialist 2nd class for the U.S.S. Enterprise. But after the military and during a brief stint that followed at the University of Toledo, Fallon said everything came crashing down.
"The feelings of gender got so bad that I had to figure out what I was going to do," said Fallon. "My hair was falling out, which wasn't good for my psyche, and I knew I couldn't wait because the longer you spend not transitioning the more the effects of aging make the transition not so pleasant."
Fallon sat her four-year-old daughter down and explained that she was going to make her transition.
"She took it well. I think when kids are younger, they don't have these preconceived notions of what a transsexual person is," she said. "I told her that I felt I should have been born a woman and that it was really, really important to me. I told her the doctor was going to help me become a woman. I told her that and she said, 'Oh cool. Can we do something else now?'"
To raise enough money for gender reassignment surgery, Fallon quit college and became a trucker for the next four years, making her way from coast to coast, and back again. When she visited home, she spent time with her daughter and went to therapy sessions.
Fallon eventually moved to Chicago to make a fresh start away from what she describes as her less-than-supportive parents. In 2006, she made the 8,000-mile, 17-hour trip to Thailand alone. She underwent gender reassignment, breast augmentation and hair transplant surgeries at the Bangkok National Hospital. Six weeks later, when she had recuperated enough to travel, she flew back home as the woman she always knew she was meant to be.
After her first MMA fight in 2011, Fallon had facial feminization surgery, which de-emphasized her brow bones and jaw line, and fixed her receding hairline.
Though athletic and fit-conscious, Fallon hadn't played sports as a kid. She stumbled upon MMA when she walked into a gym looking for a way to shed some unwanted pounds. Like many of her peers, MMA was the final missing piece.
Today, Fallon's 16-year-old daughter lives with her, having witnessed her entire transition from struggling man to confident woman. Now she gets to watch her trailblaze the very first road paved by a professional transgender fighter.
The Science
"When she does end up competing, she has less testosterone in her system than her competitors do." Helen J. Carroll
The biggest question raised from Fallon competing in women's MMA is what advantages her remaining birth-given gender characteristics give her against her opponents. Even if an individual who started as a man underwent successful gender reassignment surgery, wouldn't some aspects of her original physiology remain? Wouldn't she still have stronger upper-body strength? Would she still be inherently faster or retain the ability to cut weight easier?
Helen J. Carroll, the Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights' Sports Project and an advocate for transgender athletes, said the "competitive equity" among transwomen and the rest of the field is always a glaring, and often misunderstood, topic.
"[The common thinking is] it's impossible for a transgender woman, who was born a man, to play women's sports and [have] it be fair," said Carroll, a former athlete, national championship basketball coach, and collegiate athletic director with over 40 years of sports-related experience. "The short answer is the transgender woman is a woman, and when she transitions, she takes testosterone-blocking hormones, so when she does end up competing, she has less testosterone in her system than her competitors do."
Because of this, Carroll said a transgender female athlete has to work harder to keep muscle mass and strength than a female-born woman athlete. That lack of testosterone would also affect speed and weight retention, added Carroll.
"You remember that she's carrying a lot of estrogen at this point, which will make it difficult to cut weight," said Carroll.
In Fallon's case, she was required to take copious amounts of estrogen and testosterone blockers in preparation for transition surgery in 2006.
"Even before I had my surgery, my muscle mass was way lower than your average male," said Fallon. "The testosterone levels of a normal male can be anywhere from 300-1,000 nanograms. For the average female, it's 10-70. Mine is around 7."
Today, Fallon continues to take oral estrogen (which has never been considered a performance-enhancer). If she were to stop, her body would enter a post-menopausal state, but her testosterone levels would remain the same.
Conclusive supporting data on the subject of competitive equity has only increased as the transgender community grows among all ages. Carroll has worked with 26 transgender female athletes, including Fallon, ranging from middle school to the professional level, in both the public and private arenas since 2005. And Carroll said that number continues to rise, aided by sports regulatory bodies like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the NCAA, who added transgender policy to their guidelines in recent years.
Transgender policy has also been adopted by the World Tennis Association, LGPA/PGA and U.S. Track and Field. Additional professional sports leagues are currently examining policy that will soon be needed.
OutSports.com co-founder Cyd Zeigler, who has covered transgender issues in sports for a decade, said it's nearly impossible to pinpoint how many transgender athletes are competing across the U.S.'s wide spectrum of sports, "given the barriers in sports that are put up for transgender participation," but they are there.
Zeigler has written extensively about numerous transgender athletes, including George Washington University's Kye Alumms, who came out as the first openly transgender NCAA basketball player, in 2010. Zeigler has his hand on the pulse of the trans community and is familiar with Fallon's story.
"That fact that Fallon has gone to the extent that she has gone through, she's eliminated, medically, any benefit to being born male that she had. With the blockers they give male and female transfolks, the muscle atrophies very fast," said Zeigler. "Fallon would be able to compete in the Olympic Games at this point. The IOC would deem her eligible to compete as a woman."
The Politics and the Future
"We're not going to turn our backs on her." Jorge De La Nova, CFA co-founder
When Fallon came out Tuesday as a transgender female fighter, it was prefaced by the fact that she'd already fought two times as a professional without the overseeing athletic commissions or her opponents knowing she was a transwoman.
Part of the confusion between athlete and commission came from an honest mistake. Fallon and her management had mistaken an application receipt mailed to her by the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) and used it to get licensed in Florida. Fallon fought last weekend for the Championship Fighting Alliance in Coral Gables, knocking her opponent out with a knee in 39 seconds.
Fallon's was an honest mistake. CSAC Executive Officer Andy Foster has reviewed his commission's receipt and said the form itself needed to, and would be, changed, as it could be misconstrued as something more than what it is. It's unclear if the Florida Boxing Commission requested this document of Fallon when she listed herself as having a combatant's license, but with or without it, the Florida commission could have called the CSAC to verify this and did not.
The DBPR has verified that Fox didn't need the California license to obtain a license in their jurisdiction. A DBPR representative said that applicants are required to attest to the truthfulness of all the information provided on the application.
There is also the fact that Fallon chose not to inform the Florida commission of her transgender history, though it should be noted that there was no area on her two-page form that asked her to list surgeries, procedures or other medical information of that ilk. It's also unclear what other forms Fallon might have been asked for, if any. From Fallon's point of view, she was completing what was asked of her and didn't want to be treated differently than any other fighter applying for a license in Florida. If she'd revealed her status, there was a chance she could have been asked to sit out the March 2 fight to give the commission more time to review her application. After months of grueling training and sacrifice, Fallon simply wanted to fight. She wanted to seize the opportunity she felt she'd earned. | Matt Mitrione didn't hold back when discussing fellow mixed-martial arts fighter Fallon Fox, who is transgender. Fox is a "lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak," Mitrione said Monday on the MMA Hour. As a result, the UFC suspended his contract today and will investigate the matter, USA Today reports. In a statement, the organization said it was "appalled by the transphobic comments," calling them "offensive and wholly unacceptable." Fox's gender-reassignment surgery, which she underwent in 2006, and her subsequent supplemental hormonal therapy have been big news in the MMA world since they were first reported last month. Some have expressed that she may have a physical advantage when fighting other women. But Mitrione went beyond that, calling the situation "an embarrassment to us as fighters" and continually referring to Fox as a male. |
Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees report 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 FY2013 NDAA. The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310 (112 th Congress), was introduced in the House on March 29, 2012; reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 11, 2012 ( H.Rept. 112-479 ); and passed by the House on May 18, 2012. The entries under the heading "House" in the tables on the following pages are based on language in this bill, unless otherwise indicated. The Senate version, S. 3254 (112 th Congress), was introduced in the Senate on June 4, 2012, and reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services ( S.Rept. 112-173 ) on the same day. The relevant provisions of S. 3254 have been included in this report. The Senate did not pass S. 3254 as such. Instead, the Senate incorporated this language into an amendment upon receiving H.S. 4310. A conference report was agreed to in both the House and Senate on December 20 and 21, 2012, respectively, and recorded in the Congressional Record as H. Rept. 112-705. The president signed the legislation on January 2, 2013, P.L. 112-239. Where appropriate, related CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Some issues were addressed in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. 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 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. By FY2012, the authorized end strength for the Army was 562,000, with authority for the Secretary of Defense to increase that to 592,400 if needed to meet operational missions and reorganizational objectives ( P.L. 111-84 , §403), while the authorized end strength for the Marine Corps was 202,100. With the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in December 2011 and a drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan beginning in 2012, the Army and the Marine Corps have announced plans to reduce their personnel strength to 490,000 and 175,000, respectively, by FY2017. In contrast to the growth of the ground forces in the FY2001-FY2012 time frame, end strength for the Air Force and Navy decreased over this period. The authorized end strength for FY2012 was 332,800 for the Air Force and 325,700 for the Navy. Discussion: With the end of the war in Iraq, and a planned drawdown in Afghanistan over the next few years, the House bill included reductions for the Army (-9,900) and Marine Corps (-4,800) end strengths in comparison to their FY2012 authorized levels. It also reduced the end strengths for the Air Force (-2,417) and the Navy (-3,000). However, the bill mitigated the impact of these cuts somewhat by specifying that those individuals who are being evaluated for disability be excluded in the calculation of end strength (sec. 404). Excluding such ill or injured service members from the end strength "count" would effectively increase the number of individuals who can remain on active duty. This is particularly relevant for the ground forces, which still have thousands of wounded personnel in the disability evaluation system. Looking to future years, Section 403 of the House bill sought to temper the pace of the drawdown for ground forces by capping the size of future reductions in Army and Marine Corps end strengths, and by requiring the President to certify that any reductions will not have certain negative impacts. The Senate bill included end-strengths that were identical to the House bill, except that it authorized 786 fewer personnel for the Air Force. The conference report included end-strength levels identical to the House and Senate provisions for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, while authorizing an Air Force end-strength slightly lower than the House and Senate provisions. The conference report adopted the House limitations on end-strength reductions in the Army and Marine Corps for FY2014-17, but did not adopt the certification requirement, budgeting restrictions, or the disability exclusion. However, section 528 of the conference report requires the Service Secretaries to provide certain information to the Congress on possible adverse impacts on readiness and dwell time that are related to the presence of service members in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], and similar reports from earlier years. See also CRS Report RL32965, Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2010 and FY2011 Results for Active and Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel , by [author name scrubbed]. 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 2% over the past 10 years (874,664 in FY2001 versus 857,100 in FY2012). Much of this can be attributed to the reduction 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 FY2012, the largest shifts in authorized end strength have occurred in the Army National Guard (+7,674 or +2%), Coast Guard Reserve (+2,000 or +25%), Air Force Reserve (-2,958 or -4%), and Navy Reserve (-22,700 or -26%). A smaller change occurred in the Air National Guard (-1,322 or -1.2%), 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: In both the House and Senate bills, and the conference report, the authorized Selected Reserve end strengths for FY2013 are the same as those for FY2012 for the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve. The Navy Reserve's authorized end strength was 66,200 in FY2012, but the Administration requested a decrease to 62,500 (-3,700) which the House and Senate approved, as did the conferees. The Coast Guard Reserve's authorized end strength was 10,000 in FY2012, but the Administration requested a decrease to 9,000 (-1,000), which the House and Senate also approved, as did the conferees. The Air National Guard's end strength in FY2012 was 106,700 and the Air Force Reserve's was 71,400. The Administration proposed reducing these to 101,600 (-5,100) and 70,500 (-900), respectively. The proposed reductions were largely based on Air Force plans to divest, transfer, or retire certain aircraft from Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units. These proposals were quite controversial, and the House and Senate rejected them, authorizing only a small reduction in end strength for the Air National Guard (-695 for the House, -265 for the Senate) and increasing the end strength for the Air Force Reserve (+1,028) in comparison to FY12. The committee report accompanying the House bill noted that "the committee's increase to the President's FY13 budget request reflects the corresponding manpower requirements for the committee's limitation on retiring, divesting or transferring any aircraft assigned to the Air Force." The committee report accompanying the Senate bill stated, "The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal year 2013 request for reserve component end strengths, with the exception of additional Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve end strength to support force structure changes adopted by the committee" and later, "The committee believes that there is little justification for the relative imbalance in the cuts applied to the Air National Guard." The conference report adopted strength levels below the House and Senate provisions, and below the FY12 levels (-1000 Air National Guard, -520 Air Force Reserve) but still substantially higher than the Administration request (+4,100 Air National Guard, +380 Air Force Reserve). References: None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Increasing concern with the overall cost of military personnel, combined with ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, have continued to focus interest on the military pay raise. Section 1009 of Title 37 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual military pay raise that indexes the raise to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The President's FY2013 Budget request for a 1.7% military pay raise is consistent with this formula. However, Congress has at times approved pay raises different from the ECI. For example, in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010, the pay raise was equal to the ECI plus 0.5%. Discussion: Section 601 of the House bill provides an increase identical to that requested by the Administration, which is also the same as the pay raise specified by 37 U.S.C. 1009. The Senate bill contains no statutory language; in the absence of statutory language, the automatic pay increase would be 1.7%. The conference committee adopted the House language, which specifies a 1.7% pay increase effective January 1, 2013. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the total cost of a 1.7% military pay raise would be $1.3 billion in 2013. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and earlier versions of this report. See also CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In 2000, Congress passed P.L. 106-446 , "To require the immediate termination of the Department of Defense practice of euthanizing military working dogs at the end of their useful working life and to facilitate the adoption of retired military working dogs by law enforcement agencies, former handlers of these dogs, and other persons capable of caring for these dogs." Congress included language that limited liability claims arising from the transfer of these dogs. With P.L. 112-81 , Section 351, Congress expanded the list of those eligible to adopt these dogs to include the handler (if wounded), or a parent, spouse, child, or sibling of the handler in cases where the handler is deceased. Military working dogs are classified as "equipment." Eligible individuals seeking to adopt one of these dogs must therefore pay for the transportation costs of transferring the dog. Discussion: Those supporting these adoption efforts pushed to have the dogs reclassified as a military "member," which would require the military to transport the dogs back to the United States. Currently, they are classified as "equipment," which means that anyone interested in adopting one of these dogs must pay the transportation costs. Military working dogs are trained to be fearless and aggressive. These traits may not be desired outside of the military or law enforcement. There is public concern for the welfare of these dogs. There are also concerns for any family member of deceased or seriously wounded members of the Armed Forces who care for these dogs. A 2011 article noted that a small percentage of deployed dogs suffer "canine PTSD," which can lead to "troubling behavior." In 2011, DOD reported that in that calendar year, 444 dogs left the inventory. It was reported that the disposition of dogs that left the inventory included: approximately one-quarter died on duty, 7 were killed in action, 1 is missing in action, approximately 10% were euthanized due to medical conditions, 16 were euthanized because they were unsuitable for law enforcement and too aggressive for adoption, etc. In addition to the 444 that left the inventory, 44 remained pending disposition. Reference(s): CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In a number of respects, the military has been a leader in advancing minorities and women. Minorities and women have served in the military for decades. In the past, limits were placed on the advancement opportunities for women and minorities. These began to change in 1948 when President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 calling for "equal treatment and opportunity" in the military. Discussion: The United States has made advances in the areas of racial and sexual discrimination; however, issues remain. Diversity advocates view this language as an opportunity to measure progress in this area. Critics are concerned that an emphasis on measuring "diversity" will lead to de facto quotas or "goals," despite a prohibition to the contrary. 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: According to Title 10, U.S.C., Section 701, the military provides up to 42 days of maternity leave and up to 10 days of paternity leave. A member who adopts is eligible for 21 days of leave to be used in connection with the adoption. In the case of a dual military couple adopting, only one member of the couple can use the adoption leave. This leave may be used in addition to other leave provisions. Discussion: This language leaves maternity leave at 42 days and increases adoption leave for the primary caregiver to 42 days. For dual military couples who adopt, it provides 10 days of leave to the spouse who is not the primary caregiver. References: None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In February 2012, DOD announced it was opening additional occupations to women. These positions had previously been closed to women due to the combat exclusion rule. Currently, the services are evaluating the role women can play in combatant occupations. Discussion: In announcing the changes in February 2012, Defense officials stated that women would be held to the same standards as men. What was unclear was whether or not the standards would change to accommodate women. As noted in the CRS report referenced below, "The use of the term 'gender-neutral physical standards' raises questions on how it is defined. A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards (e.g., carry the same load, the same distance at the same speed) in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy (e.g., calories used) in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either. Hypothetically speaking, if a female soldier carries 70 pounds of equipment five miles and exerts the same effort as a male carrying 100 pounds of equipment the same distance, the differing standards could be viewed as 'gender-neutral' because both exerted the same amount of effort, with differing loads. Such differing loads, in certain scenarios, may or may not matter, particularly in terms of ammunition, medical equipment, communications equipment, and medical supplies, commonly carried by foot soldiers." 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: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 made a number of changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) particularly with regard to sex crimes such as rape. Discussion: The issue of sexual assault has been a focus of much congressional attention over the past few years. With this language, Congress seeks to improve judicial proceedings under the UCMJ, including the issue of sexual assault and related offenses. Reference(s): CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Recent reports of hazing in the military, including cases of hazing-related suicides, notably that of a nephew of Rep. Judy Chu, prompted the House to hold hearings on the matter on March 22, 2012. Discussion: This section reflects the concern the House has over the issue of hazing and its desire to better track incidents of hazing. In so doing, it is expected the services will take a closer look at the issue. References: None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: P.L. 111-321 put in place the mechanism for repealing 10 U.S.C. 654, which served as the basis for the 1993 policy banning open homosexuality in the military, known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell or DADT. Concerns have been raised over the potential conflicts of DADT and religious expressions against homosexuality. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." Various federal laws and regulations also seek to protect religious practices and freedoms, and the Department of Defense has issued regulations concerning religious exercise in the military. The extent to which service members and chaplains can freely exercise their religion while complying with policies related to the repeal of DADT is a topic of ongoing debate. Discussion: The language in Section 533 would give service members and chaplains broad permission to publicly support or condemn certain sexual practices on the grounds of conscience or religious tenets. Arguably, this is to protect the free speech and religious rights of service members in the wake of the repeal of DADT. The language also ensures that no disciplinary actions may be taken against a chaplain who refuses to comply with a direction or duty that is contrary to either the chaplain's personal or religious beliefs. The section raises some First Amendment issues, particularly whether the repeal of DADT limits what chaplains are able to say within their ministries, and whether, for example, they can be compelled to provide counseling and other services that run counter to denominational doctrine. Although anti-discrimination policies are already in place, some groups argue that with the repeal of DADT, service members are allowed no protections for expressing their religious beliefs regarding same-sex behaviors and this new provision is needed. Others argue that the provision could create a hostile climate for openly homosexual members of the military, and possibly incite harassment or violence. Likewise, concerns exist over the extent that what "equal rights" can be afforded or denied same-sex couples who are wed in States that recognize such marriages. Reference(s): CRS Report R41171, Military Personnel and Freedom of Religion: Selected Legal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and Cynthia Brougher and CRS Report R40782, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": Military Policy and the Law on Same-Sex Behavior , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: Catherine Theohary, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted ( P.L. 104-199 ). Under this law, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, states may refuse to recognize such marriages, and marriage is defined for federal benefit purposes as the union of one man and one woman. A few states have recognized same-sex marriages. According to reports, Navy Chief of Chaplains Rear Admiral M.L. Tidd issued a policy memorandum dated April 13, 2011, allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in Navy Chapels on bases in states that permit same-sex marriages. Following criticism by certain Members of Congress, on May 10, 2011, the policy was "suspended." Section 544 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 112-81 , allowed military chaplains to opt out of performing any marriage ceremonies as a matter of conscience or moral principle. Discussion: In February of 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated in a letter to Representative Boehner that a key provision of DOMA violates equal protection rights under the Constitution. The matter of DOMA is currently being contested in the courts and will remain in effect until Congress repeals it or a court rules against it. The language in Section 537 reflects the definition of marriage under DOMA and would prevent any same-sex marriage from being conducted under the auspices of the Department of Defense, regardless of conscience or moral principle. This language re-affirms the House's support of the law. Reference(s): CRS Report RL31994, Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: Catherine Theohary, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The "Troops-to-Teachers" program assists certain retired, separated, and involuntarily discharged service members to obtain certification or licensing as teachers and facilitates their employment by local education agencies or public charter schools, particularly those serving low-income populations and those with shortages of highly qualified teachers. It is a Department of Education program, but the statute requires the Secretary of Education to "enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Secretary of Defense under which the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support of the Department of Defense, will perform the actual administration of the Program…." Troops-to-Teachers was at one time a Department of Defense program, originating as a post-Cold War drawdown transition initiative. Responsibility for the program was transferred to the Secretary of Education in 2000, in accordance with Sections 1701-1709 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000. Section 557 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 required a joint report from the Secretaries of Education and Defense on the status of the program. The report endorsed returning the program to the Department of Defense. Discussion: In addition to transferring responsibility for the program to the Secretary of Defense, the House provision would make other changes to the program, including (1) reducing the number of years of active or reserve service an individual must complete to be eligible to participate; (2) giving priority for selection into the program to an additional group (those who agree to teach a foreign language); (3) giving greater weight to military experience to qualify as a "career or technical" teacher; (4) modifying the student poverty and disability metrics used to determine the schools in which newly qualified teachers may serve as part of their participation agreement; and (5) adding counseling and referral services for those not eligible for the program. The Senate provision does not transfer responsibility to the Secretary of Defense, but requires the Secretary of Education to advise the Secretary of Defense on matters such as teacher eligibility requirements, teacher preparation programs, and academic subject areas and geographic regions with critical shortages. The Senate provision would also reduce the number of years of active or reserve service an individual must complete to be eligible to participate and modify the student poverty and disability metrics used to determine the schools in which newly qualified teachers may serve as part of their participation agreement. The provision in the conference report transfers responsibility for the program to the Secretary of Defense, adopts the House modifications to the program (some of which were the same as Senate modifications), and incorporates the Senate requirement for a memorandum of agreement between the Secretaries of Defense and Education. References: None. 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 opened fire at Ft. Hood, TX, killing 13 and wounding 29. Both the civilian and Army Major were charged with murder and other crimes. Discussion: Authorities considered these acts 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. Although the decision to award medals and other military decorations traditionally rests with the executive branch, enacting this language would have represented a rare legislative initiative in this area. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Combat Action Ribbon (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 555 of the House bill would have given 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 555 would have aligned the dates of eligibility with those for the CIB and CMB, and effectively permit eligible Army veterans from World War II to the present to be awarded the CAB. Locating records that would justify awarding the CAB might, in some cases, be difficult. Additionally, the language of Section 555 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 Senate bill did not have a similar provision, and the conference report did not include the House provision. References: None. 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 are 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. (See U.S. Department of Defense, Instruction No. 1342.19, "Family Care Plans," May 7, 2010.) 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: This House language would allow courts to assign temporary custody of a child for the purposes of deployment without allowing the (possibility of) deployment to be prejudicially considered against the service member in a custody hearing. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ( P.L. 112-81 ), Congress included a number of provisions to address the issues involving sexual assault in the military. In Title V (subtitle H) of H.R. 4310 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the House is considering numerous additional provisions. Discussion: Many believe that more can be done to address sexual assault problems in the military. In some cases, some suggest that legislative and policy changes have already gone too far. A recent news article noted that "Contrary to public and political impression, an extensive McClatchey review of military sexual assault finds plenty of Pentagon and congressional action. Some works. Some falls short. Some goes too far, in a legal arena that's notorious for its complications." These new provisions detail congressional attention to the issues of sexual assault, requiring more focus on prevention, reporting, judicial proceedings, and addressing the needs of victims. Reference(s): CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact: Catherine Theohary, x[phone number scrubbed], or [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 1146 of U.S.C. 10 allows members who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning October 1, 2007, and ending on December 31, 2012, to continue to use commissary and exchange stores during the two-year period beginning on the date of the involuntary separation. Discussion: This change would extend the use of commissary and exchange privileges to those involuntarily separated beyond its original termination date in 2012 until 2018. This benefit arguably eases the transition out of the military for those who otherwise would have remained in the service. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact: [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The military Survivor Benefit Plan, or SBP, provides annuities to designated survivors (usually the spouses) of military personnel and retirees. Personnel are automatically enrolled and can only reduce or eliminate coverage with the signed consent of the spouse. Under the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS, a military retiree who becomes a federal employee can waive their military retired pay and have their military time credited to their civil service retirement. A military retiree who does so can halt participation in the military SBP only if the retiree opts to provide survivor benefits under CSRS. CSRS is a closed retirement system however, and retirees who now enter the civil service are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Prior to enactment of section 641, the law did not provide a SBP opt out option for retirees under FERS. Discussion: This change would create parity between CSRS and FERS retirees. Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions , by [author name scrubbed]. 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. H.R. 4310 , as passed by the House, does not include the Administration's 2013 budget proposals to raise premiums for military retirees using a three-tier model based on retirement pay brackets, to index the TRICARE catastrophic cap to the National Health Expenditure, and to introduce enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard/Extra and TRICARE for Life. The Administration's proposal would have increased the annual enrollment for working age retirees in the TRICARE Prime family option between $31 and $128 per month, with those in the upper-income bracket seeing the larger increase. Discussion: The enacted bill did not adopt the Administration's proposals. However, section 712 (discussed in the TRICARE Pharmacy Copayment section of this report) did increase certain pharmacy copayments. Unlike in some previous years, the enacted bill does not block any existing statutory authorities to increase TRICARE copayments and enrollment such as the annual TRICARE Prime enrollment fee for military retirees at 10 U.S.C. 1097(e). Reference(s): Previously discussed in 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: National Guard and Reserve members (collectively known as the "Selected Reserve") are eligible to enroll in the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) program and TRICARE Dental Program (TDP). TRS is a health insurance plan administered by the Department of Defense that is similar to the TRICARE Standard and Extra programs available to active duty family members and military retirees and their dependents. TDP offers dental insurance to active duty family members and Selected Reserve members and their families. Both TRS and TDP require the member to pay a monthly premium. Under current law, coverage under both programs terminates when a member is separated from the Selected Reserve. However, continued health coverage can be purchased through the Continued Health Care Benefit Program (CHCBP). CHCBP coverage may be purchased in 90-day increments for up to 36 months. Premiums are $1,138 per quarter for individual coverage and $2,555 per quarter for family coverage through September 30, 2013. CHCBP does not provide dental benefits. Discussion: Section 701 of the enacted bill would amend Title 10 of the United States Code to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE dental insurance coverage for 180 days from the date of separation to members of the Selected Reserve who are involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve under other than adverse conditions. By extending the period of TRICARE Reserve Select eligibility by 180 days, the legislation would in effect extend the period of time an involuntarily separated member of the Selected Reserve would be able to continue to purchase health care to 42 months. References: None. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : "Applied behavioral analysis" is a method used to modify the behavior of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Treatment is generally begun by age 3½ and consists of up to 40 hours per week of intensive therapy for two years or longer. It aims to teach social, motor, and verbal behaviors as well as reasoning skills using careful behavioral observation and positive reinforcement and prompting to teach each step of a behavior. Skills are broken down into small tasks, which are taught in a very structured manner, accompanied by praise and reinforcement. Undesirable behaviors are reduced by not reacting to them or introducing more socially acceptable forms of behavior. An action memo dated October 24, 2010, and approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) found that sufficient reliable evidence does not exist to find that applied behavioral analysis is either medically or psychologically necessary or appropriate medical care for autism spectrum disorders. It further found that sufficient reliable evidence does not exist to find it is proven as medically or psychologically necessary or as appropriate medical care, in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. The memo found that the majority of the reliable evidence indicates that applied behavioral analysis is characterized as an educational intervention and does not meet the TRICARE definition of "medical care." Although applied behavior analysis has been determined to be unproven as a medical treatment under current DOD policy—and therefore, not reimbursable under TRICARE—it is covered under a TRICARE Extended Health Care Option (ECHO) program demonstration as a non-medical benefit. ECHO is a supplemental program to the basic TRICARE program. ECHO provides financial assistance for services and supplies to active duty family members who qualify based on specific mental or physical disabilities. DOD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 29, 2011, that would establish and expand coverage under the ECHO program. There is a $36,000 per year limitation on total reimbursements per enrollee. In April 2011, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued Therapies for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 26 . That report found that "evidence supports early intensive behavioral and developmental intervention" such as applied behavioral analysis, "but the lack of consistent data limits our understanding of whether these interventions are linked to specific clinically meaningful changes in functioning." On April 19, 2012, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued letters to Federal Employees Health Benefits Program insurance carriers that issued new guidance on coverage of applied behavioral analysis, stating: The OPM Benefit Review Panel recently evaluated the status of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) for children with autism. Previously, ABA was considered to be an educational intervention and not covered under the FEHB Program. The Panel concluded that there is now sufficient evidence to categorize ABA as medical therapy. Accordingly, plans may propose benefit packages which include ABA. This would allow insurance plans that provided health coverage to federal civilian plans to propose benefits packages for the 2013 contract year that include applied behavioral analysis benefits but would not mandate such benefits. Some observers have suggested that DOD follow OPM's example and deem applied behavioral analysis to be a proven, medical treatment. Discussion : Section 704 of the enacted bill would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a one-year pilot program to provide for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, including applied behavior analysis, for all TRICARE beneficiaries covered under the basic program. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference states: The conferees are aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) has been ordered by the District Court for the District of Columbia to provide coverage under the basic TRICARE benefit for applied behavior analysis. The conferees understand that the plaintiffs and DOD have each submitted motions to reconsider the court order. The conferees have provided DOD this 1-year authority in order to allow DOD to assess such coverage independent from litigation proceedings. References: None. C RS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The current organizational structure of the Military Health System (MHS) has long been considered by many observers to present an opportunity to gain efficiencies and save costs by consolidating administrative, management, and clinical functions. Recent Government Accountability Office testimony summarized these views, stating that The responsibilities and authorities for the MHS are distributed among several organizations within DoD with no central command authority or single entity accountable for minimizing costs and achieving efficiencies. Under the MHS's current command structure, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each has its own headquarters and associated support functions. DoD has taken limited actions to date to consolidate certain common administrative, management, and clinical functions within its MHS. To reduce duplication in its command structure and eliminate redundant processes that add to growing defense health care costs, DoD could take action to further assess alternatives for restructuring the governance structure of the military health system. In 2006, if DoD and the services had chosen to implement one of the reorganization alternatives studied by a DoD working group, a May 2006 report by the Center for Naval Analyses showed that DoD could have achieved significant savings. Our adjustment of those savings from 2005 into 2010 dollars indicates those savings could range from $281 million to $460 million annually, depending on the alternative chosen and the numbers of military, civilian, and contractor positions eliminated. Section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ( P.L. 112-81 ) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on military health system reorganization options and prevents the Secretary of Defense from implementing any restructuring of the defense health system until 120 days after the Comptroller General submits to Congress a report reviewing the options considered. DOD reported to Congress on March 2, 2012, on its analysis of options for reorganizing the military health system organization. DOD considered 12 options: Option A: Current MHS Governance Option B: Defense Health Agency, Geographical Model Option C: Defense Health Agency with Service Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) Option D: Unified Medical Command, Geographical Model Option E: Unified Medical Command with Service Components Option F: Unified Medical Command ‐ HR 1540 Section 711 Model Option G: Single Service, Geographic Model Option H: Single Service with Components Option I: Split Unified Medical Command and Military-Led Defense Health Agency Geographic Hybrid Option J: Unified Medical Command with components and DHA Hybrid Option K: Single Service Hybrid with a Unified Medical Command Option L: Defense Health Agency Hybrid with MTFs placed under the Agency The analysis recommended option C reporting that all of the Unified Medical Command options would increase costs. GAO has not yet reported on these options. Discussion: Section 731 would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a detailed plan to implement reforms to the governance of the military health system described in the memorandum of the Deputy Secretary of Defense dated March 2012. Initial component of the plan are required to be submitted to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2013, and the remainder by June 30, 2013. Obligation of specified amounts of authorized funds is prohibited until the Secretary submits the contents of the plan to the congressional defense committees. The Comptroller General is also required to submit a review of the contents of the plan to the congressional defense committees. Reference(s): Previously discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 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: A TRICARE mail order pharmacy option has been available to DOD beneficiaries since the late 1990s; it accounted for 31.8% of total purchased care prescriptions filled as of December 2011. Prescription medications delivered by mail order save money for DOD since DOD negotiates prices that are considerably lower than the prices paid for prescriptions filled through retail pharmacies. Use of the mail order option offers TRICARE beneficiaries a 90-day supply for the same copayment as a 30-day supply at a retail pharmacy. As an additional incentive for beneficiaries to use mail order, TRICARE eliminated copayments for generic drug prescriptions filled by mail order effective October 1, 2011. Discussion: Section 716 of the enacted bill would require the Secretary to conduct a five-year mail-order pilot program for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries, but would also authorize beneficiaries to fill both initial and refill prescriptions at military treatment facilities, and authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations to address instances where a beneficiary attempts to refill prescriptions at a retail pharmacy rather than through the mail-order program or at a military treatment facility. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that medications purchased through the mail-order pharmacy program cost DOD about 19% less than if purchased through retail pharmacies. References: None. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The President's Budget for 2013 proposes a variety of measures to increase cost-sharing with TRICARE beneficiaries. Among these is a proposal to alter pharmacy copayments to incentivize beneficiaries to use generic medications and to fill prescriptions at military treatment facilities (MTFs) or through mail order. Pharmacy copayments would also be indexed to the National Health Expenditure so that they would reflect changes in the health spending. Prescriptions would continue to be filled at no cost to beneficiaries at MTFs. Active duty service members also would continue to pay no fees for prescriptions. The Administration's proposed co-payments for prescriptions filled through the TRlCARE retail and mail order pharmacy are presented in Table 1 : Discussion: Section 712 would set new cost-sharing rates under the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for fiscal year 2013 in statute, and would in fiscal years 2014 through 2022 limit any annual increases in pharmacy copayments to increases in retiree cost of living adjustments. The provision would also enable the Department of Defense to delay increasing copayments until the aggregate increase amounts to at least 1 dollar. Beyond fiscal year 2022, the Secretary of Defense would be authorized to increase copayments as the Secretary considers appropriate. References: None. CRS Point of Contact: Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : The Department of Defense has been providing selected over-the-counter drugs with no beneficiary copayment under a demonstration project authority for several years. Discussion : Section 702 of the enacted bill would amend section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to place selected over-the counter drugs on the uniform formulary and make such drugs available to eligible beneficiaries. An over-the-counter drug would only be included on the uniform formulary if the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee finds that the drug is cost-effective and clinically effective. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a copayment amount for these drugs or not, as appropriate. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference states: The conferees note that the Department of Defense has been providing selected over-the-counter drugs with no beneficiary copayment under demonstration authority for several years, and that the pilot program has resulted in significant savings to the Department. The conferees encourage the Department to continue to implement the authority provided by this section in a similar manner. The Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate that states: Section 702 would allow DoD to provide certain over-the-counter (OTC) medications to beneficiaries at little or no charge. Similar authority was provided to DoD as part of a temporary demonstration program under section 705 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). That authority will expire in November 2012. Certain medications have both OTC and more-expensive prescription versions that achieve similar therapeutic results. Under the demonstration program, DoD has subsidized OTC drugs for beneficiaries in place of prescribed versions of those drugs that are more costly. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates this authority has reduced spending for drugs by about $8 million per year. About half of those savings accrue to the Defense Health Program, a discretionary account that includes pharmacy spending for active-duty members, working age military retirees, and their dependents. Therefore, CBO estimates that extending this authority indefinitely would initially decrease spending subject to appropriations by $4 million per year and the savings would increase in later years because of inflation. The other half of the savings would accrue to the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund, a mandatory account... References : None. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : Artificial insemination, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT) and all other noncoital reproductive procedures, including all services and supplies related to, or provided in conjunction with, those technologies are excluded from coverage under the TRICARE Policy Manual. Nevertheless, under the Supplemental Health Care Program for active duty service members under special circumstances for some severely wounded warriors such services have been provided. In addition, some Military Treatment Facilities may offer assisted reproductive technology services as part of their graduate medical education training programs, however, beneficiaries are required to reimburse DOD for the full cost of the procedure. Discussion : The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Committee states: The conferees note that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs issued policy guidance to the military departments and TRICARE Management Activity on April 3, 2012, to make assisted reproductive services available for seriously ill or severely injured active duty service members, and authorized the use of supplemental health care program funds for this purpose. The conferees have been informed that the Department of Defense is also reviewing fertility preservation for service members prior to deployment in support of contingency operations, and conducting an ongoing review of fertility options for service members who have sustained genitourinary injuries. The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on implementation of the "Policy for Assisted Reproductive Services for the Benefit of Seriously or Severely Ill/Injured (Category II and III) Active Duty Service Members" no later than June 1, 2013. The report shall include data on experience since issuance of the policy, including an analysis of the types of injuries or illness of those who sought the procedures, the procedures that were sought, what procedures or services were provided by both military treatment facilities and civilian providers, and an assessment of issues concerning quality of life and costs. In addition, the report shall provide an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of providing fertility preservation treatment for service members both in relation to deployment in support of contingency operations and as a result of illness or injury. The conferees expect the report to include recommendations for changes in policy or legislation that may be necessary to provide such services to military service members who, as a consequence of illness or injury, require assistance for procreative ability. The Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate of the Senate-passed bill that states: Section 712 would require TRICARE to provide fertility assistance services to active-duty members who, as a result of medical treatment for illnesses, have difficulty conceiving children. CBO's cost estimate for this section comprises two components: the cost of providing the services and the cost to TRICARE for providing the additional child delivery services from the resulting pregnancies. To estimate the number of active-duty members who might make use of this new benefit, CBO examined the incidence of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services as reported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Based on those data, and making adjustments for the age of the active-duty population, and for the fact that their infertility must be caused by a medical treatment to qualify, CBO estimates that about 1,200 active duty members would utilize this benefit each year. CBO estimates that the cost of those services would be about $15,000 per user, or about $20 million per year; that estimate is based on publicly available pricing information from several fertility clinics, and includes the cost of in vitro fertilization, one of the more popular and accepted procedures. In addition to the cost of the fertility assistance procedures, CBO also estimates that TRICARE would incur additional costs for the increased number of resulting pregnancies. Based on information from the CDC, CBO estimates that about a third of ART services result in a pregnancy. However, because some military members are currently seeking ART services on their own and TRICARE is already paying for those pregnancies under current law, CBO estimates the number of additional pregnancies created by this provision would be less, about 200 per year. Furthermore, CBO estimates the cost of each pregnancy would be about $50,000, based on information from private sector studies and DoD cost data, for a cost of about $10 million per year. This amount is significantly higher than the average cost of a pregnancy in the United States because it takes into account the higher percentage of multiple births and preterm deliveries associated with fertility assistance procedures. In total, CBO estimates that implementing section 712 would increase costs to TRICARE by $145 million over the 2013-2017 period. Costs would be lower in the first year because of the time needed to establish rules and regulation. References : None. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : TRICARE is administered on a regional basis (North, South, and West) by regional managed care support contractors. Award of a new round of contracts (known as T-3 contracts) completed this year after lengthy delays resulting from contract award protests. Part of the responsibility of the contractors is the process of establishing service areas in which military retirees are eligible to enroll in TRICARE Prime, the DOD health-maintenance organization style health insurance option. The new contracts require TRICARE Prime service areas around Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites. As a result some beneficiaries will no longer be offered Prime. These beneficiaries still retain TRICARE coverage under the Standard or Extra plan. TRICARE Standard is a fee-for-service style health insurance option available everywhere. TRICARE Extra is a discount given to TRICARE Standard beneficiaries when they use a TRICARE network provider A "Prime Service Area" (PSA) is an area in which the regional managed care support contractor has established a network of civilian medical providers sufficient to meet TRICARE Prime access standards. There are currently about 220 MTF and 60 BRAC PSAs as well as 35 "Additional PSAs" which were established by the previous regional managed care support contracts to serve concentrations of TRICARE beneficiaries. The TRICARE managed care support contractors are only required by DOD to establish the MTF and BRAC PSAs. DOD initially planned to eliminate the Additional PSAs upon commencement of T3 health care delivery on April 1, 2012. However, on January 10, 2013, DOD announced that reductions in Prime Service Areas would be delayed until October 1, 2013. DOD officials state that elimination of the Additional PSAs would save the government approximately $55M per year because government yearly per capita costs for Prime have become much greater than for Standard (approximately $600 greater) due to years of high medical cost inflation and a Prime annual enrollment fee fixed at the modest 1995 level until 2012. The government has borne all of this cost increase. In contrast, TRICARE Standard beneficiaries have paid a portion of the increased costs in the form of their copayments. DOD officials state that TRICARE retired beneficiaries who lose access to TRICARE Prime due to the elimination of a PSA will immediately have access to TRICARE Standard or, if they live within 100 miles of another PSA, they may enroll in that Prime area. Beneficiaries who live within 100 miles of a PSA will need to submit a new enrollment form, waive the primary and specialty care travel time standards, and select a new primary care manager in order to remain enrolled in TRICARE Prime. Nevertheless, many congressional offices have heard from constituents regarding the impending changes which may explain the adoption of this provision. Discussion : Section 732 of the enacted bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit within 90 days to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the policy of the Department of Defense on the future availability of TRICARE Prime for eligible beneficiaries in all TRICARE regions throughout the United States. The report is to include a description of a plan to provide assistance to affected individuals to identify health care providers in their transition from TRICARE Prime to TRICARE Standard. References : None. CRS Point of Contact : Don Jansen, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background : For several years, certain military mental health issues have been of concern to members of Congress as well as others. The executive branch as well as demonstrated concern about these issues with, for example, the August 31, 2012 issuance of an Executive order entitled "Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families." Discussion : The House and Senate bills contained numerous provisions related to efforts by DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to address concerns about military psychological health issues. Additional measures were included in the enacted bill. In the House-passed bill , section 705 would require a mental health assessment of a member deployed in support of a contingency operation once during each 180-day period of such deployment. It also allows these assessments to be performed by personnel in deployed units whose responsibilities include providing unit health care services if such personnel are available and their use for such purpose would not impair their capacity to perform higher priority tasks. This measure was not adopted in the enacted bill. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Committee states "The conferees encourage the Secretary of Defense to develop a policy to provide mental health assessments to service members while they are deployed in a contingency operation, if personnel in deployed units whose responsibilities include providing unit health care services are available and the use of those services for this purpose would not impair their capacity to perform higher priority tasks." Section 725 would authorize the Secretary of Defense, through community partnerships with private nonprofit organizations, to carry out a three-year pilot program assessing the enhancement of DOD efforts in research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health and substance use disorders and traumatic brain injury (TBI) in members of the National Guard and Reserves and their family members and caregivers. The section allows the Secretary, using a competitive and merit-based process, to award grants to these community partners, provided that the awardee agrees to make matching contributions from nonfederal sources of at least $3 for each $1 provided under the grant. Section 728 would direct the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to carry out a five-year pilot program for third party treatment under which each Secretary establishes a process for providing payments to facilities for treatments of TBI or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) received by members and veterans in facilities other than military or VA medical facilities. The section further requires the VA Secretary to notify each veteran with a service-connected injury or disability of the opportunity to receive such treatment or protocol. The section also requires the Secretaries to jointly: (1) develop and maintain a database containing each patient case involving the use of such treatments; and (2) report annually to Congress on the implementation of this section. This provision was not included in the enacted bill. Section 729 would promote efforts by the Secretaries to educate members, veterans, their families, and the public about the causes, symptoms, and treatment of PTSD. It also requires the creation of an advisory commission on PTSD to coordinate the efforts of DOD, VA, and other executive departments and agencies for PTSD prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This provision was not adopted in the enacted bill, however, the enacted bill does express the sense of Congress in support of greater awareness for PTSD. In the Senate-passed bill , section 722, similarly to section 725 of the House-passed bill, would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out a research program to assess the feasibility and advisability of enhancing the efforts of the DOD in research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health and substance use disorders and TBI in members of the National Guard and Reserves, their family members, and their caregivers. Sections 731 and 733 would require DOD to report to the Armed Services committees on, respectively, performance data on Warriors in Transition programs, and, a plan to eliminate gaps and redundancies in DOD programs on psychological health and TBI. Section 735 expresses the sense of Senate that the Secretaries of Defense Veterans Affairs should develop a plan to ensure a sustainable flow of qualified counselors to meet the long-term needs of members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their families for counselors. The plan should include the participation of accredited schools and universities, health care providers, professional counselors, family service or support centers, chaplains, and other appropriate resources. Section 751 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish within the Office of the Secretary of Defense a position with responsibility for oversight and management of all suicide prevention and resilience programs and all preventative behavioral health programs within DOD. Section 752 would require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive suicide prevention program. Section 754 would require the Secretary of Defense to, not later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, enter into a contract with an appropriate entity to make an independent assessment whether the mental health care benefits available for members of the Armed Forces and other covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program are adequate to meet the needs of such members and beneficiaries for mental health care. Section 756 would require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to jointly enter into a memorandum of understanding providing for members of the Armed Forces to volunteer or be considered for employment as peer counselors under the peer support counseling program under subsection (j) of section 1720F of title 38, United States Code and the peer support counseling program carried out under section 304(a)(1) of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-163). Section 757 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish within DOD an organization to (1) carry out programs and activities designed to provide for translational research on the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions into policy on medical practices; (2) make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs on the translation of such research into the policies of the Department of Defense on medical practices with respect to members of the Armed Forces; and (3) discharge such other responsibilities relating to research and medical practices on mental health conditions, and the policies of the Department on such practices with respect to members of the Armed Forces, as the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary shall specify. Section 759 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive set of measures to assess mental health care services furnished by the VA. Section 760 would expand the population of individuals eligible for counseling services at Vet Center programs to include certain active duty and reserve service members and their families. Section 761 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish mental health care through facilities other than Vet Centers to immediate family members of members of the Armed Forces deployed in connection with a contingency operation. In the enacted bill , section 580 (similar to section 751 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to establish within the Office of the Secretary of Defense a position with responsibility for oversight of all suicide prevention and resilience programs of DOD and each of the military departments. Section 581 (similar to section 512 of the Senate-passed bill) amends chapter 1007 of title 10, United States Code, to codify the Suicide Prevention and Community Health and Response Program for National Guard and reserve component members, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide training on suicide prevention, resilience, and community healing and response at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program events and activities, to move the program from within the Office for Reintegration Programs to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and to repeal subsection (i) of section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 10101 note). The program would terminate on October 1, 2017. Section 582 (similar to section 752 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to develop within the Department of Defense a comprehensive policy on the prevention of suicide among service members. Section 583 (similar to section 528 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study of resilience programs within the Army that would draw upon professionally accepted measurements and assessments to evaluate the impact of these programs. Section 703 (similar to section 713 of the Senate-passed bill) amends section 1074m(a) of title 10, United States Code, to align mandatory post-deployment person-to-person mental health assessments for certain service members with other existing health assessments by changing the required assessment period from between 180 days after deployment to 1 year after deployment, to between 180 days after deployment to 18 months after deployment. Section 706 (similar to section 725 of the House-passed bill) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to enhance the efforts of DOD in research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health, substance use disorders, and traumatic brain injury in members of the National Guard and reserves, their family members, and their caregivers through agreements with community partners. Section 723 (similar to section 755 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly enter into a memorandum of understanding providing for the sharing between departments of the results of examinations and other records on members of the armed forces that are retained and maintained with respect to the medical tracking system for members deployed overseas. Section 724 (similar to section 756 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly enter into a memorandum of understanding providing for certain members of the armed forces to volunteer or be considered for employment as peer counselors under certain peer support counseling programs carried out by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Section 725 (similar to section 757 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Defense to provide for the translation of research on the diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions into policy on medical practices. Section 726 (similar to section 759 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive set of measures to assess mental health care services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Section 727 (similar to section 760 of the Senate-passed bill authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide counseling and mental health services to certain members of the armed forces and their family members at vet centers. Section 729 (similar to section 763 of the Senate-passed bill) requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a national program of outreach to societies, community organizations, nonprofit organizations, and government entities in order to recruit mental health providers to provide mental health care services for the Department on a part-time, without compensation basis. Section 730 (similar to section 764 of the Senate passed-bill) amends section 1720F(j) of title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and carry out a peer support counseling program as a part of the existing comprehensive program designed to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans. References : None. 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. Recent military operations in Iraq and ongoing operations in Afghanistan, along with the operational role of the Reserve Components, 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 the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. These include end strengths, pay raises, health care, sexual assault, issues related to the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, 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. Some issues were addressed in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report R41874, FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. Those issues that were considered previously are designated with a "*" in the relevant section titles of this report. |
Short selling was best described by Daniel Drew, the Gilded Age speculator and robber baron: "He that sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to prison." Short sellers borrow shares from a broker, sell them, and make a profit if the share price subsequently drops, allowing them to buy back the same number of shares for less money. In other words, short selling is a bet that the price of a stock will fall. Short sellers have always been unpopular on Wall Street. Like skeletons at the feast, they seem to stand against rising share values, expanding wealth, and national prosperity. However, most market participants recognize that they provide a valuable service to the extent that they identify companies and industries that are overvalued by investors in the grip of irrational exuberance. They may also provide a curb against manipulators who spread false news or otherwise attempt to artificially boost a stock price. By bringing such valuations down to earth, short selling can prevent economically wasteful over-allocation of resources to firms and sectors. Another persistent complaint against short sellers is that they cause artificial price volatility. A form of manipulation common in the 19 th century was the "bear raid"—a gang of speculators would sell a stock short, causing the price to drop. They would follow with another wave of short sales, depressing the price still further, and so on, until the stock's price was driven to the floor. In the 1930s, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a regulation to prevent bear raiding. The "uptick rule" stated that a short sale may occur only if the last price movement in a stock's price was upward. This prevents short sellers from piling onto a falling stock and setting off a downward price spiral. In the words of a standard securities law textbook, the tick test (and related rules) "seem pretty well to have taken the caffeine out of the short sale." In 2007, the SEC concluded that growth in the market made the rule unnecessary, and it was repealed. However, in recent years, complaints about manipulative short selling have reappeared. Many shareholders and officers of smaller firms have identified "naked" short selling as a source of price manipulation and have criticized the SEC's enforcement record. At the same time, the SEC has identified short selling in connection with spreading rumors as an abuse that may raise fears about the solvency of the target firm and cut off its access to credit, potentially leading to the destruction of the firm, as was the case with Bear Stearns in March 2008. A short sale always involves the sale of shares that the seller does not own. The buyer, however, expects to receive real shares. Where do those shares come from? Normally, they are borrowed by the broker from another investor or from a brokerage's own account. This is usually not difficult to do if the shares are issued by a large company, where millions of shares change hands daily and where many shares are not registered to the actual owners, but are held in "street name," that is, in the broker's account. With smaller corporations, however, the number of shares in circulation may be limited, and brokers may find it difficult to locate shares to deliver to the buyer in a short sale transaction. When shares are not located to "cover" a short sale, the short position is said to be naked. If shares are not found by the time the transaction must be settled, there is a "failure to deliver" shares to the buyer. If it occurs sporadically and on a small scale, naked short selling does not raise serious manipulation concerns. However, when the number of shares sold short represents a significant fraction of all shares outstanding, there may be a strong impact on the share price. In such cases, when naked short selling creates a virtually unlimited quantity of shares, a market based on supply and demand can be seriously distorted. The SEC notes that "naked short sellers enjoy greater leverage than if they were required to borrow securities and deliver within a reasonable time period, and they may use this additional leverage to engage in trading activities that deliberately depress the price of a security." Opponents of naked short selling also charge that by permitting short sales to occur when there is no possibility of actually delivering shares to the buyers, brokers and dealers accommodate manipulation. When naked short selling drives prices down, holders of the stock understandably feel cheated. They do not believe the stock is overvalued; they are not selling; but the price drops anyway. It is important to note that naked short selling is not always evidence of intent to manipulate prices. Under certain circumstances, a market maker may engage in naked short selling to stabilize the market. For example, assume that there is a sudden flurry of buy orders for a stock. The market maker may judge the buying interest to be temporary and not justified by any real news about the company's prospects. It may be the result of a questionable press release or a rumor in an Internet chat room. The market maker may choose to sell short to avoid what in its view would be an unjustified run-up in the stock's price. In this situation, naked short selling by the market maker may protect investors against manipulation. It is also worth noting that while restrictions on short selling discourage certain forms of manipulation, they may encourage or facilitate others. Manipulations that involve artificially inflating stock prices are probably more common than techniques (like naked shorting) that seek to depress them. Rumors, false press releases, and unexpected purchases may all cause sudden run-ups of stock prices, which may be followed (in the classic "pump-and-dump" fraud) by sudden collapse, as the manipulators sell their shares to the unwary. Without short selling as a counterweight, the magnitude and duration of such fraudulent run-ups are likely to be greater Until July 2008, the SEC viewed the problem of naked shorting as largely confined to smaller firms, particularly small-capitalization "penny" stocks listed on the Nasdaq bulletin board market (OTCBB). In these companies, the bulk of outstanding shares may be owned by corporate insiders or by securities dealers who act as market makers, so that relatively few shares are available for purchase on the open market. This means that transactions have a proportionately greater impact on the stock price than do trades of the same size in the shares of a larger company, making manipulation easier. In addition to OTCBB stocks, however, smaller companies listed on the exchanges or the Nasdaq national market were also seen as vulnerable to short selling abuse. After several years of deliberation, the SEC in 2004 adopted rules designed to control abusive naked short selling. Regulation SHO took effect on January 3, 2005. The new regulation replaced existing exchange and Nasdaq rules with a uniform national standard. Under Regulation SHO, a broker may not accept a short sale order from a customer, or effect a short sale for its own account, unless it has either borrowed the security, or made a bona fide arrangement to borrow it; or has reasonable grounds to believe that it can locate the security, borrow it, and deliver it to the buyer by the date delivery is due; and has documented compliance with the above. The appearance of a stock on an exchange's "easy to borrow" list constituted reasonable grounds for believing that the stock can be located. Stocks on such lists tend to be highly capitalized, with large numbers of shares in circulation. If a broker executes a short sale, and then fails to deliver shares to the purchaser, further restrictions on short selling may come into force. If the "fail to deliver" position is 10,000 shares or more, for five consecutive trading days, and the position amounts to at least 0.5% of total shares outstanding, the stock becomes a threshold security . The exchanges and Nasdaq are now required to publish daily lists of threshold securities. Regulation SHO specifies that if a fail to deliver position in a threshold security persists for 13 trading days, the broker (or the broker's clearing house) must close the short position by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. After the 13 days have elapsed, the broker may not accept any more short sale orders until the fail to deliver position is closed by purchasing securities. The rules include exemptions for market makers engaged in bona fide market-making activities, and for certain transactions between brokers. The adoption of Regulation SHO did not put an end to investor complaints about naked short selling. Complaints were heard that the SEC did not enforce the rules vigorously enough and that some brokers evaded the 13-day requirement by passing fail-to-deliver positions from one firm to another. The SEC staff has monitored the incidence of fail to delivers after the effective date of Regulation SHO, and, in July 2006, Chairman Cox reported that the rule "appears to be significantly reducing fails to deliver without disruption to the markets." Nevertheless, some further amendments to Regulation SHO were considered. In July 2006, the SEC proposed rules to close two "loopholes" in Regulation SHO, which it called responsible for the persistence of fail to deliver positions in certain stocks. Under the proposed rules, the current exemption for options market makers would be restricted. Second, a "grandfather" provision in the original rule—which exempted short positions that had been established before a stock was placed on the threshold securities list from the requirement that fail to deliver positions be closed out after 13 consecutive trading days—would be eliminated. In August 2007, the SEC adopted the proposed rule abolishing the grandfather provision. When a stock goes onto the threshold list, all short positions in the stock will be subject to the 13-day close-out requirement. The SEC did not adopt the proposal relating to options market makers. As financial companies came under pressure from tight credit markets in late 2007 and 2008, concerns emerged about manipulative short sellers spreading rumors about firms' creditworthiness and liquidity. Despite regulators' assurances that Bear Stearns, a leading investment bank, had adequate capital and liquidity reserves, the firm was destroyed in March 2008 by the equivalent of a bank run: market participants, fearing that the firm might not be able to meet its obligations, refused to extend credit on any terms. The Federal Reserve was forced to arrange a hasty merger with JP Morgan Chase, which acquired Bear Stearns on condition that the Fed purchase $29 billion of risky mortgage assets. All large financial firms finance their operations by issuing short-term debt, which must be continually refinanced, or rolled over. Thus, they are vulnerable to "nonbank runs"—they cannot survive long if markets lose confidence and become unwilling to provide new funds. In July 2008, share prices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant government-sponsored enterprises that hold about $1.5 trillion in mortgage-backed assets, plunged, and fears arose that they might go the way of Bear Stearns. On July 15, the SEC issued an emergency order banning naked short sales of the shares of Fannie, Freddie, and 17 other large financial institutions. Under the terms of the order, no short sale of the stock of any of the 19 listed firms may occur unless the seller has actually borrowed (or arranged to borrow) the stock and delivers the stock to the buyer on the regular settlement date. The SEC explained the rationale for its unusual action: False rumors can lead to a loss of confidence in our markets. Such loss of confidence can lead to panic selling, which may be further exacerbated by "naked" short selling. As a result, the prices of securities may artificially and unnecessarily decline well below the price level that would have resulted from the normal price discovery process. If significant financial institutions are involved, this chain of events can threaten disruption of our markets. The events preceding the sale of The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. are illustrative of the market impact of rumors. During the week of March 10, 2008, rumors spread about liquidity problems at Bear Stearns, which eroded investor confidence in the firm. As Bear Stearns' stock price fell, its counterparties became concerned, and a crisis of confidence occurred late in the week. In particular, counterparties to Bear Stearns were unwilling to make secured funding available to Bear Stearns on customary terms. In light of the potentially systemic consequences of a failure of Bear Stearns, the Federal Reserve took emergency action. The SEC's intervention has been criticized by some who believe that financial stocks had been battered not by false rumors, but by realistic assessments of firms' underlying financial weakness. Short selling, in this view, is simply market discipline at work. One view is that the SEC's objective of raising financial stock prices itself amounts to market manipulation. The SEC's original order, issued on July 15, was extended through August 12, 2008. On September 18, 2008, as financial stocks continued to plunge, the SEC issued another, much more sweeping emergency order. All short selling (naked or not) of the shares of more than 700 financial firms was banned. The rationale was the same as for the earlier action: whatever benefits short selling might provide in terms of price efficiency were far outweighed by the possible damage to the financial system and the economy if major firms were swept away by panic. The emergency order expired October 8, 2008. On October 1, 2008, in addition to extending the short sale ban announced on September 18, the SEC adopted a "interim final" rule that in effect banned naked short selling in all stocks. This order, in the form of an interim final rule, requires that when a failure to deliver shares within the normal three-day settlement period occurs, the seller's broker must immediately purchase or borrow securities and close out the fail to deliver position by no later than the beginning of trading on the next business day. Failure to comply means that the broker cannot sell that stock short either for its own account or for customers, unless the shares are not only located but also pre-borrowed. Failure to deliver shares also exposes brokers to fines and other sanctions. The SEC also adopted Rule 10b-21, a naked short selling anti-fraud rule, covering short sellers who deceive broker-dealers or any other market participants about their intention or ability to deliver securities in time for settlement. The rule makes clear that such persons are violating the law when they fail to deliver. On July 27, 2009, the SEC made the interim rule permanent. In addition, the SEC announced that it was working with the stock markets to improve disclosure about short selling. Information on the amount of short selling of individual stock will be made public on a daily basis. After one month, details of specific short trades will be made public, but without identifying the individual short sellers. | Short sellers borrow stock, sell it, and hope to profit if they can buy back the same number of shares later at a lower price. A short sale is a bet that a stock's price will fall. A short sale is said to be "naked" if the broker does not in fact borrow shares to deliver to the buyer. When executed on a large scale, naked short sales can constitute a large portion of total shares outstanding, and can put serious downward pressure on a stock's price. Critics of the practice characterize it as a form of illegal price manipulation. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2004 adopted Regulation SHO, a set of rules designed to control short selling abuses, focusing on small-capitalization stocks where the number of shares held by the public was relatively small. Until the current financial crisis, the SEC did not view short selling of large, blue-chip stocks as a problem. In July 2008, however, the SEC temporarily banned naked short sales of the stock of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and 17 other large financial institutions. On September 18, 2008, the SEC banned all short selling of the shares of more than 700 financial companies in an emergency action that expired on October 8, 2008. On October 1, 2008, the SEC adopted an interim rule requiring short sellers' brokers to actually borrow shares to deliver to buyers, within one day after the expiration the normal three-day settlement time frame. The rule was made permanent on July 27, 2009, and it applies to all stocks. This report will be updated as events warrant. |
During the 1960s, in an effort to address the decline in demand for cotton brought on by competition from synthetic fibers, cotton industry organizations proposed legislation to create a federally authorized, industry-funded program aimed at expanding consumers’ demand for cotton. Subsequently, the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 authorized the creation of the Cotton Board and charged it with increasing cotton’s share of the textile and apparel market through a research and promotion program. The 1966 act gives the Cotton Board the primary responsibility for administering the cotton check-off program, including developing program plans and budgets. The act also directs the Cotton Board to contract with an organization, governed by cotton producers, to carry out its research and promotion activities. Since 1967, that organization has been a nonprofit corporation called Cotton Incorporated. From 1967 to 1991, all domestic producers had to pay cotton assessments. However, the act allowed producers who were not in favor of supporting the program to request a refund. In the late 1980s, about one-third of the assessments collected were refunded. In November 1990, the Congress enacted the Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990, which was included under title XIX, subtitle G, of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (known as the 1990 Farm Bill). These amendments authorized two fundamental changes in the funding procedures for the cotton check-off program: (1) the imposition of assessments on imported cotton and cotton-containing products and (2) the elimination of refunds. To become effective, however, these revisions had to be approved in a referendum by at least half of the domestic producers and importers voting. About 60 percent of those voting approved these revisions in July 1991. In effect, the approved changes made the program mandatory for both domestic producers and importers. After the final regulation was issued and other administrative procedures were completed, import assessments on cotton products began to be collected on July 31, 1992. The assessments are collected by Customs and remitted to the Cotton Board through AMS on a monthly basis. Domestic producers pay an assessment when they sell their raw cotton. The current cotton assessment is a fixed rate of $1 per 500-pound-bale plus 0.5 percent of the market value. Based on a market value of 60 cents per pound, the total assessment per pound of raw cotton is about one-half cent. Importers pay an assessment on the raw cotton equivalent of imported textiles and apparel. To calculate the assessment rate for imported cotton products, USDA has established procedures for estimating the amount of raw cotton used to manufacture about 700 different cotton products. (See app. I for examples of how AMS calculates rates for an imported cotton product.) Because the check-off program is federally authorized, the Secretary of Agriculture and AMS have certain oversight responsibilities. The Secretary must approve the Cotton Board’s recommended program plans and budgets before they can become effective. AMS’ responsibilities include (1) developing regulations to implement the check-off program, in consultation with the cotton industry, and (2) ensuring compliance with the authorizing legislation and AMS’ orders and regulations. Generally, the act and AMS’ regulations specify allowable activities, such as the type of promotion or research activities, the level and collection of assessments, the composition of the Board, and the types of allowable expenditures. To ensure compliance, AMS reviews the Board’s budgets and projects to, for example, prevent the Board from engaging in prohibited activities, such as lobbying. However, AMS’ oversight role does not include reviewing the program’s effectiveness. AMS is reimbursed by the Cotton Board for its oversight costs. The assessment on cotton imports and the elimination of refunds have contributed, in large part, to the substantial growth in the Cotton Board’s check-off revenues since 1990. In 1990, the Cotton Board received check-off revenues from producers of about $27.6 million after refunds. In fiscal year 1994, the Cotton Board’s check-off assessment revenues totaled about $56.8 million—$43.2 million, or 76 percent, from domestic producers and $13.6 million, or 24 percent, from importers. The imposition of the cotton import assessment has not prevented increases in the U.S. consumption of cotton. Between 1984 and 1991, the U.S. consumption of raw cotton and cotton products grew from 4 billion pounds to 6.2 billion pounds, an average annual growth rate of 6.6 percent. Following the imposition of the cotton import assessment in 1992, the U.S. market continued to grow at about the same rate through June 1995. The U.S. consumption of cotton may exceed 8 billion pounds in 1995. (See fig. 1.) Government and other experts knowledgeable about the U.S. textile and apparel industry agreed that the imposition of the cotton import assessment beginning in July 1992 has had no significant impact on the long-term growth in U.S. consumption of domestic cotton. They pointed out that the relatively small size of the cotton import assessment—about one-half cent per pound of raw cotton equivalent—is likely to have little effect on retail prices. According to these experts, the primary factor explaining the growth in cotton consumption since 1984 is consumers’ increasing preference for cotton apparel—per capita consumption increased from 17 pounds to 30 pounds between 1984 and 1994. They also said that technological developments, such as wrinkle-resistant cotton fabric and different denim finishes, have further enhanced consumers’ preference for cotton apparel. In addition, these experts said that the cotton check-off program has contributed to consumers’ preference for cotton, although they could not cite any study measuring the extent of the program’s contribution. According to USDA’s Chief Economist, a positive correlation generally exists between increased promotion and increased sales of a particular product. However, he also said that researchers measuring this positive correlation have found that it can vary from small to large, depending on the product, the time period involved, and other factors. As discussed in the conference report on the 1990 Farm Bill, some lawmakers were concerned that while importers would be contributing to the check-off program on an equal footing with domestic producers, they would be denied equivalent access to the U.S. cotton market because of tariffs and quotas. According to the USTR, in 1992 the United States maintained quotas for about 67 percent of imported cotton products. Despite these concerns, quotas and tariffs have not prevented cotton imports from sharing in the growth in the U.S. market. Cotton imports have grown even faster than U.S. consumption, increasing from 1.5 billion pounds in 1984 to about 3.8 billion pounds in 1994, an average annual growth rate of about 10 percent. In addition, imported cotton products accounted for 48 percent of U.S. cotton consumption in 1994, up from 37 percent in 1984. Industry experts attribute the growth in these imports primarily to the growing U.S. market for cotton products and lower-priced apparel manufactured in developing countries with low wages. These experts also pointed out that in the absence of quotas and tariffs, cotton imports would probably have increased at an even higher rate, although they could not say by how much. The experts cited several reasons for the increase in cotton imports, even with quotas. First, not all countries are subject to U.S. quotas. Second, countries subject to these quotas vary in the amount of their quota, and the United States has generally agreed to annual increases in the quotas. Third, not all countries fill their quotas. And fourth, when countries do fill their quotas, U.S. retailers and major textile and apparel exporters have become adept at finding alternative sources of supply in countries that have not filled their quotas. The experts also pointed out that current bilateral quotas negotiated under the Multi-fiber Arrangement will be phased out over 10 years under the Uruguay Round agreement, negotiated under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Similarly, as a result of the Uruguay Round agreement, the United States has agreed to slightly reduce textile and apparel tariffs to an average of 15 percent over 10 years. However, experts note that tariffs—currently an average of 17 percent of the value of imported apparel—have not prevented cotton imports from increasing even faster than domestic consumption. This increase has occurred because imported apparel apparently has a substantial cost advantage over domestic apparel. According to USTR’s Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Agricultural and Commodity Policy and officials from the Foreign Agricultural Service’s Tobacco, Cotton, and Seed Division in USDA, the assessment on cotton imports complies with the requirements of U.S. trade agreements. The primary guiding principle of these agreements for imports is that of “national treatment,” which is established in the GATT, Article III, National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation. This principle holds that imports (1) shall not be subject to internal charges that are higher than those applied to like domestic products and (2) shall be treated, under national laws and regulations, as favorably as like domestic products. According to USDA documents and our discussions with officials from the Foreign Agricultural Service and the USTR, the implications of the cotton import assessment were discussed during USDA’s rule-making process for cotton imports in 1991 and during GATT negotiations during 1992. Officials concluded that the cotton import assessment complies with the principle of national treatment because the assessment imposed on importers is the same as the assessment imposed on domestic cotton producers and the assessment is mandatory for both importers and producers. Furthermore, importers have shared in the growth of U.S. cotton consumption as much as domestic producers, as measured by the increasing import share of the U.S. market. During 1991 and 1992, some major importers and foreign countries objected to the U.S. imposition of the check-off assessment on cotton imports. They contended that such an assessment is a nontariff trade barrier, which is contrary to the GATT’s overall objective of reducing trade barriers and liberalizing trade. Some importers also questioned whether they received benefits from the program comparable to those received by domestic producers. However, the USTR and USDA officials said that they were not aware of any country that had filed a formal challenge to the import assessment with the USTR or the World Trade Organization, the arbiter of international trade disputes. Some experts we talked with suggested that challenges may not have been filed because the amount of money involved is insignificant compared with the value of the trade taking place. Import assessments collected in 1994 totaled about $14 million, compared with an estimated value of $19 billion for cotton imports. USDA and USTR officials also told us that they are not concerned about the possibility that other countries could impose check-off assessments on U.S. exports. They pointed out that check-off programs expand market demand within a country, which can increase U.S. exports to that country. Therefore, as long as countries impose such assessments in line with the principle of national treatment, such assessments could have long-term benefits for U.S. exporters. USDA has put in place the necessary framework for administering the cotton check-off program as it relates to assessing imports. However, two significant administrative issues concerning the assessment on imported cotton are unresolved. First, importers are paying assessments on products containing U.S. cotton for which assessments have already been paid. To get an exemption from this assessment, importers must document the U.S. cotton content of imported products, as USDA requires. However, because importers find it difficult to provide such documentation, they rarely use this exemption. Second, importers and producers on the Cotton Board disagree over whether the Board has adequately carried out its responsibility to oversee the activities of Cotton Incorporated. USDA has carried out the activities specified in the 1990 legislation to assess imported cotton products. For example, USDA held a referendum on whether to assess imports and eliminate refunds of assessments. A majority of producers and importers who voted approved assessing imports and eliminating the refund provision. Working with Customs, USDA established procedures for calculating, collecting, and remitting assessments on imported cotton products. USDA also established equivalent assessment rates for imported cotton products; issued relevant orders and regulations governing the program’s operations; established procedures for exempting imports containing U.S. cotton; and provided for the representation of cotton importers on the Cotton Board. Appendix II contains detailed information on the administrative requirements for imports set forth in the 1990 amendments and on the actions taken by USDA to implement them. The 1990 act required USDA to establish procedures to ensure that the domestic cotton used in imported products has been subject only to the one assessment provided for by law and that the assessment has not been paid twice—once when the raw U.S. cotton was sold and again when the same cotton was used in imported textiles and apparel. In response to the statute, USDA and the Cotton Board have developed procedures under which importers can be exempted from the assessment if they can document the domestic cotton content of the articles they import. However, generally cotton importers cannot readily obtain the information needed to document the amount of U.S. cotton in imported products because U.S. cotton is not easily identifiable in imported products. For example, foreign mills may import U.S. cotton and combine it with cotton from other countries to produce cotton products. These products may then be shipped to factories and mixed with other cotton textiles before the final product is exported to the United States. With this complicated flow of cotton products, importers generally cannot document at a reasonable cost which products contain U.S. cotton. Importers, who are primarily retailers, note that the country of origin of the raw cotton contained in their products has generally not been of interest to them and therefore they do not collect such information. Consequently, some importers are paying more in assessments than they should. Using USDA’s Economic Research Service data on the U.S. cotton content in imported cotton products, we estimated that importers are paying import assessments of about $2.1 million annually on cotton products containing U.S. cotton, which should be exempt from the assessment. USDA considered alternatives to use in place of requiring documentation during the rule-making process but decided that they were either inequitable or not practicable. One alternative proposed was an across-the-board reduction in the import assessment rate. USDA believes this alternative disproportionately benefits countries that manufacture cotton products with little U.S. cotton. The other alternative was to adjust the import assessment rate for each country on the basis of the estimated amount of U.S. cotton used in manufacturing cotton products exported to the United States. Customs believes that maintaining different assessment rates for each exporting country is not administratively practicable. Recognizing that the current approach results in double assessments on U.S. cotton, the Cotton Board is exploring the possibility of identifying which foreign mills use mostly U.S. cotton as a way to help learn which imported products contain significant amounts of U.S. cotton. While producers are generally satisfied with the Cotton Board’s efforts to oversee Cotton Incorporated, importers are more critical. In fact, one importer who was a member of the Board’s executive committee resigned from the Board in February 1995, charging that its oversight was inadequate. Importers we spoke with contend that the Cotton Board has relinquished its fundamental oversight responsibility and left important management decisions to Cotton Incorporated. However, by statute, importers are excluded from Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors, thereby leaving importers’ interests unrepresented. More specifically, importers argue that the Cotton Board’s current procedures for approving Cotton Incorporated’s proposed budget amount to “rubber stamping.” They contend that budget submissions do not contain sufficient detail for adequate review. For example, they cite an event that came to their attention only by accident—an annual, one-night public relations event costing an estimated $370,000, which was not identified in the 1995 budget. Importers questioned whether the budget contains other such unidentified items that the Cotton Board should be aware of. Furthermore, these importers said that the Cotton Board’s meetings to review the budget are not conducive to raising “tough-minded, business-oriented” questions about the budget. They attributed this situation, in part, to the fact that the members of both Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors and the Cotton Board are producers nominated by the same state associations. Therefore, producers on both boards know each other. Also, over the course of a few years, former members of Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors may serve on the Cotton Board and vice versa. Equally important, the expertise and experience needed to carry out the cotton check-off program reside primarily with the staff of Cotton Incorporated. For these reasons, the Cotton Board is inclined to accept the plans and budgets submitted and approved by Cotton Incorporated. Producers we spoke with are generally satisfied with the Cotton Board’s oversight and do not see the need to “micromanage” the check-off program, which they believe has had a clear record of success. However, producers also recognize that the Board’s oversight could be strengthened. Therefore, as suggested by the importers, the Cotton Board has agreed to have an outside contractor conduct an overall evaluation of the program. The Board has also agreed to hold a 1-day meeting to begin developing a long-term plan that sets out goals and priorities to guide Cotton Incorporated’s activities. While importers are willing to participate in these efforts, they still believe that producers have not addressed the need for the Cotton Board to play a more assertive role in carrying out its oversight responsibility. In addition to an improved planning process, importers would like to see the Board develop a budget process that allows more time and opportunity to ask in-depth questions about budget expenditures. “(6) the producers and importers that pay assessments to support the programs must have confidence in, and strongly support, the checkoff programs if these programs are to continue to succeed; and “(7) the checkoff programs cannot operate efficiently and effectively, nor can producer confidence and support for these programs be maintained, unless the boards and councils faithfully and diligently perform the functions assigned to them under the authorizing legislation.” Because the cotton check-off program is industry-funded and -operated, AMS has found it to be more effective for the industry than for AMS to assume primary responsibility for deciding how to strengthen the Cotton Board’s oversight role. AMS officials said that they have consciously decided to focus on guiding rather than prescribing the efforts of the Cotton Board to strengthen its oversight. For example, AMS program officials met with the Cotton Board and Cotton Incorporated to discuss the need for more useful and detailed budget information. This approach resulted in an improved budget report for fiscal year 1995. In addition, consistent with its approach of guiding the industry’s efforts, AMS, in October 1995, called for a meeting of the Cotton Board, including staff and representatives of producers and importers, to help resolve the conflict between importers and producers. AMS envisions this meeting, which may be held in early 1996 at the start of the annual budget process, as an opportunity to chart a course of action to better integrate importers into the check-off program. Even if the Cotton Board exerts more oversight, finding common ground between the producers and importers will be difficult. The major importers are large retailers who do extensive brand-name advertising and see little benefit from the research and promotion program’s generic advertising. Importers generally did not want to participate in the program—61 percent of the importers voting in the 1991 referendum opposed the assessment on cotton imports. Also, importers, who are outnumbered 5 to 1 on the Cotton Board and are not represented at all on Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors, find it difficult to influence the program’s direction. Nevertheless, importers told us that they are willing to work with producers to develop an efficient and effective cotton program. However, importers also told us that they would have more influence over the program’s direction and their interests would be better served if they were represented on the board of directors of Cotton Incorporated. AMS officials, producers, the president of the Cotton Board, and the president of Cotton Incorporated told us that they would have no objection to having importers on Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors, but they noted that the authorizing legislation would have to be revised to allow this representation. The cotton check-off program’s promotion efforts have probably contributed to cotton’s growth in the U.S. market. In addition, the U.S. consumption of cotton and the import share of the U.S. cotton market continued to increase following the imposition of the assessment on imported textiles and apparel. The value of this assessment—about one-half cent for a man’s cotton shirt—is not likely to slow consumer demand for cotton. Furthermore, this assessment is in accordance with U.S. international trade agreements, according to USDA and USTR officials. While USDA has established an administrative framework for assessing imported cotton, two major issues raised by importers have yet to be resolved. The first of these issues—double payments on assessments—may be addressed to some extent by current efforts to identify foreign mills that use a significant amount of U.S. cotton. The second issue, however, is more difficult to resolve—the extent of the Cotton Board’s oversight over Cotton Incorporated. While the Cotton Board and AMS are taking steps to address this issue, these efforts do not deal with importers’ lack of representation on Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors. Neither producers nor AMS officials object to including importers on Cotton Incorporated’s board of directors. However, the legislation authorizing the program must be amended to allow such representation. But even if this issue is resolved, developing a cooperative working relationship between producers and importers will be difficult, given their fundamentally different perspectives on the program. To conduct this review, we analyzed data from USDA’s Economic Research Service on U.S. cotton consumption and imports of textiles and apparel for 1984-95. We discussed the results of our analysis and related issues with knowledgeable officials, including USDA’s Chief Economist and the president of the Cotton Board. We also spoke with staff from the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the Department of Commerce’s Office of Textiles and Apparel, and the U.S. International Trade Commission. We discussed U.S. international trade obligations with staff of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service and the USTR. Furthermore, we reviewed the relevant legislation and USDA’s orders and regulations pertaining to the cotton check-off program and other relevant documents and studies. To provide information on the administration of the cotton check-off program for imports, we discussed the program’s administration and related issues with officials of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service and Customs. We also discussed the program’s administration with the president, the chairman, and the treasurer of the Cotton Board; the president of Cotton Incorporated and the chairman of its board of directors; and representatives of importers on the Cotton Board. We reviewed relevant legislation, regulations, orders, the memorandum of understanding between USDA and Customs, and studies of the cotton check-off program. We also discussed various legal issues with USDA’s Assistant General Counsel for Marketing. We performed our work between July 1995 and December 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided copies of a draft of this report to AMS for its review and comment. We met with AMS’ Cotton Division officials, including the Director, Deputy Director, and Chief of the Research and Promotion Staff. These officials generally agreed with the information discussed and provided some clarifying comments that we have incorporated into the report where appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless the contents of this report are publicly announced earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. This appendix contains two examples of how (1) the import cotton assessment is calculated (including the conversion from pounds to kilograms) and (2) an assessment on a sample cotton import shipment is calculated. The per-kilogram assessment represents the sum of the assessment and the supplemental assessment. An example of how the assessment is calculated follows: One bale = 500 pounds One kilogram = 2.2046 pounds One pound = 0.453597 kilograms The $1-per-bale assessment is converted to kilograms: A 500-pound bale = 226.8 kilograms (500 x 0.453597) The $1-per-bale assessment = $0.002000 per pound (1/500) or $0.004409 per kilogram (1/226.8) The supplemental assessment of 5/10 of 1 percent of the value of the cotton is converted to kilograms: Average price received = $0.683 per pound or $1.5057 per kilogram (0.683 x 2.2046) 5/10 of 1 percent of the average price in kilograms = $0.007529 per kilogram (1.5057 x 0.005) The Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990 set forth administrative implementing procedures for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to extend the research and promotion program to cotton imports. Table II.1 lists these procedures and the actions USDA took to implement them. Section 1993 (2) —The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within a period not to exceed 8 months after the date of enactment of the act, conduct a referendum among cotton producers and persons that are cotton importers to ascertain if a majority of those voting approve the proposed amendment to the order. USDA held an implementing referendum during July 17-26, 1991. The proposed amendment was approved by a majority (60 percent) of the importers and producers voting in the referendum. Results were announced in a nationally distributed press release on August 2, 1991. Assessment on imported cotton products Section 1992 (3)— If the proposed amendment of the order implementing the Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990 is approved in the referendum, each importer shall pay assessments on imported cotton products. USDA’s final rule was published in the Federal Register (57 FR 29181) on July 1, 1992. The rule provided for Customs to collect assessments on cotton and cotton products imported into the United States on or after July 31, 1992. Section 1996 (2)—The right of a producer to demand a refund shall terminate if the proposed amendment of the order implementing the Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990 is approved in the referendum. Such right shall terminate 30 days after the date the Secretary of Agriculture announces the results of such referendum if such amendment is approved. Such right shall be reinstated if the amendment should be disapproved in any subsequent referendum. The actual elimination of assessment refunds to cotton producers became effective on September 1, 1991, 30 days after USDA announced the results of the July 1991 referendum. (continued) Importers’ representation on the Cotton Board Section 1992 (2)(B)—An appropriate number of representatives, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, of importers of cotton on which assessments are paid, will serve on the Cotton Board. The importers’ representatives shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with organizations representing importers, as determined by the Secretary. USDA’s final rule amending the regulations for Cotton Board membership was published in the Federal Register (56 FR 65929) on December 20, 1991. The rule provided for an initial representation on the Cotton Board of four importers. In addition, the rule stated that additional importer members could be added to the Cotton Board after consultation by the Secretary with importer organizations and after consideration of the average annual volume of imported cotton that would be subject to assessment for 5 preceding years. In June 1995, four organizations represented importers: (1) United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, (2) United States Apparel Industry Council, (3) American Association of Exporters and Importers, and (4) American Import Shippers Association. Import assessment rate comparable to domestic producer rate Section 1992 (3)—The rate of assessment on imports of cotton shall be determined in the same manner as the rate of assessment per bale of cotton handled, and the value to be placed on cotton imports for the purpose of determining the assessment on such imports shall be established by the Secretary of Agriculture in a fair and equitable manner. USDA’ s final rule, published in the Federal Register (57 FR 29181) on July 1, 1992, established a rate of assessment for imported cotton and cotton products that is the same, on a raw-cotton-equivalent basis, as the rate imposed on domestically produced cotton. De minimis amount not subject to assessment Section 1997 (1)(B)—Imported cotton shall not be assessed for any entry having a weight or value less than any de minimis figure as established by regulations. The de minimis figure that is established should minimize the burden in administering the import assessment but still provide for the maximum participation of imports of cotton in the assessment provisions of the act. Section 1205.510 (b)(3) of USDA’s final rule established a de minimis value of $220.99 per line item on Customs entry documentation. Any line item entry in which the value of the cotton contained therein is less than $220.99 is not subject to the assessment. Procedures to ensure cotton content of imported products is not subject to more than one assessment Section 1992 (3)—The Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure that the upland cotton content of imported products is not subject to more than one assessment. Section 1205.510 (b)(5) and (9) of USDA’s final rule (FR 29181, July 1, 1992) automatically exempts textile articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, produced in the United States and articles imported into the United States after being exported from the United States for alterations or repairs. Section 1205.510 (b)(6) of USDA’s final rule allows imported cotton and cotton products, which contain U.S.-produced cotton or cotton other than upland cotton, to be exempted by the Cotton Board. Section 1205.520 of USDA’s final rule allows each importer of cotton or cotton-containing products to obtain a reimbursement on that portion of the assessment that was collected on cotton produced in the United States or cotton other than upland cotton. (continued) Reimbursement of federal agencies’ costs Section 1992 (3)—The order shall provide for reimbursing the Secretary of Agriculture for up to $300,000 in expenses incurred in connection with any referendum, and for up to 5 employee years in administrative costs after an order or amendment thereto has been issued and made effective. The order shall also include a provision for reimbursing any agency in the federal government that assists in administering the import provisions of the order for a reasonable amount of the expenses incurred by that agency. In 1993, USDA billed the Cotton Board for about $128,000 in reimbursable costs (which included first year start-up costs of almost $45,000) associated with collecting import assessments on cotton products. In November 1995, Customs reported costs of about $56,000 for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Required reports from USDA and Customs Section 1998—Not later than 1 year after imported cotton products are subject to assessment, (1) the Secretary of Agriculture was required to prepare a report concerning the implementation and enforcement of the cotton check-off program and any problems that may have arisen in the implementation and enforcement as it relates to imports and (2) the Customs Service was required to prepare a report concerning its role in the implementation and enforcement as it relates to imports. In August 1993, USDA submitted its report to the Congress. Customs officials were not able to determine whether the agency had prepared such a report. Section 1993 (2)—After the implementing referendum is held, the Secretary of Agriculture will conduct a review once every 5 years to ascertain whether another referendum is needed to determine whether producers and importers favor continuation of the amendment provided for in the Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990. The Secretary is required to make a public announcement of the results of the review within 60 days after each fifth anniversary date of the referendum. Results of Secretary of Agriculture’s review are scheduled to be announced by September 1996. Juliann M. Gerkens, Assistant Director Louis J. Schuster, Project Leader Carol Bray James L. Dishmon, Jr. John F. Mitchell Carol Herrnstadt Shulman The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. | Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO assessed the: (1) growth in the U.S. market for cotton and cotton products; (2) extent to which import restrictions have affected importers' ability to take advantage of any growth in the U.S. market; and (3) relevant U.S. international trade obligations and the compliance factors for imported cotton and cotton products. GAO found that: (1) the cotton import assessment has not affected the growth rate of cotton imports; (2) the volume of imported cotton products has increased from 1.5 billion pounds in 1984 to 3.8 billion pounds in 1994; (3) the assessment is in compliance with U.S. trade obligations and is based on the principle of national treatment; (4) the Department of Agriculture (USDA) established an administrative framework for assessing cotton products, held a referendum for cotton producers and importers on whether to assess imports, set an assessment rate equivalent to domestic producer rates, and established collection procedures for cotton products with the Customs Service; (5) cotton importers frequently pay duplicative assessments on cotton products containing U.S. cotton because they have difficulty meeting the exemption criteria; and (6) producers and importers disagree on the management and oversight functions of the Cotton Board. |
Stevey's Google Platforms RantI was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I've been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies -- an impression that has been reinforced almost daily -- is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it's a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It's pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly. I actually did a spreadsheet at one point but Legal wouldn't let me show it to anyone, even though recruitingit.I mean, just to give you a very brief taste: Amazon's recruiting process is fundamentally flawed by having teams hire for themselves, so their hiring bar is incredibly inconsistent across teams, despite various efforts they've made to level it out. And their operations are a mess; they don't really have SREs and they make engineers pretty much do everything, which leaves almost no time for coding - though again this varies by group, so it's luck of the draw. They don't give a single shit about charity or helping the needy or community contributions or anything like that. Never comes up there, except maybe to laugh about it. Their facilities are dirt-smeared cube farms without a dime spent on decor or common meeting areas. Their pay and benefits suck, although much less so lately due to local competition from Google and Facebook. But they don't have any of our perks or extras -- they just try to match the offer-letter numbers, and that's the end of it. Their code base is a disaster, with no engineering standards whatsoever except what individual teams choose to put in place.To be fair, they do have a nice versioned-library system that we really ought to emulate, and a nice publish-subscribe system that we also have no equivalent for. But for the most part they just have a bunch of crappy tools that read and write state machine information into relational databases. We wouldn't take most of it even if it were free.I think the pubsub system and their library-shelf system were two out of the grand total of three things Amazon does better than google.I guess you could make an argument that their bias for launching early and iterating like mad is also something they do well, but you can argue it either way. They prioritize launching early overelse, including retention and engineering discipline and a bunch of other stuff that turns out to matter in the long run. So even though it's given them some competitive advantages in the marketplace, it's created enough other problems to make it something less than a slam-dunk.But there's one thing they do really really well that pretty much makes up for ALL of their political, philosophical and technical screw-ups.Jeff Bezos is an infamous micro-manager. He micro-manages every single pixel of Amazon's retail site. He hired Larry Tesler, Apple's Chief Scientist and probably the very most famous and respected human-computer interaction expert in the entire world, and then ignored every goddamn thing Larry said for three years until Larry finally -- wisely -- left the company. Larry would do these big usability studies and demonstrate beyond any shred of doubt that nobody can understand that frigging website, but Bezos just couldn't let go of those pixels, all those millions of semantics-packed pixels on the landing page. They were like millions of his own precious children. So they're all still there, and Larry is not.Micro-managing isn't that third thing that Amazon does better than us, by the way. I mean, yeah, they micro-manage really well, but I wouldn't list it as a strength or anything. I'm just trying to set the context here, to help you understand what happened. We're talking about a guy who in all seriousness has said on many public occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. He hands out little yellow stickies with his name on them, reminding people "who runs the company" when they disagree with him. The guy is a regular... well, Steve Jobs, I guess. Except without the fashion or design sense. Bezos is super smart; don't get me wrong. He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies.So one day Jeff Bezos issued a mandate. He's doing that all the time, of course, and people scramble like ants being pounded with a rubber mallet whenever it happens. But on one occasion -- back around 2002 I think, plus or minus a year -- he issued a mandate that was so out there, so huge and eye-bulgingly ponderous, that it made all of his other mandates look like unsolicited peer bonuses.His Big Mandate went something along these lines:1) All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through service interfaces.2) Teams must communicate with each other through these interfaces.3) There will be no other form of interprocess communication allowed: no direct linking, no direct reads of another team's data store, no shared-memory model, no back-doors whatsoever. The only communication allowed is via service interface calls over the network.4) It doesn't matter what technology they use. HTTP, Corba, Pubsub, custom protocols -- doesn't matter. Bezos doesn't care.5) All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions.6) Anyone who doesn't do this will be fired.7) Thank you; have a nice day!Ha, ha! You 150-odd ex-Amazon folks here will of course realize immediately that #7 was a little joke I threw in, because Bezos most definitely does not give a shit about your day.#6, however, was quite real, so people went to work. Bezos assigned a couple of Chief Bulldogs to oversee the effort and ensure forward progress, headed up by Uber-Chief Bear Bulldog Rick Dalzell. Rick is an ex-Armgy Ranger, West Point Academy graduate, ex-boxer, ex-Chief Torturer slash CIO at Wal*Mart, and is a big genial scary man who used the word "hardened interface" a lot. Rick was a walking, talking hardened interface himself, so needless to say, everyone made LOTS of forward progress and made sure Rick knew about it.Over the next couple of years, Amazon transformed internally into a service-oriented architecture. They learned a tremendous amount while effecting this transformation. There was lots of existing documentation and lore about SOAs, but at Amazon's vast scale it was about as useful as telling Indiana Jones to look both ways before crossing the street. Amazon's dev staff made a lot of discoveries along the way. A teeny tiny sampling of these discoveries included:- pager escalation gets way harder, because a ticket might bounce through 20 service calls before the real owner is identified. If each bounce goes through a team with a 15-minute response time, it can be hours before the right team finally finds out, unless you build a lot of scaffolding and metrics and reporting.- every single one of your peer teams suddenly becomes a potential DOS attacker. Nobody can make any real forward progress until very serious quotas and throttling are put in place in every single service.- monitoring and QA are the same thing. You'd never think so until you try doing a big SOA. But when your service says "oh yes, I'm fine", it may well be the case that the only thing still functioning in the server is the little component that knows how to say "I'm fine, roger roger, over and out" in a cheery droid voice. In order to tell whether the service is actually responding, you have to make individual calls. The problem continues recursively until your monitoring is doing comprehensive semantics checking of your entire range of services and data, at which point it's indistinguishable from automated QA. So they're a continuum.- if you have hundreds of services, and your code MUST communicate with other groups' code via these services, then you won't be able to find any of them without a service-discovery mechanism. And you can't have that without a service registration mechanism, which itself is another service. So Amazon has a universal service registry where you can find out reflectively (programmatically) about every service, what its APIs are, and also whether it is currently up, and where.- debugging problems with someone else's code gets a LOT harder, and is basically impossible unless there is a universal standard way to run every service in a debuggable sandbox.That's just a very small sample. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of individual learnings like these that Amazon had to discover organically. There were a lot of wacky ones around externalizing services, but not as many as you might think. Organizing into services taught teams not to trust each other in most of the same ways they're not supposed to trust external developers.This effort was still underway when I left to join Google in mid-2005, but it was pretty far advanced. From the time Bezos issued his edict through the time I left, Amazon had transformed culturally into a company that thinks about everything in a services-first fashion. It is now fundamental to how they approach all designs, including internal designs for stuff that might never see the light of day externally.At this point they don't even do it out of fear of being fired. I mean, they're still afraid of that; it's pretty much part of daily life there, working for the Dread Pirate Bezos and all. But they do services because they've come to understand that it's the Right Thing. There are without question pros and cons to the SOA approach, and some of the cons are pretty long. But overall it's the right thing because SOA-driven design enables Platforms.That's what Bezos was up to with his edict, of course. He didn't (and doesn't) care even a tiny bit about the well-being of the teams, nor about what technologies they use, nor in fact any detail whatsoever about how they go about their business unless they happen to be screwing up. But Bezos realized long before the vast majority of Amazonians that Amazon needs to be a platform.You wouldn't really think that an online bookstore needs to be an extensible, programmable platform. Would you?Well, the first big thing Bezos realized is that the infrastructure they'd built for selling and shipping books and sundry could be transformed an excellent repurposable computing platform. So now they have the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, and the Amazon Elastic MapReduce, and the Amazon Relational Database Service, and a whole passel' o' other services browsable at aws.amazon.com . These services host the backends for some pretty successful companies, reddit being my personal favorite of the bunch.The other big realization he had was that he can't always build the right thing. I think Larry Tesler might have struck some kind of chord in Bezos when he said his mom couldn't use the goddamn website. It's not even super clear whose mom he was talking about, and doesn't really matter, becausecan use the goddamn website. In fact I myself find the website disturbingly daunting, and I worked there for over half a decade. I've just learned to kinda defocus my eyes and concentrate on the million or so pixels near the center of the page above the fold.I'm not really sure how Bezos came to this realization -- the insight that he can't build one product and have it be right for everyone. But it doesn't matter, because he gets it. There's actually a formal name for this phenomenon. It's called Accessibility, and it's the most important thing in the computing world.The. Most. Important. Thing.If you're sorta thinking, "huh? You mean like, blind and deaf people Accessibility?" then you're not alone, because I've come to understand that there are lots and LOTS of people just like you: people for whom this idea does not have the right Accessibility, so it hasn't been able to get through to you yet. It's not your fault for not understanding, any more than it would be your fault for being blind or deaf or motion-restricted or living with any other disability. When software -- or idea-ware for that matter -- fails to be accessible tofor, it is the fault of the software or of the messaging of the idea. It is an Accessibility failure.Like anything else big and important in life, Accessibility has an evil twin who, jilted by the unbalanced affection displayed by their parents in their youth, has grown into an equally powerful Arch-Nemesis (yes, there's more than one nemesis to accessibility) named Security. And boy howdy are the two ever at odds.But I'll argue that Accessibility is actually more important than Security because dialing Accessibility to zero means you have no product at all, whereas dialing Security to zero can still get you a reasonably successful product such as the Playstation Network.So yeah. In case you hadn't noticed, I could actually write a book on this topic. A fat one, filled with amusing anecdotes about ants and rubber mallets at companies I've worked at. But I will never get this little rant published, and you'll never get it read, unless I start to wrap up.That one last thing that Google doesn't do well is Platforms. We don't understand platforms. We don't "get" platforms. Some of you do, but you are the minority. This has become painfully clear to me over the past six years. I was kind of hoping that competitive pressure from Microsoft and Amazon and more recently Facebook would make us wake up collectively and start doing universal services. Not in some sort of ad-hoc, half-assed way, but in more or less the same way Amazon did it: all at once, for real, no cheating, and treating it as our top priority from now on.But no. No, it's like our tenth or eleventh priority. Or fifteenth, I don't know. It's pretty low. There are a few teams who treat the idea very seriously, but most teams either don't think about it all,, or only a small percentage of them think about it in a very small way.It's a big stretch even to get most teams to offer a stubby service to get programmatic access to their data and computations. Most of them think they're building products. And a stubby service is a pretty pathetic service. Go back and look at that partial list of learnings from Amazon, and tell me which ones Stubby gives you out of the box. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of them. Stubby's great, but it's like parts when you need a car.A product is useless without a platform, or more precisely and accurately, a platform-less product will always be replaced by an equivalent platform-ized product.Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). Wedon't get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: "So is it the Stalker API?" She got all glum and said "Yeah." I mean, I was, but no... the only API call we offer is to get someone's stream. So I guess the joke was on me.Microsoft has known about the Dogfood rule for at least twenty years. It's been part of their culture for a whole generation now. You don't eat People Food and give your developers Dog Food. Doing that is simply robbing your long-term platform value for short-term successes. Platforms are all about long-term thinking.Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that's not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there's something there for everyone.Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: "Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let's go contract someone to, um, write some games for us." Do you begin to see how incrediblythat thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.You can't do that. Not really. Not reliably. There have been precious few people in the world, over the entire history of computing, who have been able to do it reliably. Steve Jobs was one of them. We don't have a Steve Jobs here. I'm sorry, but we don't.Larry Tesler may have convinced Bezos that he was no Steve Jobs, but Bezos realized that he didn'tto be a Steve Jobs in order to provide everyone with the right products: interfaces and workflows that they liked and felt at ease with. He just needed to enable third-party developers to do it, and it would happen automatically.I apologize to those (many) of you for whom all this stuff I'm saying is incredibly obvious, because yeah. It's incredibly frigging obvious. Except we're not doing it. We don't get Platforms, and we don't get Accessibility. The two are basically the same thing, because platforms solve accessibility. A platformaccessibility.So yeah, Microsoft gets it. And you know as well as I do how surprising that is, because they don't "get" much of anything, really. But they understand platforms as a purely accidental outgrowth of having started life in the business of providing platforms. So they have thirty-plus years of learning in this space. And if you go to msdn.com , and spend some time browsing, and you've never seen it before, prepare to be amazed. Because it's staggeringly huge. They have thousands, and, and THOUSANDS of API calls. They have a HUGE platform. Too big in fact, because they can't design for squat, but at least they're doing it.Amazon gets it. Amazon's AWS ( aws.amazon.com ) is incredible. Just go look at it. Click around. It's embarrassing. We don't have any of that stuff.Apple gets it, obviously. They've made some fundamentally non-open choices, particularly around their mobile platform. But they understand accessibility and they understand the power of third-party development and they eat their dogfood. And you know what? They make pretty good dogfood. Their APIs are a hell of a lot cleaner than Microsoft's, and have been since time immemorial.Facebook gets it. That's what really worries me. That's what got me off my lazy butt to write this thing. I hate blogging. I hate... plussing, or whatever it's called when you do a massive rant in Google+ even though it's a terrible venue for it but you do it anyway because in the end you really do want Google to be successful. And I do! I mean, Facebook wants me there, and it'd be pretty easy to just go. But Google is, so I'm insisting that we have this little family intervention, uncomfortable as it might be.After you've marveled at the platform offerings of Microsoft and Amazon, and Facebook I guess (I didn't look because I didn't want to getdepressed), head over to developers.google.com and browse a little. Pretty big difference, eh? It's like what your fifth-grade nephew might mock up if he were doing an assignment to demonstrate what a big powerful platform company might be building if all they had, resource-wise, was one fifth grader.Please don't get me wrong here -- I know for a fact that the dev-rel team has had to FIGHT to get even this much available externally. They're kicking ass as far as I'm concerned, because they DO get platforms, and they are struggling heroically to try to create one in an environment that is at best platform-apathetic, and at worst often openly hostile to the idea.I'm just frankly describing what developers.google.com looks like to an outsider. It looks childish. Where's the Maps APIs in there for Christ's sake? Some of the things in there areprojects. And the APIs for everything I clicked were... they were paltry. They were obviously dog food. Not even good organic stuff. Compared to our internal APIs it's all snouts and horse hooves.And also don't get me wrong about Google+. They'refrom the only offenders. This is a cultural thing. What we have going on internally is basically a war, with the underdog minority Platformers fighting a more or less losing battle against the Mighty Funded Confident Producters.Any teams that have successfully internalized the notion that they should be externally programmable platforms from the ground up are underdogs -- Maps and Docs come to mind, and I know GMail is making overtures in that direction. But it's hard for them to get funding for it because it's not part of our culture. Maestro's funding is a feeble thing compared to the gargantuan Microsoft Office programming platform: it's a fluffy rabbit versus a T-Rex. The Docs teamthey'll never be competitive with Office until they can match its scripting facilities, but they're not getting any resource love. I mean, I assume they're not, given that Apps Script only works in Spreadsheet right now, and it doesn't even have keyboard shortcuts as part of its API. That team looks pretty unloved to me.Ironically enough, Wave was a great platform, may they rest in peace. But making something a platform isgoing to make you an instant success. A platform needs a killer app. Facebook -- that is, the stock service they offer with walls and friends and such -- is the killer app for the Facebook Platform. And it is a very serious mistake to conclude that the Facebook App could have been anywhere near as successfulthe Facebook Platform.You know how people are always saying Google is arrogant? I'm a Googler, so I get as irritated as you do when people say that. We're not arrogant, by and large. We're, like, 99% Arrogance-Free. I did start this post -- if you'll reach back into distant memory -- by describing Google as "doing everything right". We do mean well, and for the most part when people say we're arrogant it's because we didn't hire them, or they're unhappy with our policies, or something along those lines. They're inferring arrogance because it makes them feel better.But when we take the stance that we know how to design the perfect product for everyone, and believe you me, I hear that a lot, then we're being fools. You can attribute it to arrogance, or naivete, or whatever -- it doesn't matter in the end, because it's foolishness. There IS no perfect product for everyone.And so we wind up with a browser that doesn't let you set the default font size. Talk about an affront to Accessibility. I mean, as I get older I'm actually going blind. For real. I've been nearsighted all my life, and once you hit 40 years old you stop being able to see things up close. So font selection becomes this life-or-death thing: it can lock you out of the product completely. But the Chrome team is flat-out arrogant here: they want to build a zero-configuration product, and they're quite brazen about it, and Fuck You if you're blind or deaf or whatever. Hit Ctrl-+ on every single page visit for the rest of your life.It's not just them. It's. The problem is that we're a Product Company through and through. We built a successful product with broad appeal -- our search, that is -- and that wild success has biased us.Amazon was a product company too, so it took an out-of-band force to make Bezos understand the need for a platform. That force was their evaporating margins; he was cornered and had to think of a way out. But all he had was a bunch of engineers and all these computers... if only they could be monetized somehow... you can see how he arrived at AWS, in hindsight.Microsoft started out as a platform, so they've just had lots of practice at it.Facebook, though: they worry me. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure they started off as a Product and they rode that success pretty far. So I'm not sure exactly how they made the transition to a platform. It was a relatively long time ago, since they had to be a platform before (now very old) things like Mafia Wars could come along.Maybe they just looked at us and asked: "How can we beat Google? What are they missing?"The problem we face is pretty huge, because it will take a dramatic cultural change in order for us to start catching up. We don't do internal service-oriented platforms, and we just as equally don't do external ones. This means that the "not getting it" is endemic across the company: the PMs don't get it, the engineers don't get it, the product teams don't get it, nobody gets it. Even if individuals do, even if YOU do, it doesn't matter one bit unless we're treating it as an all-hands-on-deck emergency. We can't keep launching products and pretending we'll turn them into magical beautiful extensible platforms later. We've tried that and it's not working.The Golden Rule of Platforms, "Eat Your Own Dogfood", can be rephrased as "Start with a Platform, and Then Use it for Everything." You can't just bolt it on later. Certainly not easily at any rate -- ask anyone who worked on platformizing MS Office. Or anyone who worked on platformizing Amazon. If you delay it, it'll be ten times as much work as just doing it correctly up front. You can't cheat. You can't have secret back doors for internal apps to get special priority access, not for ANY reason. You need to solve the hard problems up front.I'm not saying it's too late for us, but the longer we wait, the closer we get to being Too Late.I honestly don't know how to wrap this up. I've said pretty much everything I came here to say today. This post has been six years in the making. I'm sorry if I wasn't gentle enough, or if I misrepresented some product or team or person, or if we're actually doing LOTS of platform stuff and it just so happens that I and everyone I ever talk to has just never heard about it. I'm sorry.But we've gotta start doing this right. ||||| Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus
I've spent the past eight years (starting back in June 2004) writing elaborate rants about a bunch of vaguely related software engineering issues.
I was doing all that ranting because I've been genuinely perplexed by a set of "bizarre" world-views held dear by -- as far as I can tell -- about half of all programmers I encounter, whether online or in person.
Last week, after nearly a decade of hurling myself against this problem, I've finally figured it out. I know exactly what's been bothering me.
In today's essay I'm going to present you with a new conceptual framework for thinking about software engineering. This set of ideas I present will be completely obvious to you. You will probably slap yourself for not having thought of it yourself. Or you might slap the person next to you. In fact you probably have thought of it yourself, because it is so blindingly obvious.
But in my thirty-odd years as a programmer I'm pretty sure this way of thinking about things, if it already existed, has never been mainstream. That assertion is backed by what has to be at least ten Google searches that turned up nothing. So I'm pretty confident.
I'm going to make it mainstream, right now. Watch!
And I suspect this conceptual framework I'm giving you will immediately become, and forever remain, one of the most important tools in your toolkit for talking with -- and about -- other programmers.
The punch line, a.k.a. TL;DR
I won't keep you in suspense. Here is the thesis of this looooong essay. It is the root cause that motivated over half of my ranting all these years, starting at Amazon and continuing here at Google.
(Note: I Do Not Speak For My Employer. This should be patently obvious. When employers want someone to speak for them, they hire a person like the Mouth of Sauron, to make absolutely sure everyone knows they are speaking for the Employer.)
My thesis:
1) Software engineering has its own political axis, ranging from conservative to liberal.
(Note: Technically, you could stop reading right here and be at pretty much 90% comprehension. In case you care.)
2) The notions of "conservative" and "liberal" on this political axis are specialized to software engineering. But they exhibit some strong similarities to their counterparts in real-world politics.
3) Everyone in the software industry who does stuff related to programming computers falls somewhere fairly precise on this political spectrum, whether they realize it or not.
Put another way, YOU are either a liberal or a conservative software engineer. You may be more of a centrist, or maybe an extremist, but you fall somewhere on that left/right spectrum.
Just as in real-world politics, software conservatism and liberalism are radically different world views. Make no mistake: they are at odds. They have opposing value systems, priorities, core beliefs and motivations. These value systems clash at design time, at implementation time, at diagnostic time, at recovery time. They get along like green eggs and ham.
I think it is important for us to recognize and understand the conservative/liberal distinction in our industry. It probably won't help us agree on anything, pretty much by definition. Any particular issue only makes it onto the political axis if there is a fundamental, irreconcilable difference of opinion about it. Programmers probably won't -- or maybe even can't -- change their core value systems.
But the political-axis framework gives us a familiar set of ideas and terms for identifying areas of fundamental disagreement. This can lead to faster problem resolution. Being able to identify something quickly as a well-defined political issue means we can stop wasting time trying to convince the other side to change their minds, and instead move directly into the resolution phase, which (just as in politics) generally boils down to negotiation and compromise. Or, you know, Watergate.
Are real politics and software politics correlated?
Does being a political conservative make you more likely to be a software conservative? I think all we have are hunches and intuition at this point. We'd need studies for an answer with any scientific basis.
But my hunch tells me that they are only loosely correlated, if at all. I suspect that the four possible combinations of political left/right and software left/right each contain around a quarter of the programming population, plus or minus maybe 8%. But that's a totally nonscientific hunch, and I'd love to see the real numbers.
The reason I suspect they're only loosely correlated is that I think a person's software-political views are largely formed by two forces:
1) Their personal early/formative experiences as a programmer -- in particular, what kinds of decisions either burned them or made them wildly successful.
2) The software-political core values of their teachers, professors, mentors, role models, and coworkers.
But there are some factors that could increase correlation between political orientation and software orientation. One is geographic/regional influence -- for instance, big tech universities being located primarily in red or blue states. Another might be basic personality traits that may incline people toward traditionally liberal or conservative value systems.
Regardless of how correlated they are, there are going to be a lot of programmers out there who are mildly shocked to find that they are political conservatives but software liberals, or vice-versa.
Isn't the 2-party system a flawed model?
Well, yeah. Mapping something as nuanced as political viewpoints onto a one-dimensional axis is a well-known gross oversimplification. For instance, some U.S. voters may self-identify as fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and as a result may wind up not having a strong tie to either majority political party. These "swing votes" tend to be the reason that political moderates more often wind up winning elections, even though studies have shown that people tend to assign more credibility to extreme opinions.
The influence of centrists or moderates is just as important in the software engineering world, and we'll explore it more in a bit.
But having a single axis still allows for a wide distribution on both the right and the left. As in real politics, a moderately right-leaning viewpoint may seem dishearteningly liberal to someone who lies even further toward the extreme right. I will illustrate with some well-known real-world programming language scenarios in the examples section.
All in all, despite its oversimplifications, I think 2-party model is a good starting point for educating people about the politics of software. It'll be a good frame of reference for refining the model down the road, although that's out of scope for this essay.
So what's a Software Liberal slash Conservative?
If you ignore specific real-world issues, and just focus on the underlying traits and values of real-world conservatives and liberals, it boils down to just a few themes. I'll argue that those underlying themes are also the basis for software politics.
It's easiest to talk first about conservatives, and then define liberals in terms of what conservatives are not. This is because conservatives tend to have a unified and easily-articulated value system, whereas liberals tend to be more weakly organized and band together mostly as a reaction to conservatism. This applies to both real-world and software-world politics.
So we'll start with an operational definition of conservatism, from Jost et al.:
"We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear."
This theory is explored, re-tested and affirmed in a 2008 study from Garney et. al, "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind".
I hope you'll agree that this definition is minimally controversial. After all, the adjective "conservative" is more or less synonymous with caution and risk aversion. Financial conservatism is frequently (and intuitively) associated with age and with wealth. Companies tend to grow more conservative with age as they weather the storms of lawsuits, technical fiascoes, dramatic swings of public opinion, and economic downturns. We even have fables about ants and grasshoppers to teach us about conserving food for the upcoming winter.
Conservatism, at its heart, is really about risk management.
Similarly, liberal views are often associated with youth, with idealism, with naivete. In the corporate world, we think of startups as being prototypically liberal -- in part because they're setting out to change the world in some way (and liberalism is traditionally associated with change), and in part because they have to go all-out in order to hit their scheduled funding milestones, which can justify cutting corners on software safety.
Liberalism doesn't lend itself quite as conveniently to a primary root motivation. But for our purposes we can think of it as a belief system that is motivated by the desire above all else to effect change. In corporate terms, as we observed, it's about changing the world. In software terms, liberalism aims to maximize the speed of feature development, while simultaneously maximizing the flexibility of the systems being built, so that feature development never needs to slow down or be compromised.
To be sure, conservatives think that's what they're maximizing too. But their approach is... well, conservative. Flexibility and productivity are still motivators, but they are not the primary motivators. Safety always trumps other considerations, and performance also tends to rank very highly in the software-conservative's value system.
The crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives in the software world is this: how much focus should you put on safety? Not just compile-time type-safety, but also broader kinds of "idiot-proofing" for systems spanning more than one machine.
Let's characterize this core disagreement with some example statements that would be rated with much higher importance by conservatives than by liberals:
1. Software should aim to be bug free before it launches. (Banner claim: "Debugging Sucks!") Make sure your types and interfaces are all modeled, your tests are all written, and your system is fully specified before you launch. Or else be prepared for the worst!
2. Programmers should be protected from errors. Many language features are inherently error-prone and dangerous, and should be disallowed for all the code we write. We can get by without these features, and our code will be that much safer.
3. Programmers have difficulty learning new syntax. We should limit the number of languages used at our company, so that nobody has to learn a new syntax when a system goes down in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve. And we should never permit features that allow defining new syntax, nor changing the semantics of existing syntax. (Common examples: no operator overloading, and NO metaprogramming!)
4. Production code must be safety-checked by a compiler. Any code that cannot be statically checked should in general be avoided. In specific cases where it is strictly necessary, uses of it must be approved by a central committee. (Examples: eval, dynamic invocation, RTTI).
5. Data stores must adhere to a well-defined, published schema. Relational databases must be in third-normal form and adhere to a UML or equivalent schema definition. XML should have a DTD. NoSQL databases and name/value stores -- both of which should be avoided in general -- must have a separate physical schema that defines all permissible keys and their corresponding value types.
6. Public interfaces should be rigorously modeled. Data should never be stored in strings or untyped collections. All input and output entities should be thorougly and explicitly specified via statically-checkable, ideally object-oriented models.
7. Production systems should never have dangerous or risky back-doors. It should never be possible to connect to a live production system via a debugger, telnet shell, nor any other interface that allows the developer to manipulate the runtime operation of the code or data. The only ports into a production system should be read-only monitoring channels.
8. If there is ANY doubt as to the safety of a component, it cannot be allowed in production -- no matter how teams may cry and wail that they need it to make forward progress. (I'm talkin' to you, FUSE).
9. Fast is better than slow. Everyone hates slow code. Code should perform well. You should engineer all your code for optimum speed up front, right out of the box. Otherwise it might not be fast enough. Avoid using languages or DSLs or libraries that have a reputation for being slow. Even if they're fast enough for your current purposes, the requirements (or callers) could change, and suddenly the software would be too slow!
Of course these examples are meant to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. And obviously not all of them may necessarily be espoused by everyone who self-identifies as a conservative. But barring minor exceptions, they are all very common Conservative viewpoints.
To decide whether a system or a technology is liberal or conservative, just think of a bunch of independent "safety checkboxes". If a majority of them are checked, then the system is conservative as a whole. The more that are checked, the more conservative it is.
By way of comparison, here are the Liberal versions of the nine examples above. It might help to think of Scooby-Doo characters. The examples above are all from Fred, and the examples below are from Shaggy.
1. Bugs are not a big deal. They happen anyway, no matter how hard you try to prevent them, and somehow life goes on. Good debuggers are awesome pieces of technology, and stepping through your code gives you insights you can't get any other way. Debugging and diagnosing are difficult arts, and every programmer should be competent with them. The Christmas Eve Outage scenario never, ever happens in practice -- that's what code freeze is for. Bugs are not a big deal! (This belief really may be the key dividing philosophy between Conservative and Liberal philosophies.)
2. Programmers are only newbies for a little while. The steady state for a programmer's career is being smart, knowledgeable, creative, resourceful and experienced. Putting a bunch of rules in place to protect newbies from doing harm (or being harmed) is incorrectly optimizing for the transient case instead of the steady state.
3. Programmers figure stuff out amazingly fast when their jobs depend on it. People learn to read sheet music, braille, sign language, and all sorts of other semiotic frameworks. Hell, even gorillas can apparently do all that. Programmers don't need protection from syntax. They just need documentation and a little slack time to read up on it.
4. Succinctness is power. Code should be kept small. Period. If your static checking tools can't reason about the code, then the checking needs to be made smarter (e.g. by incorporating runtime data) rather than making the code dumber.
5. Rigid schemas limit flexibility and slow down development. Lightweight/partial/optional schemas are a better tradeoff. Moreover, the schema is often not well-understood until a lot of data is collected and a lot of use cases are thorougly exercised. So the schema should follow the code rather than precede it.
6. Public interfaces should above all else be simple, backward-compatible, and future-compatible. Rigorous modeling is just guessing at how the interface will need to evolve. It makes both forward- and backward-compatibility almost impossible, resulting in interface churn and customer unhappiness. Public interfaces should always do the simplest thing that could possibly work, and grow only as needed.
7. System flexibility can mean the difference between you getting the customer (or contract) vs. your competitor nabbing it instead. Security and safety risks in runtime production systems can be mitigated and controlled by logging, monitoring and auditing. There are plenty of existence-proofs of large systems with root-access backdoors and shells (e.g. RDBMS, online game servers) whose risk is controlled while still giving them world-class runtime flexibility.
8. Companies should take risks, embrace progress, and fiercely resist ossification. It doesn't matter how big your business is: it must grow or die. If you want to stay competitive, you have to make a conscious, often painful effort to take risks. Which means you'll need good recovery techniques for the inevitable disasters. But you need those even if you don't take risks. So take risks!
9. Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Get the code working first, focusing on correctness over performance, and on iterative prototyping over correctness. Only when your customers list latency as the top priority should you begin performing profiler-driven optimizations.
There you have it: Shaggy vs. Fred.
Just as in real-world politics, software liberals are viewed by conservatives as slovenly, undisciplined, naive, unprincipled, downright "bad" engineers. And liberals view conservatives as paranoid, fearmongering, self-defeating bureaucrats.
Once again, although I don't think the two camps will ever agree, I do think that mutual understanding of the underlying value systems may help the camps compromise.
Or at the very least, the conservative/liberal classification should help the two camps steer clear of each other. I think it is probably better to have a harmonious team of all-liberals or all-conservatives than a mixed team of constantly clashing ideologies. It's a lot like how vehicle-driving philosophies can differ regionally -- it's OK if everyone drives in some crazy way, as long as they ALL drive that way.
So Security Engineers are the most conservative, then, right?
Wrong! The reality here goes against intuition, and I mention it to show how poorly our intuition fares when it comes to interpolating software-political views from job descriptions.
Security engineers are deeply concerned with risk assessment and attack-surface management, so you might well guess that they would naturally tend towards software conservatism.
In practice, however, security engineers tend to be keenly aware of the tradeoffs between caution and progress, since they have to spend big parts of their day meeting with software teams who are often too busy (not to mention woefully underinformed) to spend a lot of time on security. Security engineers learn quickly to make well-informed and practical risk-management decisions, rather than conservatively always trying to be as safe as humanly possible.
Hence many security engineers are in fact software liberals. Some just swing that way.
Many of the security engineers at Google happen to be fans of Ruby -- both as an intrinsically secure language, and also as a nice, expressive language for writing auditing scripts and other security analysis tools. It wound up being fairly easy for me to get security sign-off for using Ruby in production for my first project at Google. In contrast, it was almost career-endingly difficult for me to get the same sign-off from our highly conservative systems programmers.
The reality is that almost any programming specialization is going to be divided into liberal and conservative camps. There are left- and right-wing versions of web developers, persistence engineers, protocol engineers, serving-system engineers, and most other sub-genres of programming.
I'm hard-pressed to think of any domains that tend to be mostly-liberal or mostly-conservative, with the sole exception of Site Reliability Engineering, which is sort of by definition a conservative role. For most of the other domains that initially came to mind -- for instance, data analysts, which at first I thought were uniformly liberal -- I've been able to think of specific teams or subdomains composed entirely of one or the other.
So in the end I think it comes down to personal preference. That's it. I don't think it's as domain-driven as much as it is personality-driven. Some people are just liberal, and some are just conservative, and that's how they are.
BIG FAT DISCLAIMER
Before I continue, I will now issue the important disclaimer that I am a hardcore software liberal, bordering on (but not quite) being a liberal extremist.
This fact, by and large, is what has driven me to pen many of my most infamous and controversial rants, including (among others) "Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns", "Portrait of a N00b", "Rhinos and Tigers", "Code's Worst Enemy", "Scheming is Believing", "Tour de Babel", "Dynamic Languages Strike Back", "Transformation", "Haskell Researchers Announce Discovery of Industry Programmer Who Gives a Shit", and many others besides.
Sure, I sometimes write about other stuff. My in-progress "Programmers View of the Universe" series is motivated by an entirely different bugbear that has nothing at all to do with software politics. My "Universal Design Pattern" article is about a technique that transcends software politics and can be applied with equal effectiveness in either a conservative or a liberal manner. And I've written about video games, Japanese anime and random other stuff.
But I've come to understand that liberalism underlies a tremendous amount of my thinking. Even when I'm writing about management, I see that I am a liberal manager rather than a conservative one. And despite being both relatively old and relatively wealthy, I am also a political liberal -- both socially and fiscally.
Nevertheless I am going to try to represent both sides fairly and accurately in this essay. You know, mostly. I think it's most important for you to buy in to the left/right distinction itself. I think it's far less important whether you happen to agree with my particular side.
I'll consider this essay a success if a sufficient number of you agree that the liberal/conservative distinction is valid for software engineering, and that my particular left/right classification of various technologies and philosophies below seems intuitively reasonable. I'm fine with declaring success if we disagree on a few small details, as long as we agree on the overall picture.
Soooo... static typing enthusiasts are conservative, right?
Why yes. Yes, they are. Static typing is unquestionably one of the key dividing software-political issues of our time. And static typing is a hallmark of the conservative world-view.
In the conservative view, static typing (whether explicit or inferred) is taken on faith as an absolute necessity for modern software engineering. It is not something that one questions. It is a non-issue: a cornerstone of what constitutes the very definition of Acceptable Engineering Practice.
In the liberal's view, static typing is analogous to Security Theater. It exists solely to make people feel safe. People (and airports) have proven time and again that you can be just as statistically secure without it. But some people need it in order to feel "safe enough".
That's a pretty big difference of opinion -- one I'm sure you can relate to, regardless of how you feel about it.
I'm not going to try to defend my view here, since that's what all those old blog posts were for. If I haven't convinced you by now, then there's not much point in continuing to try. I respect your opinion. Well, now. And I hope you now have a little better understanding of mine.
I should, however, mention that there is an unrelated (i.e. politically-neutral) point on which both camps agree: namely, that static types yield better toolchain support. This is undeniably true today, and I have made it my life's work to ensure that it is not true tomorrow.
I have spent the last four years championing an initiative within Google called the "Grok Project", one that will at some point burst beyond our big walled garden and into your world. The project's sole purpose in life is to bring toolchain feature parity to all languages, all clients, all build systems, and all platforms.
(Some technical details follow; feel free to skip to the next section heading...)
My project is accomplishing this lofty and almost insanely ambitious goal through the (A) normative, language-neutral, cross-language definitions of, and (B) subsequent standardization of, several distinct parts of the toolchain: (I) compiler and interpreter Intermediate Representations and metadata, (II) editor-client-to-server protocols, (III) source code indexing, analysis and query languages, and (IV) fine-grained dependency specifications at the level of build systems, source files, and code symbols.
OK, that's not the whole picture. But it's well over half of it.
Grok is not what you would call a "small" project. I will be working on it for quite some time to come. The project has gone through several distinct lifecycle phases in its four years, from "VC funding" to "acceptance" to "cautious enthusiasm" to "OMG all these internal and even external projects now depend critically on us." Our team has recently doubled in size, from six engineers to twelve. Every year -- every quarter -- we gain momentum, and our code index grows richer.
Grok is not a confidential project. But we have not yet talked openly about it, not much, not yet, because we don't want people to get over-excited prematurely. There is a lot of work and a lot of dogfooding left to do before we can start thinking about the process for opening it up.
For purposes of this essay, I'll assert that at some point in the next decade or so, static types will not be a prerequisite for world-class toolchain support.
I think people will still argue heatedly about type systems, and conservatives may never be able to agree amongst themselves as to which type system approach is best for modeling program behavior. But at least I will have helped that discussion be ONLY about representations. The quality of the corresponding developer tools should no longer be a factor in the discussions.
Dividing up the Space
I'm going to go through and toss a bunch of random technologies, patterns, designs and disciplines each into one of six buckets: "apolitical", "conservative", "centrist", "liberal" buckets, plus two buckets that start Centrist and head Left or Right in the presence of overuse. One bucket per thingy. Hey, it's not an exact science. But it should help set the rough foundation for the more detailed use cases below.
Non-political Stuff: Algorithms, data structures, concrete mathematics, complexity analysis, information theory, type theory, computation theory, and so on. Basically all CS theory. These disciplines occasionally inspire tempest-in-a-teapot butthurtedness in academia, but when it happens, it's just similar fish in too small a tank biting on each other. It's to be expected. Overall, these essentially mathematical disciplines are timeless, and they are all equally applicable to both the Liberal and Conservative programming worlds. Yes, even type theory.
Conservative Stuff: Provably sound type systems. Mandatory static type annotations. Nonpublic symbol visibility modifiers (private/protected/friend/etc.). Strict, comprehensive schemas. all-warnings-are-errors. Generics and templates. Avoidance of DSLs (XPath, regexps) in favor of explicit DOM manipulation and hand-rolled state machines. Build dependency restrictions. Forced API deprecation and retirement. No type equivalence (i.e. no automatic conversions) for numeric types. Checked exceptions. Single-pass compilers. Software Transactional Memory. Type-based function overloading. Explicit configuration in preference to convention. Pure-functional data structures. Any kind of programming with the word "Calculus" in it.
Centrist (or flat-out Neutral) Stuff: Unit testing. Documentation. Lambdas. Threads. Actors. Callbacks. Exceptions. Continuations and CPS. Byte-compilation. Just-in-time compilation. Expression-only languages (no statements). Multimethods. Declarative data structures. Literal syntax for data structures. Type dispatch.
Liberal Stuff: Eval. Metaprogramming. Dynamic scoping. all-errors-are-warnings. Reflection and dynamic invocation. RTTI. The C preprocessor. Lisp macros. Domain-specific languages (for the most part). Optional parameters. Extensible syntax. Downcasting. Auto-casting. reinterpret_cast. Automatic stringification. Automatic type conversions across dissimilar types. Nil/null as an overloaded semantic value (empty list, empty string, value-not-present). Debuggers. Bit fields. Implicit conversion operators (e.g. Scala's implicits). Sixty-pass compilers. Whole-namespace imports. Thread-local variables. Value dispatch. Arity-based function overloading. Mixed-type collections. API compatibility modes. Advice and AOP. Convention in preference to explicit configuration.
Centrist Stuff that Becomes Conservative If Taken Far Enough: Type modeling. Relational modeling. Object modeling. Interface modeling. Functional (i.e., side-effect-free) programming.
Centrist Stuff that Becomes Liberal if Taken Far Enough: Dynamic class loading and dynamic code loading. Virtual method dispatch. Buffer-oriented programming.
Woah, that exercise was surprisingly fun! It's far from complete, but hopefully you get the idea.
Some natural themes arise here:
-- implicit is generally liberal; explicit is generally conservative.
-- performance-oriented is generally conservative; late-optimized is generally liberal.
-- compile-time binding is generally conservative; runtime/late binding is generally liberal.
-- concurrency and parallelism in general seem to be politically charged topics, but the disagreement is orthogonal to the liberal/conservative camps.
I'd love to keep going with the classification. But I'll stop here, since we've got higher-level stuff to discuss.
Examples and Case Studies
I'll walk you through a bunch of examples to show you how just widespread and deep-rooted this political phenomenon is.
Example 1: Languages
Here are some very rough categorizations. Note that within each language camp there are typically liberal and conservative sub-camps. But as a whole, language usage tends to be dominated by what the language makes possible (and easy), so the culture tends to follow the features.
This list is just a few representative examples to give you the flavor. I'm only listing general-purpose languages here, since DSLs and query languages are typically feature-restricted enough to be hard to categorize.
Assembly language: Batshit liberal.
Perl, Ruby, PHP, shell-script: Extremist liberal.
JavaScript, Visual Basic, Lua: Hardcore liberal.
Python, Common Lisp, Smalltalk/Squeak: Liberal.
C, Objective-C, Scheme: Moderate-liberal.
C++, Java, C#, D, Go: Moderate-conservative.
Clojure, Erlang, Pascal: Conservative.
Scala, Ada, OCaml, Eiffel: Hardcore conservative.
Haskell, SML: Extremist conservative.
These are my own categorizations based on my own personal experiences with these languages and their respective communities. Your mileage may vary. However, I'd be quite surprised if you chose to move any of these languages more than a step or two away from where I've positioned it.
One thing that jumps out is that a language doesn't have to be statically-typed or even strongly-typed in order to be conservative overall. More on that in a bit.
The next thing you might notice from the list is that the liberal and moderate languages are all pretty popular, and that popularity declines sharply as languages head into conservative territory.
I think this has a simple explanation: It's possible to write in a liberal language with a conservative accent, but it's very hard (and worse, discouraged) to write in a conservative language with a liberal accent.
For instance, it's straightforward to write JavaScript code in a way that eschews reflection, eval, most automatic type casting, prototype inheritance, and other dynamic features. You can write JavaScript that plods along as unadventurously as, say, Pascal. It doesn't have all the static type annotations, but you can replace them with assertions and unit tests and stereotypically stolid code organization.
But if you try writing your Haskell code with a bunch of dynamic features, well, you're in for a LOT of work. Haskell enthusiasts have managed to implement dynamic code loading and a ton of other ostensibly dynamic features, but it was only through herculean effort.
What's more, if you write your liberal-language code in a conservative way, people will just look at it and say: "Well, it's kinda boring, and you could have saved a lot of coding by using some dynamic features. But I guess it gets the job done. LGTM."
Whereas if you write your conservative-language code in a liberal way, you run the risk of being ostracized by your local language community, because... why are you doing all that dangerous dynamic stuff in the first place? I'll explore this cultural phenomenon further when I talk about Clojure below.
The last big, interesting observation from the list is that a lot of the most popular languages out there are only moderately conservative -- even if they think of themselves as quite conservative compared to their ultra-dynamic cousins.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating here: the reason C++, C# and Java have been particularly successful in the marketplace is that -- just like effective politicians -- they know how to play both sides.
C++ allows liberal-biased programmers to program in straight C, and it allows conservative-biased programmers to layer in arbitrary amounts of static type modeling, depending on how much work they want to expend in order to feel secure. Java? Pretty much the same story.
Playing to both the fast-and-loose and lock-your-doors mindsets has proven to be a key ingredient to market success. Also marketing, but it helps a LOT to be viewed as philosophically friendly by both the liberal and conservative camps.
There is a new crop of languages on the horizon (for instance, Google's Dart language, but also new specs for EcmaScript) that are deliberately courting the centrist crowd -- and also delicately playing to grab both the liberals and conservatives -- by offering optional static types. In principle this is a sound idea. In practice I think it will come down to whether the marketing is any good. Which it probably won't be.
Language designers always seem to underestimate the importance of marketing!
Example 2: Tech corporations
Just for fun, let's contrast four similar-ish tech companies in their software-political outlook.
1) Facebook -- Diagnosis: Extremist Liberal. Despite their scale, they are still acting like a startup, and so far they've been getting away with it. They use primarily C++ and PHP, and they're prone to bragging about how their code calls back and forth from PHP to C++ and back into PHP, presumably bottoming out somewhere. Their datastore is memcached: just name-value pairs. No schema. They dump the data and logs into a backend Hive store and run Hadoop mapreduces for offline data analysis. They still hold all-night hackathons every other week or so, which will remain feasible for them as long as the majority of their programmers are very young males (as was the case last time I toured there) and their stock continues to promise great riches (as was not so much the case last I checked.) As a company they are tightly knit and strongly biased for action, placing a high value on the ability of individual programmers to launch features to their website with little to no bureaucracy or overhead. This is pretty remarkable for a company as big as they are, with as many users as they have. Conservatives no doubt regard them with something between horror and contempt. But Facebook is proving that programmers of any world-view can get a hell of a lot accomplished when they gang up on a problem.
2) Amazon.com -- Diagnosis: Liberal. Which is surprising, given how long they've been in business, how much money is at stake, how mature their Operations division is, and how financially conservative they are. But "Liberal" is actually quite a retreat compared to their early days. Back in 1998-1999 they were almost exactly like Facebook is today, with the sole exception that they put everything in relational databases and did a ton of up-front relational data modeling. Well, except in Customer Service Apps, where we used a name/value store just to be flexible enough to keep up with the mad chaotic scramble of the business launches. All part of my multi-decade indoctrination as a Liberal. In any case, despite many corporate improvements with respect to work-life balance (which happened after several stock plunges and years of significant double-digit turnover in engineering), Amazon has retained its liberal, startup-like engineering core values. Every team owns their own data and makes their own decisions, more or less like independent business units. Amazon still launches and executes faster than just about anyone else out there, because they're still willing to take real risks (incurring occasional huge outages), and to make hard decisions in favor of launching early and often. Above all else, Amazon has proven conclusively that after fifteen years, they can still innovate like nobody else. They've still got it.
3) Google -- Diagnosis: Conservative. They began life as slightly liberal and have grown more conservative ever since. Google was only software-liberal in the very very early days, back when the search engine itself was written in Python. As they grew, they quickly acquired a software conservatism driven entirely by the engineers themselves. Manifestos were written about the dangers of using multiple languages, and strict style guides were put in place to severely limit "risky" or "hard to read" language features of the few languages they did allow. Google's JavaScript code is written in an extremely conservative style with extensive static type annotations, and eval is forbidden. The Python style guide forbids metaprogramming and other dynamic features, which makes their Python look a lot like untyped Java. And they have severely limited the use of many C++ language features, with C++11 support rolling out literally one feature every few weeks. (There are over five hundred new features in C++11.) In internal surveys, Google engineers commonly cite bureaucracy, churn and complexity as core obstacles to feature advancement and rapid launches. Google has made serious attempts on several occasions to reduce this bureacracy, but they always get pushback from -- surprise -- the engineers themselves, who have grown so staunchly conservative that they actively (and even more often, passively) resist the introduction of more flexible stacks and technologies. Most of the major technological shifts within Google over the past half-decade have been overtly conservative. For a liberal like me, it has been a very sad process to observe. But at least I've found myself a niche that's widely regarded (by both camps) as valuable, and within my own org we can still be pretty liberal and get away with it.
4) Microsoft -- Diagnosis: Batshit Conservative. Microsoft has two geese that lay golden eggs: Office and Windows. Microsoft has been reduced to a commercial farmer protecting the geese from all incursions. The golden eggs still have value, because customers are locked into the platform by the cost-ineffectiveness of retraining their fleets. But Microsoft can no longer innovate in Office or Windows precisely because of those corporate fleet retraining costs. Their OEMs are stretched as thin as they can go. Apple is dominating the handheld markets, and Microsoft is actively stifling their own innovation in Windows Phone because they're afraid it will cannibalize their core Windows business. Microsoft has not had a successful product-level innovation in fifteen, maybe twenty years. All of their successful products have been copies of competitors' products: IE, XBox, C#, .NET, Bing, Windows Phone, and so on ad infinitum. All great implementations of someone else's ideas. Microsoft's playbook is to embrace, extend, and leverage their brand to crush the competition -- or at least it was, until the goverment put an end to that circa 2002. Now the company genuinely doesn't know what the fuck to do with themselves, and what's more, instead of Bill Gates they now have a lunatic in charge. Employees are leaving in droves, all citing the same internal "existential crisis" and unbearable corporate politics caused by competing business units actively sabotaging one another. Microsoft has turned into a caricature of right-wing corporatism: sitting on their front porch with a shotgun cursing at passers-by, waiting for their government bribes to give them another few years of subsidies and shelters while they wait to die. I've personally chatted with close to four hundred current and ex-Microsoft employees over the past seven years. Oh, the stories I could tell you... someday, maybe.
5) Bonus company: Apple. Diagnosis: no idea, but they're so good at marketing that it's almost irrelevant. Would love to have more insight into their internal software culture, though. Any takers? Throwaway accounts? AMA?
OK, that was a fun exercise too. But we need to move on! Almost done now.
Specific Case Study: The Clojure Language
I've been meaning to follow up on Clojure for a while now. Over a year, at least. But until recently I didn't have the conceptual tools to explain what I wanted to say about it.
Now I do!
Clojure is a new-ish Lisp dialect that runs on the JVM and .NET, and I was honored to write the Foreward to "The Joy of Clojure" a while back. For a few years I had been really excited to start learning Clojure, and my initial experiences with it were quite positive.
However, I eventually learned that the Clojure community is extremely conservative. That is is pretty unusual for a Lisp dialect. Lisp is widely regarded as one of the most liberal language families in existence. And Clojure has the superficial appearance of being a laissez-faire kind of language. It is quite expressive, including a -- ahem -- liberal dose of new syntax. And it eschews static type annotations and strong type modeling in favor of a small set of highly regular, composable data types and operations -- not unlike, say, Scheme or Python.
But the resemblance to a liberal language ends there. Clojure's community came pre-populated with highly conservative programmers from the pure-functional world: basically Haskell/ML types (lots of puns today!) who happen to recognize the benefits of Lisp's tree syntax. So under its expressive covers, everything about Clojure is strongly conservative, with a core overriding bias towards protecting programmers from mistakes.
And the community follows suit. At a Clojure conference last year (or was it two years ago? time flies so fast these days...), there was a key presenter doing a talk on how Macros were basically harmful and should be avoided in modern Clojure code.
I trust that if you know anything about Lisp, your blood is basically boiling at this point. I know mine was.
But his argument is perfectly valid from the classic software-conservative's viewpoint. Macros allow you to invent domain-specific language abstractions. Those require documentation in order for users to figure out what they do, and what they mean. That means you can know Clojure and not really know enough to read someone's Clojure code without some documentation handy. Which is sort of the definition of a newbie. And there you have it. In a very real sense, conservatives fear being turned -- in the blink of an eye -- from masters into newbies by the application of macros.
It's sort of scary if you have a lot of your personal identity invested in knowing some shit. And wouldn't you know it, real-world politics conservatives are shown in study after study to be "staunch" in sticking to their world views rather than compromising. That means they have a lot of identity tied up in those views.
So while I liked a lot of what I saw in Clojure, as a hardcore software liberal I was inevitably and inexorably driven away from the language. And that's good for me, and it's good for Clojure. I mean, why should they compromise?
I think that my conceptual framework gives us an "out" -- a way to avoid being emotional about these subjects. Casting the problem as a clash between Liberalism and Conservsatism gives us the ultimate ticket for "agreeing to disagree".
Hopefully it will also help language designers and communities do a better job of targeted marketing. Right now just about every language out there makes a claim along the lines of "This language is the best choice for everybody!" But now we know that is very unlikely to be true -- or if it is, we can at least be assured that they're centrists, and they run the risk of being equally distasteful to everybody.
In the conservative/liberal framework, language designers can make more accurate, less bait-and-switchy claims; for instance: "Haskell is the best choice for every radical extremist conservative programmer!"
Well, we can work on the wording. But you get the idea.
Wrap-Up
I was thinking of going through a bunch more examples and stuff, but I see that I'm on my third (Editor's Note: fourth) glass of wine, which means my typing is about to give out any minute.
So let's wrap it up!
There's one kinda key point I wanted to get across, but didn't see a good place for it. That point is this: please do not be alarmed that I am calling you a (software) Conservative.
I worry that politically left-leaning programmers will hear the term "conservative" and will immediately associate it with all of the... uh, politically-charged connotations associated with far right-wing conservatism in the United States political arena today. You know, racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism, homophobia, warmongering, bear-shooting, that kind of thing.
I'm not saying they're bad, at least not in this essay. I'm just saying nobody in their right mind wants to be associated even remotely with those embarrassing wingnuts. See what fine-grained, nuanced distinctions three (Editor's Note: four) glasses of wine can produce? But I'm not saying their views are bad. No. Not here. I'm just observing that they're heavily politically charged viewpoints which have, for better or worse, recently come to be associated with the term "conservatism" in US politics.
So please do me a favor and try to dissociate those specific agendas and real-world political viewpoints from the generic term "Conservative", which here really just means "risk averse".
It's perfectly OK, and normal, to be a programming conservative. You don't have to shoot any bears. I would actually like to see the terms "liberal" and "conservative" to become badges of honor in the programming world. People should stand behind their beliefs. I mean, we do already, I think, so it shouldn't be much of a stretch to allow our beliefs to be given convenient labels.
Ah, me. I can see the Euphemism Treadmill rearing its ugly head already. We'll see.
Anyway, tell me what you think! I welcome any and all viewpoints and comments. Even from bears!
Special thanks to Writer's Block Syrah for reviewing this post for career suicide.
(Special Note to my fellow Googlers: Yes, I meant to post this externally. BOTH times. No, I am not the Mouth of Sauron.) | While using Google+, senior Google engineer Steve Yegge accidentally shared a post heavily criticizing the company's social networking service with the general public instead of just his co-workers, the Huffington Post reports. He described Google+ as an example of the company's "complete failure to understand platforms," calling it "a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product." But "that's not why they are successful," he added. "Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work," he wrote. "So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there's something there for everyone." In a follow-up post after he accidentally shared his rant, Yegge stressed that Google has been supportive, and hasn't made any attempt to censor him. |
Two men were killed and 29 other people were injured after their convoy that was illegally crossing from Egypt into Libya entered a minefield, a medical source said.
Mahmoud Zahran, a Health Ministry official in the northern Egyptian city of Marsa Matrouh, said an Egyptian and a Sudanese man died when their vehicle, which was travelling in a convoy with two others, hit landmines inside Libya on Sunday.
Health officials and Egypt's state news agency said all the injured were Egyptians, except for two Sudanese. Reports had earlier said the two dead were both Egyptian.
Egyptians have traditionally sought work in Libya, but the conflict that toppled Muammar Gaddafi last year forced many to leave.
A recovery in Libyan oil output to near pre-war levels is luring many back, however, at a time when Egypt's economy has been hammered by the uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak.
Egypt's state news agency said the injured were brought to a hospital in Salloum, an Egyptian town near the border.
The north coast of Egypt and Libya is littered with landmines laid during World War Two by Germany and Britain and their respective allies. [Reuters] ||||| TRIPOLI Remnants of forces still loyal to Muammar Gaddafi staged a desperate stand in Tripoli on Tuesday as rebels fought their way into the capital, but the whereabouts of the veteran leader was a mystery.
World leaders urged Gaddafi, 69, to surrender to prevent more bloodshed and appealed for an orderly transition of power, as the six-month-old battle for control of the oil-producing North African nation appeared to enter its final stages.
Rebels say they are now in control of most of Tripoli, a sprawling coastal city of two million people on the Mediterranean Sea, but it was not clear whether Gaddafi was still in the Libyan capital.
Rebels swept into Tripoli two days ago in tandem with an uprising within the city. Reuters reporters saw firefights and clashes with heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft guns, as rebels tried to flush out snipers and pockets of resistance.
Hundreds seem to have been killed or wounded since Saturday. But Gaddafi tanks and sharpshooters appeared to hold only small areas, mainly around Gaddafi's heavily fortified Bab al-Aziziyah compound in central Tripoli.
Civilians, who had mobbed the streets on Sunday to cheer the end of dictatorship, stayed indoors as machinegun fire and explosions punctuated some of the heaviest fighting of the Arab Spring uprisings that have been reshaping the Middle East.
U.S. President Barack Obama, saying the conflict was not over yet, cautioned rebels against exacting revenge for Gaddafi's brutal rule. "True justice will not come from reprisals and violence," he said.
The president also made plain that the United States would oppose any group within the loose coalition of rebels from imposing its power over other parts of Libyan society.
"Above all we will call for an inclusive transition that leads to a democratic Libya," Obama said.
In an audio broadcast on Sunday before state TV went off the air, Gaddafi said he would stay in Tripoli "until the end." There has been speculation, however, he might seek refuge in his home region around Sirte, or abroad.
In a sign Gaddafi allies were still determined to fight, NATO said government forces fired three Scud-type missiles from the area of Sirte toward the rebel-held city of Misrata.
Bab al-Aziziyah, a huge complex where some believe Gaddafi might be hiding, was the focal point of fighting in Tripoli.
NATO warplanes bombed the compound in the early hours of Tuesday, al-Arabiya television reported citing rebel sources.
"I don't imagine the Bab al-Aziziyah compound will fall easily and I imagine there will be a fierce fight," Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the rebel National Transitional Council, said in an interview aired by Al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera television, quoting its correspondent, said violent clashes were also reported near the oil town of Brega.
Rebels said they held three of Gaddafi's sons, including his heir apparent Seif al-Islam. Al-Jazeera TV said that one of them, Mohammed, had escaped, adding that the body of another son, military commander Khamis, might have been found along with that of powerful intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi.
FEARS OF REPRISAL, REVENGE
Western powers are concerned that tribal, ethnic and political divisions among the diverse armed groups opposed to Gaddafi could lead to the kind of blood-letting seen in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
In a move that could ease tensions, a rebel official in the eastern city of Benghazi said, however, that efforts were under way to make contact with authorities hitherto loyal to Gaddafi.
Foreign governments which had hesitated to take sides, among them Gaddafi's Arab neighbors, Russia and China also made clear his four decades of absolute power were over.
A U.S. State Department spokeswoman said Libyans claiming to represent Gaddafi were making "more desperate" efforts to negotiate with the United States in the last 24 to 48 hours.
Washington did not take any of them seriously because they did not indicate Gaddafi's willingness to step down, she added.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who took an early gamble on the rebels and may now reap diplomatic benefits, called on the Gaddafi loyalists "to turn their back on the criminal and cynical blindness of their leader by immediately ceasing fire."
Late on Monday, Sarkozy spoke to Britain's David Cameron by telephone about the Libya situation, according to a press release from the French presidential palace.
"They both agreed to pursue efforts in supporting the legitimate Libyan authorities as long as Colonel Gaddafi refuses to surrender arms," the statement read. Paris has offered to host a summit on Libya soon.
Cameron also spoke to Obama on Monday night.
GADDAFI'S WHEREABOUTS A MYSTERY
Gaddafi's whereabouts remained a mystery as rebels streamed into his former stronghold of Tripoli. He has not been seen in public since mid-June.
In Iraq's case in 2003, Saddam managed to slip away from Baghdad and hide from U.S. forces in Iraq for eight months.
It was less clear that Gaddafi, unsure of loyalty even among his own tribe, could find refuge. However, he has had access to vast wealth and his Bab al-Aziziyah compound in Tripoli covers a network of blastproof tunnels and bunkers which are assumed to include escape routes.
Western leaders reiterated their refusal to commit military forces to peacekeeping in Libya, which could mean tackling rearguard loyalists using urban guerrilla tactics.
NATO has backed the revolt with air power but eschewed the ground combat that cost U.S. lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Britain's International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell told the BBC there was no possibility of British military involvement being expanded in Libya.
"We do not see any circumstances in which British troops would be deployed on the ground in Libya," he said.
But some governments have had civilian advisers in Benghazi for months, and the swift military advance of recent days revived questions about the shadowy role of foreign special forces on the ground.
First signs emerged of moves to begin restoring oil production that has been the foundation of the economy and a source of hope for Libya's six million, mostly poor, people. Staff from Italy's Eni arrived to look into restarting facilities, said Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.
Italy, Libya's nearest European neighbor and the colonial power until World War Two, is a big customer for Libyan energy. But it will face stiff competition from others seeking a share of Libya's wealth -- a competition some fear could test the ability of untried rebel leaders to hold the country together.
(Reporting by Peter Graff in western Libya, Robert Birsel in Benghazi, William Maclean in London, Hamid Ould Ahmed and Christian Lowe in Algiers, Souhail Karam in Rabat, Richard Valdmanis and Giles Elgood in Tunis, Laura MacInnis and Alister Bull in Oak Bluffs, Mass., Editing by Maria Golovnina) ||||| Mustafa Saad, 5, holds a pre-Moammar Gadhafi flag during celebrations of the capture in Tripoli of his son and one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, at the rebel-held town of Benghazi, Libya, early Monday,... (Associated Press)
NATO will continue its combat air patrols over Libya until all pro-Gadhafi forces surrender or return to barracks, officials said Monday.
Moammar Gadhafi must step down immediately in order to save lives and allow for a peaceful transition, said a NATO official who could not be identified under standing rules.
NATO has demanded that all regime troops return to barracks as a condition for the airstrikes to end.
"In the meantime, NATO aircraft will continue to protect the civilian population as mandated by the United Nations," the official said.
Earlier, NATO's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the regime is "clearly crumbling."
NATO will continue to monitor Gadhafi's military units and will engage them if they make any threatening moves, Fogh Rasmussen said.
NATO warplanes have flown nearly 20,000 sorties in the past five months, including about 7,500 strike attacks against Gadhafi's forces.
The jets have hit at least 40 targets in and around Tripoli in the past two days. This was the highest number on a single geographic location since the bombing started more than five months ago, officials said.
The rapid rebel advance into Tripoli offers NATO the chance to quickly bring to a conclusion a campaign that has drawn increasing international criticism and caused serious rifts within the alliance.
NATO officials deny there has been a fundamental shift in tactics in recent days to provide close air support to the advancing rebels, saying they continue to be focused on the protection of civilian populations as mandated by the U.N. Security Council.
But they acknowledge that in response to new developments, alliance bombers have been pummeling Gadhafi's troops holding defensive positions even when they were only trying to stem the progress of the rebels.
Alliance's military planners have been racing against a deadline next month, when member states must vote on a second three-month extension of the mission. The bombing campaign has been criticized as detracting resources from NATO's main mission, the 10-year war in Afghanistan.
Also in September, the U.N. General Assembly is due to debate the airstrikes, with many members critical of NATO for overstepping the original U.N. mandate in March, which only authorized a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians caught up in the civil unrest. ||||| (CNN) -- Rebel leaders said early Monday that they had captured three of embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's sons -- Saif al-Islam, Saadi and Mohammed -- during their siege of Tripoli.
"As for the other four sons, we think they are either hiding or they have run away," said Guma El-Gamaty, the Britain-based coordinator for Libya's Transitional National Council.
The latest arrest was that of Mohammad Gadhafi, whom the rebels claimed was being confined to his house.
"I'm being attacked right now. This is gunfire inside my house. They are inside my house," a man who identified himself as Mohammed Gadhafi told Al Jazeera in a phone call.
A barrage of gunfire was then heard and the phone cut off.
Later, the head of the Transitional National Council told the station that Mohammed Gadhafi was not harmed.
Earlier, rebel leaders said they captured Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, a top official in his father's regime. Another of Gadhafi's sons, Saadi Gadhafi, was also in custody, the rebels announced.
The International Criminal Court says it plans to negotiate the transfer of Saif Gadhafi who -- along with his father -- is wanted for crimes against humanity in connection with their attempts to put down the emerging revolt against Gadhafi's four-decade rule in February.
The court, based in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a similar warrant for Abdullah al-Sanussi, the elder Gadhafi's brother-in-law and Libya's intelligence chief.
The third son detained is Saadi Gadhafi, a businessman and onetime professional soccer player. He helped set up an April CNN interview with a woman who claimed she'd been raped by government troops. He later told CNN that those behind the attack should be prosecuted.
Ali Suleiman Aujali, the Libyan Transitional National Council ambassador to the United States, told CNN early Monday he believes the Libyan people should decide whether to hand over the sons to the ICC.
"I believe the choice for the Libyan people they have the rights, you know, what they want to do with them," he said.
Aujali said the decision will be made at a later date. "It's very difficult to say at the present time," he said.
There was no immediate reaction from Libyan government officials to the reports of the three sons' arrests. The whereabouts of Moammar Gadhafi was also unknown. ||||| “At the same time,” the diplomat said, “the learning curve for the rebels, with training and equipping, was increasing. What we’ve seen in the past two or three weeks is these two curves have crossed.”
Through Saturday, NATO and its allies had flown 7,459 strike missions, or sorties, attacking thousands of targets, from individual rocket launchers to major military headquarters. The cumulative effect not only destroyed Libya’s military infrastructure but also greatly diminished the ability of Colonel Qaddafi’s commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations.
On Saturday, the last day NATO reported its strikes, the alliance flew only 39 sorties against 29 targets, 22 of them in Tripoli. In the weeks after the initial bombardments in March, by contrast, the allies routinely flew 60 or more sorties a day.
“NATO got smarter,” said Frederic Wehrey, a senior policy analyst with the RAND Corporation who follows Libya closely. “The strikes were better controlled. There was better coordination in avoiding collateral damage.” The rebels, while ill-trained and poorly organized even now, made the most of NATO’s direct and indirect support, becoming more effective in selecting targets and transmitting their location, using technology provided by individual NATO allies, to NATO’s targeting team in Italy.
“The rebels certainly have our phone number,” the diplomat said. “We have a much better picture of what’s happening on the ground.”
Rebel leaders in the west credited NATO with thwarting an attempt on Sunday by Qaddafi loyalists to reclaim Zawiyah with a flank assault on the city.
Administration officials greeted the developments with guarded elation that the overthrow of a reviled dictator would vindicate the demands for democracy that have swept the Arab world.
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.
A State Department’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said that President Obama, who was vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard, and other senior American officials were following events closely.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Privately, many officials cautioned that it could still be several days or weeks before Libya’s military collapses or Colonel Qaddafi and his inner circle abandon the fight. As Saddam Hussein and his sons did in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003, the Libyan leader could hold on and lead an insurgency from hiding even after the capital fell, the officials said.
“Trying to predict what this guy is going to do is very, very difficult,” a senior American military officer said.
A senior administration official said the United States had evidence that other members of Colonel Qaddafi’s inner circle were negotiating their own exits, but there was no reliable information on the whereabouts or state of mind of Colonel Qaddafi. Audio recordings released by Colonel Qaddafi on Sunday night, which expressed defiance, were of limited use in discerning his circumstances.
Even if Colonel Qaddafi were to be deposed, there is no clear plan for political succession or maintaining security in the country. “The leaders I’ve talked to do not have a clear understanding how this will all play out,” said the senior officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to maintain diplomatic relationships.
The United States is already laying plans for a post-Qaddafi Libya. Jeffrey D. Feltman, an assistant secretary of state, was in Benghazi over the weekend for meetings with the rebels’ political leadership about overseeing a stable, democratic transition. A senior administration official said that the United States wanted to reinforce the message of rebel leaders that they seek an inclusive transition that would bring together all the segments of Libyan society.
“Even as we welcome the fact that Qaddafi’s days are numbered and we want to see him go as quickly as possible, we also want to send a message that the goal should be the protection of civilians,” the official said.
The administration was making arrangements to bring increased medical supplies and other humanitarian aid into Libya.
With widespread gunfire in the streets of Tripoli, Human Rights Watch cautioned NATO to take measures to guard against the kind of bloody acts of vengeance, looting and other violence that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government.
“Everyone should be ready for the prospect of a very quick, chaotic transition,” said Tom Malinowski, the director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. | Tripoli is largely in rebel hands today, but NATO vowed to keep sending out air patrols—and possibly launching strikes—until all of Moammar Gadhafi’s troops have surrendered or returned to their barracks. NATO’s secretary-general told the AP that Gadhafi’s regime is “clearly crumbling,” but said NATO would strike any military units making threatening moves. At this point Gadhafi’s forces are putting up scattered resistance with tanks and snipers, according to Reuters. Rebels have confirmed that three of Gadhafi’s sons have been captured, CNN reports—the latest, Mohammad Gadhafi, was on the phone with Al Jazeera when he was taken (see video). Top rebel commanders in the city are already organizing security, telling Al Jazeera that they’ll work with locals, “except for those who were very close to Gadhafi.” NATO is largely to thank for the rebel victory, according to the New York Times; in recent weeks it has offered rebels increasingly precise targeting, and launched strikes on Gadhafi forces even when it was in defensive positions. |
Easy omelet
Combine eggs, chives and reduced fat cheddar cheese into a quick breakfast that can provide you with a foundation for the day. You may also consider adding veggies, such as spinach or asparagus. (Getty Images)
Bran flakes
Breakfast needn’t be complicated. Pour a bowl of bran flakes or shredded wheat, douse in low-fat milk and top with blueberries or sliced peaches to sweeten without added sugar. (Getty Images)
Chicken salad sandwich
Between two slices of whole-wheat bread, and paired with lettuce and tomato, unsalted chicken salad topped with regular Dijon mustard can satisfy without leading to a post-lunch afternoon slump. (Getty Images)
Minestrone soup
From tomatoes to diced carrots and chopped celery, plus red kidney beans or chickpeas – this hearty garden in a bowl, which also includes pasta, will satisfy any lunchtime craving. (Getty Images)
Yogurt
For a quick snack on the run, grab a nonfat yogurt with no added sugar – for the healthiest option and more protein, choose plain Greek yogurt – and add fruit for sweetness. (Getty Images)
Salad with chicken and berries
For a green and lean dinner, try a leafy salad topped with grilled chicken and strawberries. Dress lightly with oil and vinegar or your favorite vinaigrette dressing. (Getty Images)
Asian pork tenderloin
Spice it up with this traditional dish featuring roasted pork that incorporates sesame seeds coriander, minced onion and other savory flavoring. Pair with steamed peas. (Getty Images)
Spaghetti squash with meat sauce
Although DASH isn't a low-carb diet, you might still like to enjoy a spaghetti dinner without all of the carbs and calories. For a lighter alternative, try spaghetti squash topped with meat sauce. (Getty Images)
Apples with cottage cheese dip
You don't have to wait until midnight for a snack. Slice up some apples and grab a small bowl of fat-free cream cheese, then add orange juice, peanuts, vanilla and brown sugar for a tasty treat whether it's midmorning or late in the afternoon. (Getty Images)
Tuna salad on a bed of lettuce
Tuna is a healthy lunch or dinner choice that can be used in a wide variety of dishes. A tuna salad on top a bed of lettuce is one option that is a delicious source of protein and vitamins. (Getty Images)
Vegetable kabobs
If you're looking for a vegetarian-friendly dish, throw together some vegetable kabobs. Great for parties or a night at home, these can be made on a grill or in an oven. (Getty Images)
Strawberry banana smoothie with soy milk
A strawberry banana soy smoothie is a great snack for any time of the day, whether you're running out the door in the morning or just finishing your afternoon workout. (Getty Images) ||||| (Getty Images) What is Mediterranean Diet? This diet has been reviewed by U.S. News' team of expert panelists. Learn more » Balanced These diets fall within accepted ranges for the amount of protein, carbs, fat and other nutrients they provide. Pros & Cons Nutritionally sound
Diverse foods and flavors
Lots of grunt work
Moderately pricey It's generally accepted that the folks in countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea live longer and suffer less than most Americans from cancer and cardiovascular ailments. The not-so-surprising secret is an active lifestyle, weight control, and a diet low in red meat, sugar and saturated fat and high in produce, nuts and other healthful foods. The Mediterranean Diet may offer a host of health benefits, including weight loss, heart and brain health, cancer prevention, and diabetes prevention and control. By following the Mediterranean Diet, you could also keep that weight off while avoiding chronic disease. There isn't "a" Mediterranean diet. Greeks eat differently from Italians, who eat differently from the French and Spanish. But they share many of the same principles. Working with the Harvard School of Public Health, Oldways, a nonprofit food think tank in Boston, developed a consumer-friendly Mediterranean diet pyramid that offers guidelines on how to fill your plate – and maybe wineglass – the Mediterranean way.
How does Mediterranean Diet work? Do's & Don'ts Do: Load up on whole grains and veggies. Because this is an eating pattern – not a structured diet – you're on your own to figure out how many calories you should eat to lose or maintain your weight, what you'll do to stay active and how you'll shape your Mediterranean menu. The Mediterranean diet pyramid should help get you started. The pyramid emphasizes eating fruits, veggies, whole grains, beans, nuts, legumes, olive oil, and flavorful herbs and spices; fish and seafood at least a couple of times a week; and poultry, eggs, cheese and yogurt in moderation, while saving sweets and red meat for special occasions. Top it off with a splash of red wine (if you want), remember to stay physically active and you're set. While certainly not required, a glass a day for women and two a day for men is fine if your doctor says so. Red wine has gotten a boost because it contains resveratrol, a compound that seems to add years to life – but you'd have to drink hundreds or thousands of glasses to get enough resveratrol to possibly make a difference. Do's & Don'ts Do's & Don'ts Do: Load up on whole grains and veggies.
What Can I Eat? x of x | Full Screen Buckwheat pancakes
Top a small stack with sliced bananas or a cup of blueberries, and drizzle on a couple tablespoons of light maple syrup. (Getty Images) Greek yogurt
Add strawberries or raspberries and a teaspoon of honey to sweeten. To make it a more complete breakfast, this can be paired with a slice of whole-grain toast "buttered" with smashed avocado. (Getty Images) Mediterranean pasta salad
Get your carb fix without guilt. This lunch option combines pasta noodles tossed in extra-virgin olive oil with red peppers, sun-dried tomatoes and crumbled feta cheese. (Getty Images) Chicken souvlaki
Pocket the good stuff: chicken and veggies, in a wrap. Pair with a side of couscous to eat lunch fast or slow. (Getty Images) Roasted almonds
Grab a handful for a protein-packed snack that will keep you from loading up on sugary junk later in the day. (Getty Images) Grilled salmon
Make a mark on seafood by searing it over an open flame. Make it a meal by adding a side salad of arugula and spinach or wild greens. (Getty Images) Quinoa salad
This ancient edible source of plant-based protein can be combined with a wide array of other filling foods that spring from the dirt, from eggplant to onion. (Getty Images) Chocolate mousse
If you're in the mood for something sweet after dinner, treat yourself to a delicious chocolate mousse. The recipe calls for extra bitter dark chocolate, extra virgin olive oil, eggs, sugar, salt, orange zest and orange liqueur. (Getty Images) Steamed mussels
Try steamed mussels for a fresh seafood meal that can be prepared in about a half hour. Cook them in dry white wine for extra flavor. (iStockPhoto) Pumpkin soup
If you go crazy for all things pumpkin in the fall, "spicy pumpkin soup" is the perfect dish for an appetizer, lunch or dinner. (Getty Images) French fries
You don't have to give up french fries to eat healthy. Keep this favorite in your diet by roasting them in your oven the Mediterranean way rather than frying them. (Getty Images) Banana bread with peanuts
Make "peanut banana bread" on Sunday, and you will have an easy breakfast option or snack throughout the week. (Getty Images) x of x x of x Buckwheat pancakes
Top a small stack with sliced bananas or a cup of blueberries, and drizzle on a couple tablespoons of light maple syrup. (Getty Images) Greek yogurt
Add strawberries or raspberries and a teaspoon of honey to sweeten. To make it a more complete breakfast, this can be paired with a slice of whole-grain toast "buttered" with smashed avocado. (Getty Images) Mediterranean pasta salad
Get your carb fix without guilt. This lunch option combines pasta noodles tossed in extra-virgin olive oil with red peppers, sun-dried tomatoes and crumbled feta cheese. (Getty Images) Chicken souvlaki
Pocket the good stuff: chicken and veggies, in a wrap. Pair with a side of couscous to eat lunch fast or slow. (Getty Images) Roasted almonds
Grab a handful for a protein-packed snack that will keep you from loading up on sugary junk later in the day. (Getty Images) Grilled salmon
Make a mark on seafood by searing it over an open flame. Make it a meal by adding a side salad of arugula and spinach or wild greens. (Getty Images) Quinoa salad
This ancient edible source of plant-based protein can be combined with a wide array of other filling foods that spring from the dirt, from eggplant to onion. (Getty Images) Chocolate mousse
If you're in the mood for something sweet after dinner, treat yourself to a delicious chocolate mousse. The recipe calls for extra bitter dark chocolate, extra virgin olive oil, eggs, sugar, salt, orange zest and orange liqueur. (Getty Images) Steamed mussels
Try steamed mussels for a fresh seafood meal that can be prepared in about a half hour. Cook them in dry white wine for extra flavor. (iStockPhoto) Pumpkin soup
If you go crazy for all things pumpkin in the fall, "spicy pumpkin soup" is the perfect dish for an appetizer, lunch or dinner. (Getty Images) French fries
You don't have to give up french fries to eat healthy. Keep this favorite in your diet by roasting them in your oven the Mediterranean way rather than frying them. (Getty Images) Banana bread with peanuts
Make "peanut banana bread" on Sunday, and you will have an easy breakfast option or snack throughout the week. (Getty Images) ×
How much does Mediterranean Diet cost? The cost of the Mediterranean diet, like most aspects of the diet, depends on how you shape it. While some ingredients ( olive oil, nuts, fish and fresh produce in particular) can be expensive, you can find ways to keep the tab reasonable – especially if you're replacing red meats and meals with plant-based home cooking, some research suggests. Your shopping choices matter, too. Can't spring for the $50 bottle of wine? Grab one for $15 instead. And snag whatever veggies are on sale that day, rather than the $3-a-piece artichokes.
Will Mediterranean Diet help you lose weight? The Mediterranean diet might help you lose weight. While some people fear that eating a diet like the Mediterranean diet that is relatively rich in fats (think olive oil, olives, avocado and some cheese) will keep them fat, more and more research is suggesting the opposite is true. Of course, it depends on which aspects you adopt and how it compares to your current diet. If, for instance, you build a "calorie deficit" into your plan – eating fewer calories than your daily recommended max or burning off extra by exercising – you should shed some pounds. How quickly and whether you keep them off is up to you. Here's a look at a few studies addressing weight loss on the Mediterranean diet: A 2016 study in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology journal that analyzed data from Predimed – a five-year trial including 7,447 adults with Type 2 diabetes or at risk for cardiovascular disease who were assigned either a Mediterranean diet supplemented with olive oil, the same diet supplemented with nuts or a control diet – found that people on the Mediterranean versions added the fewest inches to their waistlines. The olive oil folks lost the most weight.
A 2010 study in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism assigned 259 overweight diabetics to one of three diets: a low-carb Mediterranean diet, a traditional Mediterranean diet or a diet based on recommendations from the American Diabetes Association. All groups were told to exercise 30 to 45 minutes at least three times per week. After a year, all groups lost weight; the traditional group lost an average of about 16 pounds while the ADA group dropped 17 pounds and the low-carb group lost 22 pounds.
Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008, assigned 322 moderately obese adults to one of three diets: calorie-restricted low-fat; calorie-restricted Mediterranean; and non-calorie-restricted low-carb. After two years, the Mediterranean group had lost an average of 9 7/10 pounds; the low-fat group, 6 4/10 pounds; and the low-carb group, 10 3/10 pounds. Although weight loss didn't differ greatly between the low-carb and Mediterranean groups, both lost appreciably more than the low-fat group did.
A 2008 analysis of 21 studies in the journal Obesity Reviews concluded the jury is still out on whether following the Mediterranean diet will lead to weight loss or a lower likelihood of being overweight or obese.
How easy is Mediterranean Diet to follow? Because Mediterranean diets don't ban entire food groups, you shouldn't have trouble complying long term. The Mediterranean diet can be convenient. When you want to cook, there's a recipe and complementary wine that'll transport you across the Atlantic. Oldways' consumer-friendly tips will make meal planning and prepping easier. And you can eat out, as long as you bring someone along to share the hefty entrees. Oldways offers numerous Mediterranean recipes, including this guide featuring meals that all cost $2 or less a serving. Otherwise, a simple Google search will turn up lots of healthy Mediterranean meal ideas. Want more inspiration? Oldways recommends the "4-Week Mediterranean Diet Menu Plan." If you eat out while following the Mediterranean diet, embrace the diet's affinity for sharing by ordering one entree for the two of you. And be sure to start with a house salad or order extra veggies a la carte to get your fill. [RELATED: 10 Ways to Stay on Track With Your Weight-Loss Goals When Life Goes Crazy] Recommended Article Recommended Article 10 Ways to Stay on Track With Your Weight-Loss Goals When Life Goes Crazy Stressed? Busy? Here’s how to keep life from sidelining your weight-loss progress. You may save time on the Mediterranean diet by cooking and storing meals ahead of time; otherwise, you'll have to hire somebody to plan, shop for and prepare your meals, if your time is more valuable than your wallet. You'll find lots of free Mediterranean diet resources on the Oldways website, including an easy-to-understand food pyramid; a printable grocery list; gender- and age-specific tips on making the Mediterranean switch; a quick-read "starter" brochure; a recipe newsletter; and even a glossary defining Mediterranean staples, from bruschetta to tapenade. Hunger shouldn't be a problem on this diet; fiber and healthy fats are filling, and you'll be eating lots of fiber-packed produce and whole grains, and cooking with satiating fats like olive oil. Nutrition experts emphasize the importance of satiety, the satisfied feeling that you've had enough. You're making everything, so if something doesn't taste good, you know who to blame. ||||| (Getty Images) What is Mayo Clinic Diet? This diet has been reviewed by U.S. News' team of expert panelists. Learn more » Balanced These diets fall within accepted ranges for the amount of protein, carbs, fat and other nutrients they provide. Pros & Cons Nutritionally sound
You shape your diet
Lots of grunt work
Somewhat pricey Weight loss and a healthier lifestyle go hand in hand on the Mayo Clinic Diet. You recalibrate your eating habits, breaking bad ones and replacing them with good ones with the help of the Mayo Clinic's unique food pyramid. The pyramid emphasizes fruits, veggies and whole grains. In general, these foods have low energy density, meaning you can eat more but take in fewer calories. Think of it this way: For about the same amount of calories you could have a quarter of a Snickersbar or about 2 cups of broccoli. By sticking with the Mayo Clinic Diet, you’re expected to shed 6 to 10 pounds in two weeks and continue losing 1 to 2 pounds weekly until you’ve hit your goal weight. In 2013, Mayo Clinic published "The Mayo Clinic Diabetes Diet," which our experts did not evaluate. A new edition of this book will be available Jan. 1, 2019. This spin on the standard eating plan is designed for people with prediabetes and Type 2 diabetes, and its advice is specific to lowering blood sugar and keeping levels stable.
How does Mayo Clinic Diet work? Do's & Don'ts Do: Raid the produce section of your supermarket. The newest (and second) edition of the "Mayo Clinic Diet" book was published in 2017. Use it, as well as the Mayo Clinic Diet website , as your guides to work your way through two parts: "Lose it!" and "Live it!" Part one focuses on 15 key habits – ones to add and ones to ditch. You don't count calories, and you can snack all you want on fruits and veggies. After two weeks, you begin part two, learning how many calories you should eat to either lose or maintain weight and where those calories should come from. No food group is completely off-limits – you're developing a pattern of healthy eating you'll follow for life. [Check out the DASH diet, which aims to help prevent and lower high blood pressure.] In "Lose it!" you'll add a healthy breakfast, lots of fruits and veggies, whole grains, healthy fats and at least 30 minutes of physical activity a day. You'll ban eating while watching TV, sugar (except what's found in fruit), snacking (except on fruits and veggies), consuming too much meat and full-fat dairy, and eating out (unless the food you order follows the rules). If you're really motivated, you'll also adopt bonus habits such as keeping food, activity and goal diaries; exercising 60 or more minutes per day; and eating natural or minimally processed "real food."
In "Live it!" you'll use what you learned in the first phase but be allowed to occasionally break the rules. You'll also calculate the number of calories you can eat while still losing a couple of pounds a week. But instead of counting the calories in every grain of (brown) rice you eat, you'll focus on servings. On a 1,400-calorie plan, for example, you're allowed four or more servings each of fruits and veggies, five servings of carbs, four of protein/dairy and three of fats. What's a serving? For fruit, it's the size of a tennis ball; for protein, no bigger than a deck of cards. Round out "Live it!" with regular physical activity and you're set for life. If you’re interested in following the Mayo Clinic Diabetes Diet, it's heavy on food that's naturally rich in nutrients and low in fat and calories, and the diet emphasizes fruits, veggies and whole grains. Recommended foods include healthy carbs (think fruit, legumes, vegetables, whole-wheat flour and wheat bran); fiber-rich foods such as nuts and beans; heart-healthy fish such as salmon, mackerel and tuna; and "good" fats, which include avocados, almonds, olives and walnuts. Foods to avoid include saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol and sodium. Do's & Don'ts Do's & Don'ts Do: Raid the produce section of your supermarket.
How much does Mayo Clinic Diet cost? Whether it's pricier than your current grocery tab depends, of course, on what you put in your cart. Fruits, veggies and whole-grain products are generally more expensive than sugary cereal, white bread and frozen pizzas. But there's no membership fee, and the diet's individualized nature gives you financial wiggle room – by making dinner from whatever produce is on sale, for example. The "Mayo Clinic Diet" book is an essential guide and should be purchased.
Will Mayo Clinic Diet help you lose weight? Most likely, Mayo Clinic Diet will help you lose weight, provided you follow the rules. Although the only research specifically evaluating the diet comes from the Mayo Clinic itself, preliminary results are promising. The principles behind it are backed by substantial research, which suggests its potential for weight loss and weight maintenance. In a 2008 pilot program of 53 obese Mayo Clinic employees who followed "Lose it!" for two weeks, average weight loss was 8 pounds. Nearly all of the 46 who finished lost 4 or more pounds, and most lost between 6 to 10 pounds. There was no control group. In general, diets rich in low-energy-dense foods have been shown to deliver weight loss, promoting fullness on fewer calories, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a study of 97 obese women, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2007, researchers randomly assigned dieters to either a low-energy-dense, low-fat diet or a low-energy-dense, low-fat diet that emphasized fruits and vegetables. After a year, both groups lost weight, and the fruits-and-vegetables dieters lost even more – 14 pounds compared with 11 pounds. More studies, particularly large controlled trials, are needed to confirm the findings.
How easy is Mayo Clinic Diet to follow? Most dieters will find the restrictive "Lose it!" phase difficult. That's why it only lasts two weeks. Once you develop your plan in "Live it!" and find no foods completely off limits, you'll be more likely to stay on the wagon. You're free to eat out, as long as you let Mayo's food pyramid direct your menu choices. Alcohol might be restricted a little more than you'd prefer. And while a slew of Mayo guides make developing your plan easier, there's just no way to avoid the grocery store and stove. Mayo's companion "The New Mayo Clinic Cookbook, Second Edition," is packed with recipe ideas. Once you understand healthy eating and serving sizes, you can scour outside recipe websites for free. Eating out is discouraged in Mayo’s "Lose it!" phase, but the fine print says you technically still can if you don't stray from the guidelines. There are no timesavers, unless you hire somebody to plan your meals, shop for them and prepare them. And you can't pay someone to exercise for you. The book provides meal planning, grocery shopping and dining out guides; a crash course in nutrition basics; and advice for staying motivated. Mayo doesn't have any book-specific resources online, but you can peruse its large database of diet-related articles . Nutrition experts emphasize the importance of satiety, the satisfied feeling that you’ve had enough. You shouldn’t feel hungry on the Mayo Clinic Diet. In part one, you can snack on unlimited veggies and fruits, and later, when you've got a calorie cap, the emphasis on low-energy-dense fruits, veggies and high-fiber whole grains should keep you feeling fuller longer. You're making everything, so if something doesn't taste good, you know who to blame. ||||| Roast beef sandwich
Meat lovers can craft a roast beef sandwich with leafy greens and a tomato. Add a half cup of pasta salad with a quarter cup of mixed vegetables and an apple for a balanced lunch. (Getty Images)
Popcorn
Need a snack? Try popcorn – but stick to two cups cooked with canola oil. (Getty Images)
Apple oatmeal
One cup of oatmeal is a delicious, heart-healthy way to start your morning. Add apple slices or your favorite fruit to sweeten. (Getty Images)
Eggs
Eggs are fine for breakfast, but limit yourself to two yolks per week on this cholesterol-friendly diet. (Egg whites and substitutes aren’t limited.) (Getty Images)
Skinless poultry
Skinless poultry is a great way to add protein to your lunch salad or dinner plate. Just remember not to eat more than five ounces per day. Consider substituting a quarter cup of cooked dry beans or peas for one ounce of meat. (Getty Images)
Vegetables
Leafy greens, cooked or raw vegetables and raw vegetable juices are great ways to get your required three to five servings of vegetables each day. Incorporate squash into your soups or make a radish salad. The choice is yours. (Getty Images)
Whole grains
Don’t shy away from healthy whole grains like English muffins for breakfast if that’s what you crave. The TLC Diet calls for six servings of bread, cereals, pasta, rice and other grains each day. Just remember to limit yourself to one teaspoon of soft margarine. (Getty Images) ||||| Egg, bacon and avocado sandwiches
Serve this ultra‐satisfying breakfast sandwich with hot sauce on the side. For less mess on the go, use whole wheat pita pockets instead. (Courtesy of Weight Watchers)
Chopped spinach salad and pear salad with sherry vinaigrette
Pomegranate seeds add a pop of color and flavor to salads. Cut back on prep work by buying them prepackaged. (Courtesy of Weight Watchers)
Classic lasagna
Dig into this gooey version of meat lasagna. It's rich and flavorful, good enough to be called a classic. (Courtesy of Weight Watchers)
Chocolate mousse espresso shots
Espresso‐spiked chocolate pudding is layered with crushed chocolate wafers in this so‐simple dessert recipe. (Courtesy of Weight Watchers)
Toast with avocado and red pepper flakes
If you usually just throw a slice of bread in the toaster for breakfast, you don't have to stop there. Spread fresh mashed avocado on top and add some red pepper flakes to transform your basic toast into a scrumptious treat. (Getty Images)
Chicken noodle soup
Chicken noodle soup isn't only for when you're sick. You can enjoy this winter favorite as a light lunch or dinner. Add frozen vegetables like peas, corn, green beans and carrots to give it a boost of flavor and vitamins. (Getty Images)
Cheeseburger with tomatoes and grilled onions
If you get a craving for a succulent burger, go ahead and grill one up using 93-percent lean ground beef. Fresh tomatoes and grilled onions make great toppings that are delicious and healthy. If you like your burger extra juicy, don't press down on the patty when you cook it. (Getty Images)
Roasted baby potatoes
Roasted baby potatoes are a great side to any meal. Cook with oregano and lemon to give them a zesty taste. (Getty Images)
Apple pie
Always a popular dessert, apple pie is a delicious option for summer cookouts, holiday dinners or just a night on the couch. For an extra touch, add a crumble made with oats, flour and sugar. (Getty Images)
Butternut squash with sage and orange
The next time you're in your local grocery store or at the farmers market, grab some butternut squash and add orange zest and fresh sage to make a yummy side dish. You can buy pre-cut butternut squash as a time-saver. (Getty Images)
Cucumber slices and dip
If you love snacking on cucumber slices, try them with a dip made from low-fat cottage cheese, sour cream, chives and black pepper for a light option. (Getty Images)
Oatmeal chocolate chip cookies
Just because you're watching your weight doesn't mean you can't enjoy fresh cookies from the oven. Oatmeal chocolate chip cookies are a baked treat you can indulge in without the guilt. (Getty Images) | Odds are, your New Year’s resolution involves losing weight. Most everyone’s does. Well good news: US News & World Report has just released its second annual diet rankings, with the top 25 diets you can jump on to get healthy. The list isn’t haphazard either—the magazine says it spent months combing medical journals, government reports, and more to compile it. Here’s the cream of the crop: DASH Diet—It was originally developed to combat high blood pressure, but DASH ranks as the best all-around balanced diet, with loads of nutritional benefits. Just don’t try it if you’ve got a salt tooth. TLC Diet—This government-endorsed diet focuses on cutting back on fat, and boasts great nutritional benefits, especially for cardiovascular health. Mayo Clinic Diet—This multi-stage diet eases you into a new eating routine, breaking your bad habits. It’s especially effective at fending off diabetes. Mediterranean Diet—This sensible dieting mindset scores big with experts thanks to its emphasis on fruits and vegetables and an overall healthy lifestyle. Weight Watchers Diet—This household name came in well ahead of the other commercial diet plans, proving both better at helping adherents lose weight and easier to follow. |
Correction: An earlier version of this story described the trajectory of a ball that is launched and is pulled down by gravity as hyperbolic instead of parabolic.
As soccer’s World Cup gets set to begin Thursday, many fans are focused on the surprising star of the last tournament: the ball. Adidas’s Jabulani ball, designed for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, was supposed to be aerodynamically superior to other soccer balls. Many players, however, complained that its flight wasn’t true. Brazilian goalie Julio Cesar called the Jabulani “terrible” and said it looked as though it had come from a grocery store. This time, the Jabulani has been retired in favor of the Adidas Brazuca, and early reviews have been positive.
But all the fuss raises an important question: What governs the flight of a soccer ball?
Of course there are the obvious factors: a player’s foot and gravity. The player’s foot applies a force to the ball, launching it forward and, usually, upward. Gravity drags the ball toward the ground. If that were all that happened, the ball would follow the parabolic trajectory that all of us studied in high school physics: up, forward and down. But there’s much more to it than that.
Drag is what makes the flight of a ball interesting. Drag is what soccer players use to add the dips and curve that fool goalkeepers, and it’s what soccer ball designers manipulate to make their inventions unique.
There are many forms of drag, but one of the more important kinds in the flight of a ball is known as pressure drag, or form drag. As the ball moves forward, the front of the ball separates air particles, which don’t immediately come back together as the ball passes. This leaves a negative pressure directly behind the ball, which slows the ball down and creates turbulence, making the flight unpredictable.
Argentina’s forward Lionel Messi drives the ball during a training session at the squad’s Buenos Aires training complex. (Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images)
Another kind of drag that affects trajectory is called skin friction drag — the interaction of air particles with the particles on the surface of the ball. The rubbing of those particles also creates turbulence. It’s of a lower magnitude than the turbulence created by pressure drag, though.
The Jabulani ball was supposed to remedy some of the unpredictability created by skin friction and pressure drag. One of its innovations was fewer panels — eight instead of the 32 on many soccer balls. Fewer panels means fewer stitches. Fewer stitches means a smoother, rounder ball. In theory, that should create less friction and reduce turbulence.
But that’s not what happened. A couple of problems caused the Jabulani to fly every which way but straight. First, even though stitches contribute to turbulence, they create a somewhat regular turbulence all around the surface of the ball. In many cases, those bumps seem to balance each other out, making the ball fly in a more predictable path. Because large surfaces on the Jabulani lacked stitches while others were rough with seams, the unbalanced turbulence created a bumpy ride between foot and goalkeeper. The engineers’ attempts to offset the stitching problem by building grooves into the ball failed to ameliorate the problem.
More important, the Jabulani dipped and swerved at different points in its flight than a normal ball. An ordinary soccer ball dips and curves the most when it is flying between 20 and 30 mph. Since a good free kick can be launched at around 70 mph, the ball spends a significant amount of its flight traveling in a predictable path, allowing the goalkeeper to get a good sense of where he can meet the ball. The Jabulani, in contrast, swerved and dipped significantly between 45 and 50 mph, according to NASA scientists who examined the problem. This is a critical period for a goalkeeper. If the ball isn’t flying predictably in this speed range, there is a good chance he will position himself at the wrong place.
The Brazuca has only six panels, but the initial laboratory tests suggest that it flies truer than its predecessor. The key innovation appears to be an intentional roughing of the ball’s surface. The Brazuca is covered with little polyurethane nubs that imitate the effect that stitches create on a traditional 32-panel ball. They are there to even out turbulence, cutting down on what experts refer to as knuckleballing. They can be compared to the dimples that help a golf ball fly straight. The Brazuca’s designers also changed the layout of the panels, which distributed the seams differently, further smoothing the flight path.
More important than laboratory tests, however, will be how the players react to the ball. Anyone who watches soccer knows that the players and managers will use virtually any excuse — the referee, the weather, the playing surface, the crowd, the kickoff time — after a loss. So far, the world’s top players seem to be satisfied with the Brazuca. Argentine Lionel Messi has called the ball “great,” as has Spanish goalkeeper Iker Casillas. Of course, both players are on Adidas’s payroll. We’ll see how they feel about the ball if and when their teams exit the tournament. ||||| Drag force in the wind tunnel
The wind tunnel tests were conducted using different new soccer balls, namely, Brazuca (Adidas, six-panel), Cafusa (Adidas, 32-panel), Jabulani (Adidas, eight-panel), Teamgeist 2 (Adidas, 14-panel), and conventional (Vantaggio, Molten, 32-panel). The balls were mounted as shown in Figure 1. Two panel orientations of the soccer balls identified as orientations A and B (see Figure 2) were used for the study, and the corresponding aerodynamic properties were measured.
Figure 2: Soccer balls used for the test and their panel orientations. (a, b) Adidas Brazuca: small dimple and six panels, (c, d) Adidas Cafusa: small grip texture and 32 modified panels, (e, f) Adidas Jabulani: small ridges or protrusions and eight panels, (g, h) Adidas Teamgeist 2: small protuberances and 14 panels; (i, j) Molten Vantaggio (conventional soccer ball): smooth surface and 32 pentagonal and hexagonal panels. (Photo by S.H.). Full size image (129 KB) Previous
Figures index
Next
It was observed that the drag varied substantially with the ball type (Figure 3). The variation of the drag coefficient with the panel orientation was also significant for Cafusa and Jabulani, whereas it was relatively small for Brazuca, Teamgeist 2, and the conventional ball. The drag crisis regime, which indicates a sudden change in the drag coefficient C d , was lowest for Brazuca, followed by the conventional ball, Cafusa, Teamgeist 2, and Jabulani, in increasing order. In the case of Cafusa, C d decreased from ~0.5 to ~0.2 or less at a Reynolds number Re of 1.7 × 105 for panel orientation A, and at Re of 1.5 × 105 for panel orientation B (Figure 3b). The critical Reynolds numbers for Cafusa were ~2.9 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.14) and ~2.4 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.16) for panel orientations A and B, respectively. The critical Reynolds number for Jabulani for panel orientation B was ~3.6 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.12), which was less than the value of ~3.3 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.16) for panel orientation A. These values were less than those for the other balls (Figure 3c). The variation of the drag coefficient with the panel orientation was observed to be small for Brazuca, Teamgeist 2, and the conventional ball (Figures 3a, 3d, and 3e). The critical Reynolds numbers for Brazuca were determined to be ~2.5 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.15) and ~2.2 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.16) for panel orientations A and B, respectively. The corresponding values for Teamgeist 2 were ~3.0 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.17) and ~2.8 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.15), and those for the conventional ball were ~2.5 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.16) and ~2.8 × 105 (C d ≈ 0.17), respectively. It was further observed that the variation of the drag on Jabulani with the panel orientation was relatively substantial for Reynolds numbers in the range of 3.0 × 105–5.0 × 105.
Side and lift forces in the wind tunnel
Figure 4 shows the scatter diagrams of the lift and side forces that acted on the soccer balls. The diagrams indicate that the irregular fluctuations increased as the flow velocity was increased from 20 to 30 m·s−1. The same trend was observed when the panel orientations were changed. The change in the irregular fluctuation with increasing speed was least for Teamgeist 2 (Figures 4g-1 and 4h-1) and greatest for panel orientation A of Jabulani (Figure 4f-1). The irregular fluctuation was more prominent for the conventional ball when the flow velocity increased. The SD of the side and lift forces also increased with increasing flow velocity (Figures 4k and 4l). This trend was also observed when the panel orientation was changed. The SD of the forces was highest for Jabulani for a flow velocity of 20 m·s−1, and the irregular fluctuations were observed at the intermediate velocity. The SD of the side forces for panel orientation A of Jabulani did not increase with increasing flow velocity. Furthermore, the SD of the side and lift forces for panel orientation B of Jabulani decreased with increasing flow velocity, which was different from the cases of the other balls.
Figure 4: Scatter plots of the side and lift forces of the balls and SDs of the respective forces for each flow velocity (after 9 s). As the flow velocity increased from 20 m·s−1 (a–j) to 30 m·s−1 (a-1– j-1), the irregular fluctuations of the side and lift forces increased. The SD of the side (k) and lift (l) forces increased with increasing flow velocity. Full size image (210 KB) Previous
Figures index
Next
The correlation between the growth rates of the SD of the side and lift forces when the flow velocity was increased from 20 to 30 m·s−1 and the extended total distances of the panel bonds are shown in Figure 5. Here, the growth rate is defined as the average of the SD of the side and lift forces. The extended total distance of the panel bonds and the number of panels were as follows: 3.32 m and six panels for Brazuca, 4.47 m and 32 panels for Cafusa, 1.98 m and eight panels for Jabulani, 3.47 m and 14 panels for Teamgeist 2, and 3.84 m and 32 panels for the conventional ball. A strong correlation was observed between these parameters and the flow velocity increment (r = 0.64).
Figure 5: Correlation between the growth rate of the SD of the side and lift forces with increasing flow velocity and the extended total distance of the panel bond. Full size image (53 KB) Previous
Figures index
Next
Figure 6 shows the unsteady aerodynamic forces (side force and lift force) of each soccer ball as amplitudes in the low-frequency range (10 Hz and lower) as per Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). This tended to increase the amplitudes by approximately 2.5 Hz in most cases. In particular, panel orientation B of the Jabulani ball (Figures 6f and 6f-1) and panel orientation B of the conventional ball (Figures 6j and 6j-1) indicated greater amplitudes compared to the other soccer balls in this lower frequency region (2.5 Hz).
Figure 6: Amplitude with respect to unsteady aerodynamic forces (blue line: side force, red line: lift force) of soccer balls derived using FFT at flow speed of 30 m·s−1. (a, b) Brazuca, (c, d) Cafusa, (e, f) Jabulani, (g, h) Teamgeist 2, and (i, j) conventional ball. Full size image (151 KB) Previous
Figures index
Next
Deviations of the coordinates of the impact points
The balls were actually launched by an impact-type kick robot toward a goal net 25 m away and the points at which they hit the goal net were plotted as shown in Figure 7. The initial velocity of the launch was 30 m·s−1 and the number of ball rotations was less than 1 (no rotation). The launch was repeated 20 times for each panel orientation of each type of ball. The points of impact of Brazuca and the conventional ball were observed to be relatively stable, whereas those of the other three balls (Cafusa, Jabulani, and Teamgeist 2) varied substantially with the panel orientation. The impact of Jabulani was unstable and its trajectory varied considerably with the panel orientation (Figure 7c). The trajectories of Cafusa and Teamgeist 2 also varied significantly with the panel orientation (Figures 7b and 7d). The changes in the flight characteristics (points of impact) of Cafusa and Teamgeist 2 with the panel orientation were particularly drastic, which indicated that their panel orientation significantly affected their flight characteristics. Brazuca and the conventional ball exhibited relatively stable and regular flight trajectories compared to Cafusa, Teamgeist 2, and Jabulani, whose panel shapes varied significantly with the orientation and were characterized by relatively irregular flight trajectories. Despite Cafusa having the same number of panels (32) as the conventional ball, it exhibited a large variation in its flight trajectory with the panel orientation.
Figure 7: Comparison of the flight characteristics (points of impact) of the different balls for different panel orientations (initial launch velocity of 30 m·s−1 and angle of 15°). (a) Brazuca, (b) Cafusa, (c) Jabulani, (d) Teamgeist 2, (e) conventional ball. Full size image (84 KB) Previous
Figures index
Next
Furthermore, the standard deviations (SDs) of the impact point of Cafusa for orientations A and B were respectively 0.17 and 0.16 m in the vertical direction and 0.36 and 0.68 m in the horizontal direction. The corresponding values for Jabulani were 0.14 and 0.51 m and 0.49 and 0.43 m, those for Teamgeist 2 were 0.13 and 0.16 m and 0.22 and 0.32 m, those for the conventional ball were 0.36 and 0.19 m and 0.51 and 0.48 m, and those for Brazuca were 0.45 and 0.22 m and 0.22 and 0.20 m. Thus, the SDs of the impact point of Cafusa for panel orientation B was the highest in the horizontal direction, whereas that of Jabulani for panel orientation B was the highest in the vertical direction.
In the scatter plots of the SDs in Figure 8, the horizontal axis represents the SDs of the side and lift forces, respectively, and the vertical axis represents the horizontal and vertical SDs of the impact point of the ball on the goal, respectively. A strong correlation was observed between the SDs of the horizontal impact point and the side force (r = 0.62) (Figure 8a), and between the SDs of the vertical impact point and the lift force (r = 0.53) (Figure b). ||||| Three of the 12 soccer stadiums where Brazil will host the FIFA World Cup are still under construction. Only 1 in 3 Brazilians thinks the monthlong tournament will be good for their country’s economy. But with the kickoff only days away, at least one crucial element appears to be in good shape: the soccer ball.
So say a pair of researchers from the Institute of Health and Sports Science at the University of Tsukuba in Japan.
Video: See the Brazuca soccer ball in action A "kick robot" blasts a Brazuca soccer ball into a net in a Japanese laboratory. Each of the five balls studied was kicked 40 times. A "kick robot" blasts a Brazuca soccer ball into a net in a Japanese laboratory. Each of the five balls studied was kicked 40 times. See more videos
In a study published in the journal Scientific Reports, Sungchan Hong and Takeshi Asai analyzed the aerodynamic properties of the Brazuca, the official ball of the 2014 World Cup. After subjecting it to tests in a wind tunnel and having a robot kick it into a net 40 times, the researchers declared that the ball follows a reliable trajectory no matter which side meets a foot.
Picture a soccer ball and the image that comes to mind is probably a sphere made up of 32 smooth panels – 12 black pentagons and 20 white hexagons. But this conventional ball is oh so passe.
In the last decade, Adidas has come up with no fewer than four designs for international soccer tournaments. There was the Teamgeist 2, a 14-panel ball introduced for the 2008 Euro Cup. That was followed by the Jabulani, which has eight textured panels and debuted at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Players in the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup in Brazil used the Cafusa, which has 32 panels arranged in overlapping circles.
For this year’s World Cup, Adidas created the Brazuca. The ball has six textured panels shaped like stylized Xs.
These differences aren’t merely cosmetic. The Jabulani, for instance, was criticized by players and coaches for changing directions mid-flight.
Hong and Asai decided to put these five balls through a battery of tests to assess their performance. Though the pair weren’t the first researchers to bring scientific rigor to the job, they say their analysis is unique because it correlates the results of wind tunnel tests with actual trajectories through the air.
The wind tunnel experiments revealed that the Brazuca was tops when it came to the stability of the drag forces (or air resistance) acting on the ball. All of the balls were tested in two different orientations, and the results for the Jabulani and the Cafusa were quite different depending on which side of the ball was facing into the wind. But the plots for the Brazuca were nearly identical in both conditions.
Another set of wind tunnel tests measured the side and lift forces of the balls as their (simulated) velocity increased from 20 to 30 meters per second. (In reality, the balls remained stationary and the wind blew faster.) Once again, the Brazuca performed well (though the Teamgeist 2 was better) and the Jabulani performed poorly.
In the final set of tests, each soccer ball was struck 40 times (20 times in each of two orientations) by an “impact-type kick robot” that delivered the ball to a goal net 25 meters away. The Brazuca and the conventional ball were most likely to wind up in the same part of the net after each kick. The flights of the other balls changed quite a bit depending on which side was facing the kicking robot.
If all this analysis seems like overkill, Hong and Asai beg to differ.
“The scientific clarification of the effects of different surface shapes … of soccer balls would facilitate the learning of more efficient shooting techniques, contribute to enhanced player performance and improve physical education teaching methods in schools,” they wrote.
Asai is something of a soccer nut. Last year, he and his colleagues published a paper detailing how a goalie uses his legs to propel himself toward a ball kicked by the opposing team. He also serves as general manager of his university’s soccer club.
Asai and Hong have teamed up to study the best way to execute a “knuckleball” shot, which Cristiano Ronaldo uses to send free kicks to the back of the opposing team’s net. With the help of high-speed cameras, the researchers determined that a small angle of attack is key to success. They have also investigated the biomechanics of the hips, legs and feet that make the knuckleball possible. | In 2010, players had a big complaint about the World Cup: The ball didn't move right. The Adidas Jabulani was engineered as a theoretical improvement over your standard, 32-panel ball. With just eight panels, it had fewer stitches, and that, supposedly, meant a less-turbulent flight through the air, Brian Palmer explains in the Washington Post. But in reality, stitches actually create fairly even turbulence all over the ball, and it flies they way players expect. This year's ball, the Adidas Brazuca, has even fewer panels—just six. But it's also rough all over with bumps made from polyurethane. Like dimples on a golf ball, they should help the ball move predictably. At least two top players, Argentina's Lionel Messi and Spain's Iker Casillas, have applauded the new ball; on the other hand, they're both paid by Adidas, Palmer notes. Fortunately, researchers in Japan have also seen good results in tests of the ball, which is made up of x-shaped panels, the Los Angeles Times reports. And according to their study, the authors have "no competing financial interests." |
The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246 )—as extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-240 )—authorized most federal farm and food policies through the end of 2013. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline—a projection at a particular point in time of what future federal spending on mandatory programs would be under current law—serves as a benchmark for assessing changes. When new bills affect mandatory spending, the impact (score) is measured as a difference from the baseline. Some 2008 farm bill programs had baseline beyond the end of the farm bill, while others did not. This funding issue—and the difficult budget dynamics that it caused for developing the 2014 farm bill—was identified by the chief economist of the House Agriculture Committee in early 2009. It was mentioned in Agriculture Committee hearings beginning in 2010. From a budget perspective, programs with a continuing baseline are assumed to go on under current law, and have their own funding if policy makers want them to continue. However, 37 provisions or programs that received mandatory funding in the 2008 farm bill did not have baseline beyond the end of the farm bill and were not assumed to continue under budget rules. These programs spanned most titles of the 2008 farm bill and could have cost between $9 billion to $14 billion to extend for five years, depending on the estimation approach ( Table 1 ). These amounts were nearly 3% of the $484 billion five-year baseline available to write the 2014 farm bill, or 14% of the $100 billion five-year baseline if the nutrition title was excluded. Notable programs among this group were certain agricultural disaster programs, specialty crop research, organic research and certification, beginning/socially disadvantaged farmer programs, rural development, bioenergy, farmers market promotion, and some conservation programs. CBO develops the budget baseline under the supervision of the House and Senate Budget Committees. Normally, a program that receives mandatory funding in the last year of its authorization will be assumed to continue in the baseline as if there were no change in policy. This allows major provisions such as the farm commodity programs or nutrition assistance to be reauthorized without assuming that funding will cease or following zero-based budgeting. However, some programs may not be assumed to continue in the budget baseline beyond the end of a farm bill because: the program did not receive new mandatory budget authority during the last year of a farm bill, or the baseline during the last year of a farm bill is below a minimum $50 million scoring threshold that is needed to continue a baseline, or the Budget Committees and Agriculture Committees did not agree to give the program a baseline in the years beyond the end of the farm bill—either to reduce the program's 10-year cost at the time the farm bill was written, or to prevent it from having a continuing baseline. The enacted 2014 farm bill provides 29 of these 37 programs with new mandatory funding that totals more than $6.2 billion over the five-year period FY2014-FY2018 ( Table 1 ). A few programs even received permanent baseline for the second five years, including the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and the Rural Energy for America Program, or were incorporated into other programs. The enacted law provides more mandatory funding to more of these 37 programs than either the House or Senate proposals. The combination of House-passed farm bills ( H.R. 2642 ) would have provided about $4.9 billion of mandatory funding (over five years) to 14 of the programs. The Senate-passed farm bill ( S. 954 ) would have provided more than $4.5 billion of mandatory funding for 25 of the programs ( Table 1 ). The funding offset for these provisions comes from the larger reductions in mandatory spending in the 2014 farm bill, mostly from reductions in the farm commodities title. The one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-240 ) did not provide any additional mandatory funding for any of the 37 programs without baseline. Therefore these programs did not have any mandatory funding in FY2013. In lieu of mandatory funding, the one-year farm bill extension made numerous "authorizations of appropriations" to allow discretionary funding for FY2013, but this did not provide funding. Discretionary funding could have been provided (but was not) by the appropriations committees in the FY2013 Agriculture appropriation. The proposals in 2012 that preceded the extension, but that were not enacted, did envision funding for many of these programs ( Table B-1 ). Appendix A. Identification of Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill Without Budget Baseline After FY2012 The programs without baseline in the 2008 farm bill can be grouped in several ways: by title of the farm bill, by the degree of uncertainty in the cost, and by the duration of the use of mandatory funding. Additional details about the provision of mandatory funding for each program are provided in Table A-1 . Programs Grouped by Title of the 2008 Farm Bill Programs without baseline beyond FY2012 are spread among 12 of the 2008 farm bill's 15 titles ( Table A-1 ). The title with the most such provisions is the energy title (8), followed by conservation (5), nutrition (5), and horticulture and organic agriculture (5). The ranking among the titles is much different based on the dollar amounts that might be needed to continue the provisions in the next farm bill. The title with the largest cost to extend programs without baseline is agricultural disaster assistance ($4.8 billion to $9 billion, depending on the estimation approach), followed by conservation ($2.1 billion to $2.7 billion), energy ($1.1 billion to $1.2 billion), and research ($383 million). Programs Grouped by Degree of Cost Uncertainty Farm bill funding typically is specified as either (1) a fixed dollar amount or (2) "such sums as necessary" to operate a program under specified provisions (the "type" column in Table A-1 ). For the fixed dollar amount programs (type = "fixed"), the five-year cost to continue a provision is assumed to equal the five-year sum of the funding specified in the 2008 farm bill. Given the likelihood of a "baseline farm bill"—that is, a farm bill without additional funding to increase spending—or a farm bill facing deficit reduction, many people believe that it is unlikely that any or many of these programs could see an increase above what they received in the 2008 farm bill. Fixed-dollar funding was specified for 33 of the 37 provisions in the 2008 farm that do not have baselines beyond 2012. The total five-year amount for these 33 programs was about $2.4 billion, which is about one-fourth of the total of the provisions without baseline ( Table A-1 ). For the "such sums as necessary" programs (type = "estimated"), CBO estimates how much the provision is expected to cost. The estimated five-year cost to extend a provision was computed under two different approaches: the CBO cost estimates at the time of enactment of the 2008 farm bill, and the most recent CBO baseline projection based on more recent estimates. As with the fixed-dollar amounts, these are unofficial estimates in the absence of projections by CBO that would be based on actual proposed legislation. Presenting estimates from both approaches helps provide a range of costs and indicates where uncertainty is more apparent. Only 4 of the 37 provisions without baseline have "such sums as necessary" funding. They account for the difference in the costs between the two approaches (the two cost columns). Although fewer in number than the fixed-amount group, they account for $6.7 billion to $11.5 billion (depending on the approach), which is about 80% of the total for provisions without baseline ( Table A-1 ). In the 2008 farm bill, Congress indicated its relative priorities for programs by the tradeoff or allocation of budgetary resources among programs. If a proposal was deemed too expensive during legislative development, its parameters may have been tightened to reduce costs. After enactment, some "such sums as necessary" programs may become more expensive than first estimated. If selected for continuation, would the program continue at its current higher cost, or be redesigned in the next farm bill to cost less? Thus, which of the two approaches is better depends on whether one believes Congress would change program parameters, for example, to reduce a program that has become more expensive than initially expected, or whether Congress would continue current program provisions and pay a higher cost than in 2008. Programs Grouped by Duration of Use of Mandatory Funding In terms of the length of time that mandatory funding is used, 20 provisions in the 2008 farm bill provided mandatory funding only in the early years of the 2008 farm bill (FY2008-FY2011). These are estimated to cost $6 billion to $10 billion if they are extended in the next farm bill (depending on the approach to estimate costs). Seventeen other provisions provided mandatory funding for the entire duration of the farm bill. These are estimated to cost $3.2 billion to $3.8 billion if they are extended for five years (the "term" column in Table A-1 ). This distinction may be important for some observers because programs without full-term funding may not be prioritized as highly as programs receiving full-term funding. Some of the provisions were given short-term funding to help begin implementation or to fund a backlog of unfunded obligations. Other programs received a short-term infusion of mandatory funding and may be authorized to receive discretionary appropriations. These programs may have authority to operate for the full term of the 2008 farm bill, regardless of the duration of mandatory funding. The provisions listed with full-term funding do not have baseline either because their cost is relatively small (less than the $50 million scoring threshold in FY2012) or because the budget scoring at the time the 2008 farm bill was enacted did not assign a cost or give the program a baseline for the second five years of the scoring window (to make the bill less expensive, as discussed above in footnote 7 ). Some of these programs are pilot programs or are new programs without a large or established constituency (e.g., local and regional foreign food aid procurement, or the national clean plant network). Six of them are bioenergy programs, and five affect specialty crops or beginning and minority farmers. Others are relatively established programs, such as the wetlands reserve and grasslands reserve programs in conservation. In summary, 37 programs received mandatory funding in the 2008 farm bill, but do not have any baseline for a new farm bill because their funding stopped before FY2012, their amounts are below scoring thresholds, or they were intentionally unfunded for future years. An estimated $9 billion to $14 billion would be needed to continue these programs for five more years. Congress needed to find offsets from other sources to continue them, a difficult task in a tight budget environment. Appendix B. Status of Programs Without Baseline in the 2012 Farm Bill Extension and Proposals The one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-240 ) did not provide any additional mandatory funding for any of the 37 programs without baseline. In lieu of mandatory funding, the farm bill extension made numerous "authorizations of appropriation" to allow discretionary funding for FY2013, but this did not provide funding. Discretionary funding conceivably could have been provided by the Appropriations Committees in a supplemental appropriation, an omnibus appropriation, or the full-year FY2013 appropriation ( P.L. 113-6 ). But in the deficit reduction and sequestration budget environment, no discretionary appropriations were provided to any of these programs. The gap in mandatory funding during FY2013 for many of these programs was not necessarily intended. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees envisioned providing funding for many of these programs in the five-year farm bills that were developed in 2012 ( H.R. 6083 and S. 3240 ). The Senate 2012 farm bill, S. 3240 , would have provided more than $3.021 billion of mandatory funding over five years for 26 of the programs, and the House farm bill, H.R. 6083 , would have provided more than $2.025 billion of mandatory funding for 14 of the programs ( Table B-1 ). Even an Agriculture Committee-developed farm bill extension would have funded some of these programs in FY2013. But the enacted extension did not provide any additional mandatory funding for any of these programs. | The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246 provided mandatory funding for many programs. Some of these programs had budget baseline beyond the end of the farm bill in FY2012, while others did not. Those with continuing baseline essentially had built-in future funding if policy makers decided that the programs should continue. However, 37 programs that received mandatory funds during the 2008 farm bill were not assumed to continue from a budgetary perspective because they did not have a budgetary baseline beyond FY2012. Notable programs among this group included certain agricultural disaster assistance programs, specialty crop research, organic research and certification, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmer programs, rural development, bioenergy, farmers market promotion programs, and some conservation programs. If policy makers wanted to continue these programs in the 2014 farm bill, they needed to pay for the programs with budgetary offsets. Depending on the approach used to estimate the cost to extend the 37 programs for five years, an estimated $9 billion to $14 billion of offsets from other sources was needed. This was nearly 3% of the five-year CBO baseline used to write the 2014 farm bill (FY2014-FY2018), or 14% of the five-year baseline if the nutrition title is excluded. Finding this level of offsets sometimes was difficult in a tight budget environment, especially when many observers believed that some of the farm bill baseline would be used for deficit reduction. The enacted 2014 farm bill provides 29 of these 37 programs with new mandatory funding that totals $6.2 billion over the five-year period FY2014-FY2018. |
Google's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters (Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images)
SAN FRANCISCO — Pressure on Google is rising after British brands and media outlets started to pull their business from the company and its YouTube unit over placement of their ads next to extremist content, moves that prompted an analyst to downgrade the stock.
Late last week The Guardian and the BBC, among others, said they would halt spending to protest their advertisements being placed next to YouTube videos of white nationalists, Islamic State videos and other extremist content.
Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser said the protest from advertisers has "global repercussions."
The spending is "relatively small so far," Wieser wrote in a research report Monday. But, "we think that awareness of the incident will marginally curtail global growth this year versus prior expectations."
He downgraded Google parent company Alphabet (GOOGL) to hold from buy and reduced his price target to $950 from $970, in part due to a recent run-up in the stock. Alphabet shares fell 0.7% to $866.20. They've recently traded at an all-time high.
Google's European Union operations boss publicly apologized to advertisers over the growing crisis that forced major brands such as Marks & Spencer to drop their Google and YouTube ads. Matt Brittin, Google’s President of EMEA Business & Operations, told the Advertising Week Europe conference in London, "we take our responsibilities to these industry issues very seriously."
"We’ve made a public commitment to doing better and are making improvements in three areas: raising the bar for our ads policies; simplifying advertiser controls and adding safer defaults; and increasing investment in enforcement to act faster," he said.
But Wieser says he's not confident Google is going far enough to remedy advertiser concerns.
"The approach comes across to us as attempting to minimize the problem rather than eliminating it, which is the standard we think that many large brand advertisers expect," he wrote.
The exodus of British media outlets and advertisers follows an investigation from The Times in Britain in February that found that ads from major companies and the British government were appearing next to Islamic State videos and other extremist content. That led to the decision by Havas, the sixth-largest global media network, to suspend its advertising with Google and YouTube in the U.K. The UK government has halted its YouTube spending until the problem is resolved, according to the Financial Times.
"According to press reports, over the past few days, many of the UK’s largest brands working with agencies beyond Havas (including the UK Government, L’Oreal, RBS, HSBC, Sainsbury’s, Sky, Marks & Spencer, McDonald’s and Audi) also indicated that they would suspend their advertising on YouTube and/or other Google ad products because of identical concerns," Wieser wrote.
Guardian CEO David Pemsel said in a letter to Google that many brands feel they must place their ads on Google and YouTube given their dominant position in online advertising.
Google is only tightening its grip on advertising dollars, according to research firm eMarketer. Total digital ad spending in the U.S. will increase 16% this year to $83 billion, dominated by Google in search ads and Facebook in display and mobile ads, according to the firm's latest forecast.
"It is therefore vital that Google, DoubleClick and YouTube uphold the highest standards in terms of openness, transparency, and measures to avoid advertising fraud and misplacement in the future," Pemsel said. "It is very clear that this is not the case at the moment."
Google reviews content flagged by users. Four hundred hours of video is uploaded every minute to YouTube, Google says, making it tough to police. Some 98% of content flagged on YouTube is reviewed within 24 hours, Google says.
"We recognize that we don't always get it right," Google U.K.'s managing director Ronan Harris wrote in a blog post Friday.
He acknowledged that Google needs to "do a better job of addressing the small number of inappropriately monetized videos and content," and pledged Google would introduce new ways in coming weeks for marketers to control where their ads appear.
Related:
Why is this such a significant issue? "Brand safety" has emerged as possibly the biggest issue facing the advertising industry, Wieser says. For large marketers, even one ad placed next to extremist content can cause harm to a brand, he said.
Exacerbating the problem for Google: "A hostile industry of media owners in Europe (many of them owners of print properties which have been negatively impacted by Google’s successes in recent years)," Wieser wrote.
"We expect they will be all too happy to highlight future brand safety failings, negatively impacting brands. We think that Google will probably need to articulate goals that sound more like a zero tolerance policy, to alleviate concerns before it can fully recover," Wieser wrote.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nsNZqD ||||| (Reuters) - Google apologized on Monday for allowing ads to appear alongside offensive videos on YouTube as more high-profile firms such as Marks & Spencer (MKS.L) and HSBC (HSBA.L) pulled advertising for British markets from Google sites.
The British government has suspended its advertising on YouTube after some public sector ads appeared next to videos carrying homophobic and anti-semitic messages, prompting a flood of major companies to follow suit.
Britain is the largest market for Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google outside the United States, generating $7.8 billion mainly from advertising in 2016, or nearly 9 percent of the U.S. giant’s global revenue.
“I would like to apologize to our partners and advertisers who might have been affected by their ads appearing on controversial content,” Google EMEA President Matt Brittin said at the annual Advertising Week Europe event in London.
Besides well-known British brands pulling the plug, some of the world’s biggest advertising companies responsible for placing vast amounts of marketing material for clients, said they were reviewing how they worked with Google.
The boycott is the latest clash between advertising companies and the internet giants that have built up dominant positions in digital advertising by offering not only huge audiences but also the ability to apply their user data to make ads more targeted and relevant.
For big advertising groups such as WPP (WPP.L), internet firms are both a client and a competitor, while traditional media groups such as newspapers and general online news publishers are having to compete with them for online dollars.
HOSTILE INDUSTRY
“Google faces a hostile industry of media owners in Europe ... and we expect they will be all too happy to highlight future brand safety failings,” said Brian Wieser, a senior analyst at Pivotal Research Group.
“Overall, we think that the problems which have come to light will have global repercussions as UK marketers potentially adapt their UK policies to other markets and as marketers around the world become more aware of the problem,” he said.
WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm, said on Monday it was talking to clients and media partners such as Google, Facebook and Snapchat to find ways to prevent brands from being tarnished.
“We have always said Google, Facebook and others are media companies and have the same responsibilities as any other media company. They cannot masquerade as technology companies, particularly when they place advertisements,” said Martin Sorrell, the founder and head of the British firm.
Publicis (PUBP.PA), the world’s third largest advertising firm, said in a statement on Monday that it was clear Google had fallen short of meeting advertising standards and that the French company was reviewing its relationship with Google.
Google said on Friday it worked hard to remove ads appearing on pages or videos with hate speech, gory or offensive content but with 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute it did not always get it right.
Brittin said Google had made a commitment to doing better and would simplify advertiser controls, add safer defaults and increase investment to enforce its ad policies faster.
A spokeswoman for Google UK said it would look again at the way it defines incendiary commentary and hate speech to raise the bar on videos and sites allowed for advertising.
On Friday, Google executives were called in to face questions from the advertising industry and Britain over the issue.
A man holds his smartphone which displays the Google home page, in this picture illustration taken in Bordeaux, Southwestern France, August 22, 2016. REUTERS/Regis Duvignau
Representatives for retailers Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s (SBRY.L) and Argos, British banks HSBC and RBS (RBS.L), McDonald’s, the UK branch of advertising group Havas HAVA.PA and the BBC told Reuters their firms had stopped ads.
A source at Lloyds Banking (LLOY.L) said the lender had pulled the plug as well. Others such as Vodafone (VOD.L), Barclays (BARC.L) and Tesco (TSCO.L) were reviewing policies, their representatives said.
(This version of the story has been refiled to remove extraneous apostrophe in first paragraph) ||||| Google plans to give its advertising clients more control over where their ads appear on YouTube and the Google Display Network, which posts advertising to third-party websites.
It announced the move in a blog post from its European business after major brands pulled ads from the platform because they appeared against offensive content, such as videos promoting terrorism or anti-Semitism.
The U.K. government, the Guardian newspaper and France’s Havas (the world’s sixth-largest advertising and marketing company) pulled ads from Google and YouTube on Friday after failing to get assurances from Google that the ads wouldn’t appear next to offensive material. Havas’ clients include mobile network O2, Royal Mail Plc, the BBC, Domino’s Pizza and Hyundai Kia.
The action does not, so far, affect any clients outside the UK and has been called “a temporary move” be Havas.
The moves follow a Sunday Times investigation that revealed ads from many large companies were appearing alongside content from extremists such as white nationalist David Duke, and similar sites.
There’s a growing blowback against automatic, programmatic advertising which seemingly cannot stop mainstream brands from appearing against extremist and offensive content. The main culprit is AdX, Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange Service, which uses programmatic trading.
Martin Sorrell, the founder and chief executive officer of WPP, the global advertising firm, said in a statement that Google and Facebook have “the same responsibilities as any media company�? and can’t “masquerade�? just as simple technology platforms. Google, with YouTube and its DoubleClick ad service, as well as Facebook accounts for close to 85% of digital ad spend in the UK.
He confirmed WPP’s GroupM, which buys advertising, is in talks with Google “at the highest levels to encourage them to find answers to these brand safety issues.�?
Ronan Harris, Google’s UK managing director, said in the blog post that Google removed nearly 2 billion offensive ads from its platforms last year and also blacklisted 100,000 publishers from the company’s ad sense program, but admitted “we don’t always get it right.�?
Ads for the Guardian’s membership scheme have appeared alongside a range of extremist material after an agency acting on the media group’s behalf used Google’s AdX ad exchange. David Pemsel, the Guardian’s chief executive, wrote to Google to say that it was “completely unacceptable�? for its advertising to be misused in this way.
As special marketing site Marketingland recently pointed out, Google has been addressing fake publishers that impersonate well-known news outlets or make up clickbait headlines — it but has not been looking at misinformation, hoaxes and conspiracy theories.
Last fall, Google updated its AdSense “Misrepresentative content�? to address the problem of “fake news�?. It said it had taken 200 sites permanently off its network and blacklisted 340 sites for violations including misrepresentation. But there are 2 million AdSense publishers and many indulge in click-bait headlines, simply because users are, well, clicking on them. Google therefore profits from ads served on thousands of sites which promote propaganda, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and basic lies.
In that announcement, it was assumed Google would stop allowing ads to be served against misinformation stating that sites that were “deceptively presenting fake news articles as real�? would be in violation. But Google quietly removed its reference to “fake news�? at some point between December and January.
But Marketing Land confirmed with Google that the policy was not intended to address fake news because it doesn’t look at whether an individual article is true or not; it looks at whether the publisher is misrepresenting itself.
This means the sites built by Macedonian teenagers to capitalise on crazy stories associated with Trump, employing Adx adverts, would be in violation, because they were concealing who they really were. But the “Pizzagate�? stories about Hilary Clinton, which could well have affected the outcome of the US election, wouldn’t be flagged, even though they were made up.
Google’s advertising policy is designed to address publishers not the content itself, hence why so many extremist web sites, which are quite open and public about who they are (and therefore not misrepresenting themselves as publishers), are profiting from fake news. ||||| Google now has a full-scale advertiser revolt on its hands.
A host of British brands and governmental groups pulled their business from the search giant's platform last week after reports showed that ads were surfacing on YouTube videos from terrorists and hate-mongers.
Several more joined in over the weekend, including three of the UK's largest banks — HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Lloyds — and British department store Marks & Spencer.
SEE ALSO: Google swears ads will stop showing up in the absolute worst places
The crisis was enough to prompt ad industry analyst Brian Wieser to downgrade parent company Alphabet's stock from "buy" to "hold" on Monday.
He warned that the backlash has the potential to spill out from the UK to the rest of the world.
"We think that the problems which have come to light will have global repercussions as UK marketers potentially adapt their UK policies to other markets and as marketers around the world become more aware of the problem," Wieser wrote in a research note from his firm, Pivotal Research.
As of Monday afternoon, Alphabet stock was only down around a half a percent after trading at an all-time-high price in recent days.
The Royal Bank of Scotland isn't too keen on advertising on offensive videos. Image: AP/REX/Shutterstock
The ads in question were first uncovered through a series of investigations by The Times of London and The Guardian in recent weeks. The papers found that Google's automated systems were placing ads for major brands on videos of former KKK leader David Duke, Islamic State sympathizers and a homophobic preacher who praised the Orlando nightclub shooting, among other controversial content.
It's unclear whether these mistakes are more common in the UK, or that's simply where they're getting press attention at the moment.
But Google's head of European operations, Matt Brittin, also conceded the global scope of the issue during a public apology at the Advertising Week Europe conference on Monday, according to AdAge's report.
"This is a good opportunity for me to say sorry, this should not have happened, and we need to do better," Britten said.
Google offered another mea culpa in a blog post last Friday after the British government called a hearing with the company to determine why taxpayer-funded ads were found in such disturbing places.
Neither of the apologies offered much in the way of concrete fixes, beyond a vague promise to figure one out in the coming weeks.
Wieser cited the lack of clear direction as one of the reasons for the downgrade.
"The approach comes across to us as attempting to minimize the problem rather than eliminating it, which is the standard we think that many large brand advertisers expect," he wrote.
You can probably expect to see more hat-in-hand statements from Google this week as its execs face crowds of wary ad professionals at one of the industry's biggest conferences in London.
"This is a good opportunity for me to say sorry, this should not have happened, and we need to do better"
Google and Facebook currently have duopoly control over the online ads market. Some leading industry figures have recognized that collective force among big brands is the only way to counterbalance that power.
Leading the charge is Marc Pritchard, chief marketing officer at the world's biggest advertiser, Procter & Gamble, who's been outspoken in his criticism of the digital ads model.
"The days of giving digital a pass are over," Pritchard said in a call to arms at an Association of National Advertisers meeting in January. "It's time to grow up. It's time for action."
The boycott in the UK seems to be one of the first instances of advertisers actually following through with that sentiment.
With other long-simmering tensions between marketers and digital platforms now reaching a head — including rampant ad fraud, transparency in how ads are sold, and measurement concerns — it may be only the beginning.
| Major British advertisers wary of being associated with Nazis, Islamic radicals, and homophobic preachers have been pulling their ads from YouTube and Google. The British government joined big banks and other companies in the ad boycott in recent days after their ads appeared next to extremist content, Mashable reports. The ad placement was first highlighted by a Sunday Times report that warned the blacklist system was failing and major advertisers might be unwittingly funding hate groups. The Times' investigation found that ads from big companies were appearing next to content from former KKK leader David Duke, among others, TechCrunch reports. Google has apologized for the ad placement, which it describes as a "small number of inappropriately monetized videos and content," and promised to start giving advertisers more control over where their ads appear, USA Today reports. Advertising firm WPP says it's working on damage control with Google and other clients. "We have always said Google, Facebook, and others are media companies and have the same responsibilities as any other media company," company founder Martin Sorrell tells Reuters. "They cannot masquerade as technology companies, particularly when they place advertisements." |
Following reports on Wednesday that British police had arrested a 19-year-old suspect thought to be the spokesperson of notorious hacker group “LulzSec,” new information suggests authorities may have been duped into arresting an innocent man. According to DailyTech, a hacker by the name of “The Jester” has discovered and published chat logs that suggest “Topiary,” the hacker reportedly arrested by authorities on Wednesday, is still at large. According to the exposed chat, Sweden-born Daniel Ackerman Sandberg — the alleged real LulzSec spokesperson — recently assumed the online identity of another man in an effort to mislead authorities. Sandberg, who has reportedly changed his name numerous times, is also said to have been caught on video speaking Swedish, further suggesting that the Scottish man arrested Wednesday by British authorities was not in fact LulzSec’s spokesperson. The full alleged chat logs between Sandberg and an anonymous second party can be read below (emphasis applied by DailyTech).
[removed]: S’up Daniel
Topiary: s’appening [removed]
[removed]: You OK?
Topiary: could be better, you seen the pdf table thing with all the names I take it?
[removed]: Saw that, but you seen the thing today?
Topiary: bro I’ve been playing it off since fakegregg said something about Zelda
[removed]: ah, well, you should keep low man
Topiary: I can’t at this point, I need to just straight up deny it 100% and flaunt it everywhere
Topiary: but I trust you, you know how it is
Topiary: if I go hide then people will assume the dox are right
Topiary: so I’ll just act like they failed hard
[removed]: True that – so you need to make a big show of disproving them
Topiary: yeah well, this is my plan:
Topiary: (as you know I stole this nickname from a troll last December, didn’t work out so well)
Topiary: I’ll just keep denying it until they try to go after the troll
Topiary: then they’ll think that’s me and harass him
[removed]: then he harasses back?
Topiary: yeah but if I deny my real dox enough, people will go looking for other dox
Topiary: then nobody will believe I’m me
Topiary: and all you bastards told me my Brit voice was good, damnit
Topiary: did they get voice recognition?
[removed]: well when you talk the Swedish accent comes out a bit
[removed]: but not for a couple of minutes
Topiary: these faggots aren’t hitting the UK ni$%*r Topiary
Topiary: why aren’t they?
Topiary: I’m hoping someone will go after him and think it’s me, then I’ll act all scared etc
[removed]: then boom – you drop all the heat on him
Topiary: ANYTHING to divert attention from that fuckign nameshub
Topiary: I’m assuming they put that to Feds
Topiary: so I might be raided soon
Topiary: fucking shit
Topiary: goddamnit
[removed]: that “nameshub” thing exposed a few peopl
[removed]: have the feds any jurisdiction in Sweden?
[removed]: ohwait
[removed]: shit :/
Topiary: don’t know but I’m shitting bricks
Topiary: so I don’t know what to do
Topiary: so I’m just playing it off
Topiary: “Who the fuck is Daniel Sandberg?”, the whole story
[removed]: well, hopefully someone will go after the troll you stole the name off
Topiary: they should have already
Topiary: hoping so dude
Topiary: because I don’t want this shit
Topiary: but yeah I deleted everything recently
[removed]: rm -rf
[removed]: fuck, I hope you DBAN-ed
Topiary: I’d like to make it to the end of the month, how long do they take to raid?
Topiary: better not hit me on April fool’s day
Topiary: but yeah maybe they’ll just think backtrace is a joke and not go after me
[removed]: Well shit, how long before they raided no that time?
Topiary: not very long
Topiary: bro why haven’t you done what I did?
Topiary: find some network and steal someone’s nick
Topiary: like someone you don’t like
Topiary: then do illegal shit
Topiary: and they hit them instead
Topiary: you’re using a real name
[removed]: never thought to do it…
[removed]: I’d advise taking a hammer to your drives though
Topiary: wouldn’t that look suspicious if they come?
Topiary: maybe things just have to be normal
[removed]: hmmmm. use a guttmann pass – you know, like DBAN on crack?
[removed]: then reload windows or something
Topiary: yeah
Topiary: just hoping that they’ll take the bait
Topiary: the fucker has been using Topiary for like a year
Topiary: trolling everyone
Topiary: for no reason
Topiary: so now we troll him, hope he’s getting raided
Topiary: well whatever, we both discussed this like last year
Topiary: so…
Topiary: then I’ll stop my twitter and everything
Topiary: but it isn’t FUCKING WORKING
[removed]: make it look like they got the right guy
Topiary: yup
[removed]: it is also
Topiary: fucking tired of people adding me on Facebook
Topiary: to be honest I’m just gonna continue the Zelda casts as normal
Topiary: it would look REALLY weird if they stopped
[removed]: it shouldnt fsck with your normal life
Topiary: yeah, right, right
Topiary: agreed
Topiary: so that’s what I’ll do
Topiary: just keep it cool and carry on with it
[removed]: frame up this damn trollfaggot, and “carry on”
Topiary: hope it blows over and they start doxing Ireland fag or Scotland fag or wherever the fuck UK part he’s from
Topiary: anyway I trust you so yeah
Topiary: we can keep this between us
[removed]: Wont say a word bro
[removed]: just take care
Topiary: okay gotta go
Topiary: thanks for advic
[removed]: bye!
Read ||||| Chat logs, video evidence indicate that the arrest was the result of misdirection
I. The Arrest
II. Details Conflict
III. Chat Logs Indicate UK Police Are Being Duped
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
Topiary:
IV. Not the First Time the Police and Media Were Duped
Not long after
How convenient, it seems. The U.S. law enforcement is hungry to catch a LulzSec hacker and a low-ranking spokesperson who ran afoul of LulzSec's parent group (Anonymous) gets handed into their lap.
In the end it appears Scotland's "Topiary" met a similar fate as "Chippy1337" and "XYZ" -- arrested by authorities who were led down the wrong trail by the clever members of Anonymous and LulzSec.
Supporting evidence of this conclusion can be found in several videos [
Of course, the possibility remains that the chat log comments were just misdirection. But there's too many clues pointing in the direction of Sweden to ignore that possibility, at this point. Not long after the arrest of "Chippy1337" (real name: Ryan Cleary), yet another supposed LulzSec "official" was reported. Mr. Cleary was also former Anonymous and had helped "XYZ" publish the server logs -- and like Mr. Cavenaugh, was doxed. Now, Mr. Cleary remained close to some in Anonymous and was indeed serving as a spokesperson for LulzSec. But reportedly he had nothing to do with the actual operations.How convenient, it seems. The U.S. law enforcement is hungry to catch a LulzSec hacker and a low-ranking spokesperson who ran afoul of LulzSec's parent group (Anonymous) gets handed into their lap.In the end it appears Scotland's "Topiary" met a similar fate as "Chippy1337" and "XYZ" -- arrested by authorities who were led down the wrong trail by the clever members of Anonymous and LulzSec.Supporting evidence of this conclusion can be found in several videos [ 1 ][ 2 ][ 3 ] in which Topiary speaks in Swedish or with a Swedish accent (while a member of Anonymous). Given this and the chat logs, it appears that police have the wrong guy.Of course, the possibility remains that the chat log comments were just misdirection. But there's too many clues pointing in the direction of Sweden to ignore that possibility, at this point.
Earlier today the blogosphere lit up with news that "Topiary" a key hacker from Anonymous and LulzSec was arrested. Topiary, along with "Sabu", was viewed as a LulzSec "chief", instrumental in orchestrating the group's many sophisticated attacks. But all may not be as it seems.If the arrested man was indeed LulzSec's Topiary, he couldn't have picked a much more perfect lair. Much like a James Bond villain, the alleged hacker was arrested on a remote island -- one of the Shetland Islands, off the north coast of Britain's mainland.Police transported the 19-year-old suspect to central-London, for interrogation. Police say they're also searching for a 17-year-old related to the case in Lincolnshire, a eastern province of the mainland.Police characterized the arrest as a "pre-planned, intelligence-led operation".Topiary's Twitter account fell silent about a week ago, and many posts were deleted from it. The sole remaining post, dating to July 21, played Medger Ever's iconic quote "You can not kill an idea", stating, "You cannot arrest an idea."To add to the picture, LulzSecurity's website has been down on and off for the last few weeks, being on life-support thanks to a CloudFlare cached copy.Given these details and the UK government's insistence they had nabbed their man, the media jumped into a fervor. And the public gobbled it up, as they had long expected LulzSec's brass to be apprehended and redirected towards a local penitentiary.But this open and shut case might not be so open and shut. Last month the blog site LulzSecurityExposed supposedly "doxed" (published the real world identity of) Topiary. They claim he's changed names more times than Prince and their accounting puts him nowhere near Scotland.They write:So which is the true Topiary? The arrest 19 year old Scotland native? Or the at-large 23 year old Swede? There's more to come.London's police force are desperate for some good press. Amid the resignation of London's police chief and allegations of bribery , the arrest could be a huge victory for the department. In recent years the police have been battered by a long string of embarrassments, including an invasive camera scheme, which failed to reduce crime rates A series of chat logs published by anti-LulzSec American "hacktivist", th3j35t3r ("The Jester") indicate, however, that the department may be enmeshed in another debacle.The logs are as follows:S'up Daniels'appening [removed]You OK?could be better, you seen the pdf table thing with all the names I take it?Saw that, but you seen the thing today?bro I've been playing it off since fakegregg said something about Zeldaah, well, you should keep low manI can't at this point, I need to just straight up deny it 100% and flaunt it everywherebut I trust you, you know how it isTrue that - so you need to make a big show of disproving themyeah well, this is my plan:I'll just keep denying it until they try to go after the trollthen they'll think that's me and harass himthen he harasses back?yeah but if I deny my real dox enough, people will go looking for other doxthen nobody will believe I'm medid they get voice recognition?but not for a couple of minuteswhy aren't they?then boom - you drop all the heat on himI'm assuming they put that to Fedsso I might be raided soonfucking shitgoddamnitthat "nameshub" thing exposed a few peoplhave the feds any jurisdiction in Sweden?ohwaitshit :/don't know but I'm shitting bricksso I don't know what to doso I'm just playing it off"Who the fuck is Daniel Sandberg?", the whole storybecause I don't want this shitbut yeah I deleted everything recentlyrm -rffuck, I hope you DBAN-edI'd like to make it to the end of the month, how long do they take to raid?better not hit me on April fool's daybut yeah maybe they'll just think backtrace is a joke and not go after meWell shit, how long before they raided no that time?not very longbro why haven't you done what I did?find some network and steal someone's nicklike someone you don't likethen do illegal shitand they hit them insteadyou're using a real namenever thought to do it...I'd advise taking a hammer to your drives thoughwouldn't that look suspicious if they come?maybe things just have to be normalhmmmm. use a guttmann pass - you know, like DBAN on crack?then reload windows or somethingyeahwell whatever, we both discussed this like last yearso...then I'll stop my twitter and everythingbut it isn't FUCKING WORKINGmake it look like they got the right guyyupit is alsofucking tired of people adding me on Facebookto be honest I'm just gonna continue the Zelda casts as normalit would look REALLY weird if they stoppedit shouldnt fsck with your normal lifeyeah, right, rightagreedso that's what I'll dojust keep it cool and carry on with itframe up this damn trollfaggot, and "carry on"anyway I trust you so yeahwe can keep this between usWont say a word brojust take careokay gotta gothanks for advicbye!If the above commentary is to be believed it sounds like the UK police has fallen hook line and sinker for LulzSec and Topiary's ploy. And so did the mass media [ 1 ][ 2 ].Back on June 6, the internet lit up with reports of a LulzSec "arrest". Only, it turns out the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations appears to have been duped into arresting Robert Cavenaugh ("XYZ"), a ex-Anonymous youth who the group had doxed after he published private server logs from the group.Anonymous had it out for Mr. Cavenaugh, and thus he made the perfect fall guy for them. And best of all he had nothing to do with LulzSec, ostensibly. ||||| Hacker cat-and-mouse games are par for the course, and now some are wondering whether British police arrested the real "Topiary," a key member and spokesperson of LulzSec, which is allied with the Anonymous group of hackers. At this stage of the Internet saga, separating truth from deception is becoming as much a part of the story as the attacks on government and corporation websites.
On Thursday, the "Web Ninjas" group that has long tracked activities of both LulzSec and Anonymous, said on its website, LulzSec Exposed, they believe police "got the wrong guy and it happens because of lot of disinformation floating on (the) Web. LulzSec and Anonymous members are Master trolls and they are good at this."
Hacker subterfuge is part-and-parcel of the game, and trying to fool law enforcement and the media is always an added bonus. Some believe that some of the arrests made so far in the hunt for hackers have been erroneous, based on false leads.
So is it Topiary? We asked the experts.
"Executive summary: how the hell would we know?" Graham Cluley, of international security firm Sophos, told msnbc.com.
The senior technology consultant, who is well-versed in the world of hackers, raised the question as well in a blog post Thursday, "Topiary: Have the police arrested the right man?" After weighing the merits of the information that's out there, this is what Cluley said:
"If you ask me, is the man they arrested in the Shetland Islands is Topiary, another hacker (either working in league with Anonymous/LulzSec or opposing them), or entirely innocent ... my simple answer is I don't know."
Lulz Sec Exposed contends, "We have collected enough evidence on Topiary and everything points" to a 23-year-old Swedish man. "The voice has been matched from his Swedish Anonymous interview to other interviews."
LulzSec Exposed shares various details about Topiary at this link, including some YouTube videos of him giving interviews while representing Anonymous. You can hear for yourself whether you think the voices match.
"Two weeks back, Topiary tried to mislead us with some email conversations to make us believe that Topiary is a UK guy named Daniel Chatfield," the group said. "We didn't fall for that Troll and then he deleted all his comments on our blog." As with many twists in this story, it's not clear if this "Daniel Chatfield" even exists.
Eweek noted that "Just to muddy the waters even further, the Web Ninjas also doxed the leader of LulzSec, who goes by the name of Sabu, as a Portuguese network technician named Hugo Carvalho. However, this claim seems to be called into doubt and there is an ongoing dialogue between the Ninjas and Carvalho in which he is providing the group with proof that he is not involved with LulzSec at all."
The "Lulz" in LulzSec's name is Internet speak for michevious or malicious laughs, something the group of supposedly six members has emphasized from its hack of PBS to Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper website last week, when it posted a fake page with a story about Murdoch being found dead.
Most thought LulzSec was gone from the scene when it announced last month it was stepping back to work with Anonymous in efforts to hack government and corporate websites the group deems corrupt. The joint effort is known as "AntiSec," or anti-security.
The latest reports, about Topiary, however, raise more questions than answers.
"This open and shut case might not be so open and shut," said the Daily Tech.
Related stories:
Check out Technolog, Gadgetbox, Digital Life and In-Game on Facebook, and on Twitter, follow Suzanne Choney. | Scotland Yard says it has arrested a key member of LulzSec named Topiary, but new reports suggest that the hacker group tricked authorities into arresting an innocent man. According to this theory, Topiary assumed the guy's online identity a while back in a bid to throw off police, reports BGR. The site picks up on a report in Daily Tech that purports to have chat logs from the real Topiary explaining the ruse. Another site, LulzSec Exposed, agrees. "We believe MET Police got the wrong guy and it happens because of lot of disinformation floating on the web," says a post. "LulzSec and Anonymous members are Master trolls and they are good at this." The site says the real Topiary is a 23-year-old Swede named Daniel Sandberg, not the 19-year-old under arrest in London. Confused? MSNBC asks renowned computer safety expert Graham Cluley of Sophos whether he thought Scotland Yard got the right guy. "My simple answer is I don't know." |
WASHINGTON — Senators bade hasty goodbyes to families, donned ties and pantsuits in lieu of sweat pants and Christmas sweaters and one by one returned to the Capitol on Thursday to begin the business of doing nothing in particular.
But for once, those lawmakers were fully united, if only around their sadness and frustration at being stuck in Washington in a holiday week, peering over the edge of the fiscal abyss.
“This is no way to run things,” complained Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who checked off the various backyard sports he longed to be playing with his children: football, soccer and some golf.
Members of the Senate trudged back to the Capitol ostensibly to work out a deal with the White House to avoid large tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect in just a few days. With the possibility of New Year’s Eve floor festivities looming, Congress could find itself voting on the final day of the year for the first time in more than four decades.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, was eager to demonstrate that the Senate was ready to move on any idea presented by the White House or the House even as things seemed to be careening toward failure on Thursday.
“Members of the House of Representatives are out watching movies and watching their kids play soccer and basketball and doing all kinds of things,” said Mr. Reid, in a ferocious floor attack on the House that he returned to periodically throughout the day Thursday, like an angry father-in-law revisiting a grudge he’s been nursing all year. “They should be here.”
Not to be outdone, Speaker John A. Boehner, who failed last week to cobble together enough votes for his own bill, ordered House members to return on Sunday. Saying it was the Senate’s turn to come up with an idea, he told fellow Republicans on a conference call, “The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass, but the Senate must act.”
Absent a solution — or even a pathway to a bill — senators whiled away the hours without any agreement, debating and voting on amendments to a surveillance measure, pondering hurricane aid, and swearing in a new senator from Hawaii. Retiring senators, who had anticipated that their services would no longer be needed, worked in offices in varying states of disassembly, their staffs pecking out e-mails on iPads because their computers had been carted away.
A meeting at the White House between President Obama and Congressional leaders scheduled for Friday offered either the promise that a resolution of the fiscal debacle was in view or a portentous sign that each side was doing all it could to make sure that it could escape blame for a potential fiscal meltdown. No one was quite sure which.
Amid the absurdity of an urgent, nonurgent holiday session, there was the odd hum of normalcy. Senators fulminated about espionage for hours on the Senate floor as they debated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congressional aides wore their workday best as they sped through hallways, clutching their phones. Taco Thursday continued as it does each week in the small carryout restaurant where staff members collect lunches to be eaten at desks. Mr. Paul, as per usual, tussled with the leadership over one of his amendments.
Mostly, people just looked mad. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, his tie slightly askew, looked as gloomy as the clouds hovering over the Capitol dome. “I didn’t realize how much I didn’t want to be here until I got here,” said Mr. Schumer, who had taken the red eye from San Francisco, where he had arrived only days earlier to visit his daughter.
A single senator was seen smiling: Brian Schatz, who was appointed on Wednesday by the governor of Hawaii to fill the term of the late Senator Daniel K. Inouye, held the arm of his fellow Hawaii Democrat, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, as he walked across the Senate floor to meet Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who administered the oath to the new senator. His duties complete, Mr. Biden was immediately descended upon by reporters eager for a morsel of news; he did not oblige.
The Congressional impasse over how to avoid tax increases and spending cuts has left this entire city gripping Starbucks cups procured from Georgetown to Capitol Hill, bearing the message “come together,” to wait in low-grade misery for the next chapter in the drama. This would be Sunday night, when House members arrive, just ahead of New Year’s Eve at the summons of their leaders, who decided Thursday that they could not afford to be home killing time while Senate Democratic leaders took to C-Span to take shots at the absent House.
As the nation awaited news — any news! — about what would happen to the nation’s fiscal health, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the sex therapist, volunteered on Twitter that lawmakers who could not compromise “probably aren’t good lovers.” That was around midday.
Many retiring senators’ offices looked empty and gloomy, and boxes full of years of archives piled up around the Hart Senate Office Building. The office of Mr. Inouye was jam-packed with floral arrangements, and smelled of lilies and chai tea. On the door of the office of retiring Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, was a sign imploring visitors to rap with a coin or key “so the sound will carry,” and retiring Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska’s, office was absent even his name plate; a flag for his home state lingered.
The House and Senate have held numerous pro forma sessions during the week between Christmas and New Year over the years, and in 1995 during a major budget battle. But the last time they held roll call votes that week, before Thursday, was during the second session of the 91st Congress, in 1970, amid a large spending fight and a filibuster over financing for a supersonic transport plane.
Not everyone decided to make the trip Thursday. About 10 senators missed a series of votes, including Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who has retired. ||||| Enlarge Image Close AP President Barack Obama waves to reporters as he steps off the Marine One helicopter and walks on the South Lawn at the White House on Thursday.
Congress and the White House took small steps toward breaking the budget impasse Thursday, but Democrats and Republicans grew increasingly fearful they won't be able to avert the tax increases and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff, a prospect that is unnerving consumers and investors.
President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday afternoon for a last-ditch effort to broker a deal, as the Senate returned to Washington on Thursday. House GOP leaders said in a Thursday conference call with Republicans, who are growing nervous about their party being blamed for the deadlock, that the House will reconvene Sunday evening.
Enlarge Image Close Reuters Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, above, returns to the Capitol Thursday, where he tangled with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
It is still possible the two sides can reach a deal, especially with the leaders meeting Friday. Any resolution would be a scaled-back version of the package Mr. Obama and congressional leaders had anticipated passing after the November election. The White House is pressing for the Senate to extend current tax rates for income up to $250,000, extend unemployment benefits, keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of additional taxpayers and delay spending cuts set to take effect in January.
The 11th-hour strategy carries enormous risk because it leaves no margin for error in Congress's balky legislative machinery. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the prospects for passage of a bill before the last day of the year are fading rapidly. "I have to be very honest," he said. "I don't know time-wise how it can happen now."
Anxiety about Washington's ability to resolve its budget battles is roiling the economy. Conference Board figures showed that consumer confidence fell in December to its lowest level since August, driven by a pessimistic outlook for economic activity next year.
Stocks have swung on the latest news from Washington. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell sharply on Mr. Reid's pessimistic comments before recouping most of a 151-point drop on news the House would reconvene this weekend.
At best, leaders are looking at a narrow bill that could be passed at the last minute. At the meeting Friday, Mr. Obama will outline the elements he thinks should be in a deal and could get majority support in both chambers of Congress, according to a person familiar with the matter. He won't put forward a specific bill or legislative language, the person added.
Related Video
Last August, President Obama and Congress put the U.S. economy on course to go over a "fiscal cliff." WSJ's David Wessel tells you everything you need to know about the "cliff" but were afraid to ask.
As the high-stakes showdown over the fiscal cliff continues, Republicans and Democrats continue to debate how much the richest Americans should pay in taxes. WSJ's David Wessel heads to a poker table to explain the controversial issue.
Missing the year-end deadline would mean an income-tax increase Jan. 1 for virtually all taxpayers and spending cuts of $110 billion in defense and domestic programs. For months, economists have warned that going over the cliff could thrust the U.S. back into recession.
Most officials say they believe any deal is most likely to emerge in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) left the door open to looking at a White House proposal, although noted the difficulty of "coming up against a hard deadline here."
Whether or not there is a deal, the weeks since the election have produced a stark display of political gridlock. "The government is not working," said Steve Bell, senior director of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who was a senior budget adviser to Senate Republicans for many years. "There is no doubt that the policy-making apparatus in this town has collapsed."
Following the tea-party wave in the 2010 election, the 112th Congress looks set to be the least productive in recent history. By the end of November, the House had passed 146 bills over the previous two years, by far the smallest number for any Congress since 1948. The Senate passed fewer bills in 2012 than in any year since at least 1992.
Rather than smoothing over differences, the November election appears to have hardened them. "We came out of the election with both sides thinking they won and had an equal mandate," said Ross Baker, a professor at Rutgers University who is now interviewing lawmakers on Capitol Hill for a book on bipartisanship. "One problem is we don't have a common narrative to guide us."
Falling Over the Fiscal Cliff See some scenarios for how different groups of people may be affected by the tax changes that will take place if the fiscal cliff isn't resolved by the Jan. 1., 2013, deadline. View Graphics Tracking Dividends Investors are seeing a jump in the number of companies making big one-time payouts to stem a possible increase to the dividend-tax rate. See which companies have announced special dividends. View Graphics More photos and interactive graphics
Mr. Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) proclaimed a postelection desire to avoid the cliff and both sides made major concessions before negotiations collapsed last week. By then, they had reduced their differences to a range most congressional veterans could imagine being bridged in past eras when party leaders were more practiced at the art of compromise.
"We are at the point of no return," said Jim Manley, a former longtime aide to Mr. Reid, who also thinks it isn't possible to seal a deal before the deadline. "And so off the cliff the country will go."
Mr. Obama called Messrs. Boehner, McConnell, Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) late Wednesday during his holiday vacation in Hawaii "to receive an update on the ongoing fiscal negotiations," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
The calls mark the first time Mr. Obama has called Mr. McConnell, who is now seen as key to brokering a deal, directly to discuss the fiscal cliff.
While the Senate returned from its Christmas holiday Thursday, it worked on legislation unrelated to the fiscal cliff. Mr. Reid taunted House Republican leaders for still being in recess, a criticism that stung some House Republicans, who complained to their leadership.
In their conference call Thursday afternoon, House GOP leaders announced they were calling members back into session Sunday evening in hopes that there would by then be a budget agreement to approve. They also told members to expect to stay in town through the following Friday, suggesting the possibility of a prolonged fight.
Republicans participating in the call said they believed GOP leaders were prepared to move quickly, if the fiscal cliff deadline is breached, to bring up legislation to reverse the tax increases and spending cuts retroactively. That action could be taken by a new session of Congress, which will be sworn in Jan. 3.
For all the economic anxiety about going over the fiscal cliff, there are political advantages to both parties for postponing action. There will be more Democrats in the new House and Senate. Mr. Boehner would have his re-election as speaker behind him, one of the first acts the new Congress will take. He has denied his job security is a concern, and no one has announced a campaign to challenge him.
—Siobhan Hughes, Michael Crittenden and Neil King Jr. contributed to this article.
Write to Janet Hook at [email protected] and Carol E. Lee at [email protected]
A version of this article appeared December 28, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Cliff Talks Down to the Wire. ||||| 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. ||||| Congressional leaders will meet at the White House on Friday and he House will come back into session on Sunday night, setting the stage for an eleventh-hour push on legislation to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) informed lawmakers in a GOP conference call Thursday about the new House schedule, which could allow lawmakers to vote Sunday or Monday on a fiscal-cliff deal — if one can be put together by President Obama and the Senate.
Hours later, a White House official said President Obama would host Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the White House on Friday afternoon.
ADVERTISEMENT
Obama spoke to leaders from both parties and chambers before his trip back from Hawaii on Air Force One. He cut that trip short to return to Washington in an attempt to reach a deal before the end of the year.
Some signs suggested Thursdya that work on a new deal had already begun.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said he understood the president had reached out to Senate Republicans with a proposal, while a GOP leadership aide in the Senate said: “We’re expecting the Democrats to finally act.”
McConnell later on Thursday struck an optimistic tone, and said he was looking forward to a proposal from Obama.
“Hopefully there is still time for an agreement of some kind that saves taxpayers from a wholly, wholly preventable economic crisis,” he said.
McConnell also warned the White House and Democrats should not expect Senate Republicans to simply roll over and "write a blank check" for anything Senate Democrats put forward "just because we find ourselves at the edge of the cliff.”
“That wouldn’t be fair to the American people," McConnell said on the Senate floor.
Senate Democrats and the White House said no formal legislation was headed from Obama to Capitol Hill, but Friday's meeting and the scheduling maneuvers showed a final effort was in the works to prevent tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled for January that economists warn would trigger a recession.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the House could remain in session through Jan. 2, noting that the 113th Congress will be sworn in the day after.
Talks have been stuck since the House failed to move Boehner’s “Plan B” proposal last week.
Boehner’s bill would have extended tax rates on annual incomes below $1 million, but the Speaker pulled his legislation before it reached the floor because of a lack of support from his own conference.
During the conference call, Boehner reiterated what he and other GOP leaders had said publicly, which is that the House had acted on a pair of bills that would prevent the crisis and that it is up to the Senate to act.
The Speaker argued that legislation approved by the House in August to extend all of the current individual tax rates, coupled with a bill moved by the lower chamber last week that would replace spending cuts known as the “sequester,” would prevent the nation from going over the fiscal cliff.
He said it was up to the Senate to amend those bills and return them to the House if they are not acceptable in their present form.
“Once this has occurred, the House will then consider whether to accept the bills as amended, or to send them back to the Senate with additional amendments,” Boehner said, according to a source familiar with his comments. “The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass — but the Senate must act."
While Senate and House Republicans have both called on Senate Democrats and Obama to move, Boehner’s failed gambit with his $1 million proposal appeared to increase the president’s leverage in the talks. Obama already enjoyed an advantage over Republicans because of his decisive Election Day victory, and polls that suggest Republicans could take more of a blame if the nation goes over the cliff.
Obama last week said he would reach for a smaller deal that would extend tax rates on annual incomes below $250,000 while allowing rates above that threshold to rise. Obama also said he would seek an extension of unemployment benefits, but would put off broader entitlement reforms until next year, as well as a hike to the debt ceiling.
It is unclear whether Republicans would move legislation that only extends rates on annual incomes below $250,000, however.
While McConnell seemed to offer some hope that a deal could be reached, Reid on Thursday said a deal seemed unlikely before the end-of-year deadline.
“I have to be honest — I don’t know, time-wise, how it can happen now,” Reid said.
In a later appearance on the Senate floor, he scolded Republicans for obstructing a deal and criticized House Republicans for leaving town.
Peter Schroeder contributed to this story.
—This story was posted at 3:02 p.m. and last updated at 7:55 p.m. ||||| WASHINGTON — President Obama will meet with Congressional leaders on Friday, and House Republicans summoned lawmakers back for a Sunday session, in a last-ditch effort to avert a fiscal crisis brought on by automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to hit next week.
Republicans expressed a flicker of hope Thursday that a deal could still be reached to at least avert most of the tax increases on Jan. 1, to prevent a sudden cut in payments to medical providers treating Medicare patients and to extend expiring unemployment benefits. But both parties’ leaders said time is running out.
“Here we are, five days from the New Year, and we might finally start talking,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader.
The overriding emotion Thursday, as senators convened for a rare session between Christmas and New Year’s Day, appeared to be embarrassment. The continuing impasse “demonstrates a tremendous lack of courage here in Washington to address the issues that need to be addressed — at every level,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee.
Lawmakers and aides from both parties cautioned that the burst of activity could be more about making sure the other side gets the blame than any real search for a resolution before the Jan. 1 deadline. Under Senate rules, no deal could run the gantlet of procedural hurdles in time for a final vote before the deadline without all the senators agreeing not to slow progress.
Photo
“I have to be very honest,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Thursday. “I don’t know timewise how it can happen now.”
White House officials continued to put the onus on Republicans to clear a procedural path to a quick vote on a negotiated deal.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“The only way America goes over the cliff is if the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate decide to push us by blocking passage of bills to extend tax cuts or the middle class,” said the White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer. “It’s a question of their willingness to put country before party.”
Republicans said there was nothing preventing Mr. Reid from putting formal legislation on the Senate floor, and to date, no such bill has been written.
But the contours of a fallback deal did come into view Thursday, even as the will to achieve it lagged behind.
Republicans involved in the talks said both sides would probably be able to agree to extend expiring Bush-era tax cuts up to some income threshold higher than Mr. Obama’s $250,000 cutoff but lower than the $1 million sought by the House speaker, John A. Boehner. To that, leaders would probably agree to add provisions to stop the alternative minimum tax from suddenly enlarging to hit more middle class households, and possibly to extend expiring unemployment benefits.
Video
Republicans would be far less receptive to Mr. Obama’s call to temporarily suspend across-the-board spending cuts unless such a suspension was accompanied by significant and immediate spending cuts elsewhere.
But no such deal could be reached without significant, face-to-face negotiations between the president, Senate leaders and House leaders, aides said. McConnell aides said a phone call between the president and the Senate Republican leader Wednesday night was the first outreach Mr. McConnell has had from any Democrat since Thanksgiving.
“It appears to me the action, if there is any, will be on the Senate side,” Mr. McConnell said Thursday afternoon on the Senate floor.
After a House Republican leadership conference call on Thursday, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader, announced that House members would return to Washington on Sunday for legislative business, with votes in the evening. Lawmakers were warned that the House might be in session through Jan. 2, the day the 112th Congress disbands. The next day, the 113th Congress will convene, wiping out any unfinished work of the past two years.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Between such glimmers of hope, the talk in Washington on Thursday was anything but conciliatory. Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said Republicans would use an imminent fight over raising the government’s statutory borrowing limit to fight for big spending cuts, and compared that to taking one’s own child hostage and threatening to kill it.
On the Senate floor Thursday, Mr. Reid excoriated House Republicans for failing to consider a Senate-passed measure that would extend lower tax rates on household income up to $250,000. He urged House members to return to the Capitol to put together at least a modest deal to avoid the more than a half-trillion dollars in automatic tax increases and spending cuts set to begin in January.
“The American people are waiting for the ball to drop,” Mr. Reid said, “but it’s not going to be a good drop.” ||||| President Barack Obama will meet with congressional leaders at the White House on Friday in search of a compromise to avoid a year-end "fiscal cliff" of across-the-board tax increases and deep spending cuts.
House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer of Md. gestures during a news conference on Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012, where he urged House Republicans to end the pro forma session and call... (Associated Press)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. walks to the Senate floor on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (Associated Press)
President Barack Obama walks past a Marine honor guard as he steps off the Marine One helicopter and walks on the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012, as he returned early... (Associated Press)
President Barack Obama waves to reporters as he steps off the Marine One helicopter and walks on the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012, as he returns early from his... (Associated Press)
The development capped a day of growing urgency. Obama returned early from a Hawaiian vacation while lawmakers snarled across a partisan divide, leaders in each party blaming the other for an episode of government gridlock that threatens the economy with a new recession.
Adding to the woes confronting the middle class was a pending spike of $2 per gallon or more in milk prices if lawmakers failed to pass farm legislation by year's end.
Four days before the deadline, the White House disputed reports that Obama was sending lawmakers a scaled-down plan to avoid the fiscal cliff of tax increases and spending cuts.
Administration officials confirmed the Friday meeting at the White House in a bare-bones announcement that said the president would "host a meeting."
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner quickly issued a statement that said the Ohio Republican would attend and "continue to stress that the House has already passed legislation to avert the entire fiscal cliff and now the Senate must act."
Top Senate leaders said they remain ready to seek a last-minute agreement. Yet there was no legislation pending and no sign of negotiations in either the House or the Senate on a bill to prevent the tax hikes and spending cuts that economists say could send the economy into a recession.
Far from conciliatory, the rhetoric was confrontational and at times unusually personal.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused House Speaker John Boehner of running a dictatorship, citing his refusal to call a vote on legislation to keep taxes steady for most while letting them rise at upper incomes. The bill "would pass overwhelmingly," Reid predicted, and said the Ohio Republican won't change his mind because he fears it might cost him re-election as speaker when the new Congress convenes next week.
Boehner seems "to care more about keeping his speakership than keeping the nation on a firm financial footing," he said in remarks on the Senate floor.
A few hours later, McConnell expressed frustration and blamed the standoff on Obama and the Democrats. "Republicans have bent over backwards. We stepped way, way out of our comfort zone," he said, referring to GOP offers to accept higher tax rates on some taxpayers.
"We wanted an agreement, but we had no takers. The phone never rang, and so here we are five days from the new year and we might finally start talking," McConnell said.
Still, he warned: "Republicans aren't about to write a blank check for anything the Democrats put forward just because we find ourselves at the edge of the cliff."
Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Boehner, responded in a similar vein to Reid's comments. "Harry Reid should talk less and legislate more if he wants to avert the fiscal cliff. The House has already passed legislation to do so," he said, referring to a measure that extends existing cuts at all income levels.
Addressing the GOP rank and file by conference call, Boehner said the next move is up to the Senate, which has yet to act on House-passed bills to retain expiring tax cuts at all income levels and replace across-the-board spending cuts with targeted savings aimed largely at social programs.
"The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass - but the Senate must act," he said, according to a participant in the call.
Boehner told Republican lawmakers the House would convene on Sunday evening. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., an ally of the speaker, quoted him as having said "he didn't really intend to put on the floor something that would pass with all the Democratic votes and few of the Republican votes."
The risk of higher milk prices stems from the possibility that existing farm programs will expire at year's end, and neither chamber of Congress has scheduled a vote on even a temporary extension to prevent a spike. There have been unverified estimates that the cost to consumers of a gallon of milk could double without action by Congress.
The president flew home from Hawaii overnight after speaking with top congressional leaders.
Before leaving the White House last Friday, the president had called on lawmakers to pass scaled-down legislation that prevents tax increases for the middle class, raises rates at upper incomes and renews expiring unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. He said he still supports a more sweeping measure to include spending cuts to reduce deficits, but said they could wait until the new year.
That capped an unpredictable week in which Boehner pivoted away from comprehensive deficit reduction talks with Obama to an aborted attempt to push legislation through the House that retained existing tax levels except above $1 million. Anti-tax Republicans rebelled at raising rates on million-dollar earners, and Boehner backpedaled and canceled the planned vote.
Without congressional action, current tax rates will expire on Dec. 31, resulting in a $536 billion tax increase over a decade that would touch nearly all Americans. In addition, the military and other federal departments would have to begin absorbing about $110 billion in spending cuts.
Failure to avoid the "fiscal cliff" doesn't necessarily mean tax increases and spending cuts would become permanent, since the new Congress could pass legislation cancelling them retroactively after it begins its work next year.
But gridlock through the end of the year would mark a sour beginning to a two-year extension of divided government that resulted from last month's elections in which Obama won a new term and Republicans retained their majority in the House.
The tax issue in particular has been Obama's first test of muscle after his re-election in November. He ran for a new term calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, and postelection public opinion polls show continued support for his position.
Boehner's decision to support higher rates on million-dollar earners marked a significant break with long-standing GOP orthodoxy, but the resistance among his rank and file so far has trumped him as well as any mandate the president claims.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report. ||||| A Senate Democrat says he believes "odds are better than people think" that a deal can be reached to avoid automatic tax increases and spending cuts next week.
New York's Chuck Schumer tells NBC's "Today" show he's encouraged that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is getting "actively engaged" in talks to resolve the problem.
Appearing on the same show Friday, Republican Sen. John Thune noted a meeting later Friday among President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, saying, "It's encouraging that people are talking."
The South Dakota senator said, "I think in the end we will get a deal, but the question is the timing of that."
He also said the two sides are at stalemate because, quote, "Democrats haven't been willing to discuss the issue of spending."
I | Let the last-minute drama begin: President Obama will meet with the top congressional leaders from both parties at the White House today, reports the AP. Obama intends to outline elements that he thinks should be in any deal and could garner majority support in both chambers of Congress, but he won't put forward a specific bill, a source tells the Wall Street Journal. It adds that, notably, the White House is directly involving Mitch McConnell in the talks for the first time. News of the meeting came hours after Eric Cantor said the House of Representatives would reconvene Sunday night, a mere two days before the fiscal cliff deadline, reports the Hill. The Senate is already back in session, but most senators aren't happy about it, according to the New York Times, given that there isn't actually anything for them to do. "This is no way to run things," groused Rand Paul. But some evinced hope. On the Today Show, Chuck Schumer said the "odds are better than people think" that a deal will be reached, now that McConnell is "actively engaged," the AP reports. McConnell himself echoed the sentiment. "Here we are, five days from the New Year, and we might finally start talking," he told the Times. |
ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Nigerian authorities on Monday confirmed a second case of Ebola in Africa's most populous country, an alarming setback as officials across the region battle to stop the spread of a disease that has killed more than 700 people.
Nigerian Health Minister Onyebuchi Chukwu also said test samples were pending for three other people who had shown symptoms of Ebola.
The confirmed second case is a doctor who had helped treat Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian-American man who died July 25 days after arriving in Nigeria amid the unprecedented outbreak in West Africa.
"Three others who participated in that treatment who are currently symptomatic have had their samples taken and hopefully by the end of today we should have the results of their own test," Chukwu said.
The emergence of a second case raises serious concerns about the infection control practices that were used while Sawyer was in Nigeria, and also raise the specter that more cases could emerge. It can take up to 21 days after exposure to the virus for symptoms to appear. They include fever, sore throat, muscle pains and headaches. Often nausea, vomiting and diarrhea follow, along with bleeding.
Sawyer, who was traveling to Nigeria on business, became ill while aboard a flight and Nigerian authorities immediately took him into isolation. They did not quarantine his fellow passengers, and have insisted that the risk of additional cases was minimal.
Nigeria is the fourth country to report Ebola cases and at least 728 other people have died in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Nigerian authorities said a total of 70 people are under surveillance and that they hoped to have eight people in quarantine by the end of Monday in an isolation ward in Lagos. ||||| Story highlights Untested drugs can't be used in the midst of an outbreak, spokesman says
Ebola drug ZMapp given to Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol
Experimental drug had only been tested in monkeys
On Thursday, Dr. Kent Brantly thought he was going to die.
It was the ninth day since the American missionary worker came down sick with Ebola in Liberia.
His condition worsening by the minute, Brantly called his wife to say goodbye.
Thankfully, the call was premature.
Brantly is back on his feet -- literally -- after receiving a last-ditch, highly experimental drug. Another American missionary with Ebola got the same.
JUST WATCHED Treatment for Ebola patients Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Treatment for Ebola patients 02:51
JUST WATCHED World Bank commits to fighting Ebola Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH World Bank commits to fighting Ebola 01:27
JUST WATCHED Timeline of Ebola patient's U.S. return Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Timeline of Ebola patient's U.S. return 02:11
Photos: The Ebola epidemic Photos: The Ebola epidemic An Ebola survivor participates in a study in Monrovia, Liberia, on June 17. The country launched a five-year study to unravel the mystery of the long-term health effects that plague survivors of the viral disease. Since the epidemic started more than a year ago in a remote village in Guinea, more than 11,000 people have died, the vast majority in three West African nations, according to the latest numbers from the World Health Organization . And that number is believed to be low, since there was widespread under-reporting of cases, according to WHO. Hide Caption 1 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Women in Monrovia celebrate after the World Health Organization declared Liberia Ebola-free on May 9. Other cases have recurred since, however. Two people in Liberia have died of the disease since the end of June, just weeks after the WHO declared the nation free of the disease. Hide Caption 2 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A man walks past an Ebola awareness painting in Monrovia on March 22. Hide Caption 3 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Soldiers from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division walk across the tarmac at Campbell Army Airfield before reuniting with their families at a homecoming ceremony March 21 in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The 162 soldiers were deployed in Liberia, where they helped fight the spread of Ebola. Hide Caption 4 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Relatives weep for a loved one who it was believed died from Ebola, at a graveyard on the outskirts of Monrovia on March 11. Hide Caption 5 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Doctors Without Borders staffer Alex Eilert Paulsen watches as mattresses and bed frames burn at the Ebola Treatment Unit in Paynesville, Liberia, on January 31. The organization reduced its number of beds from 250 to 30 as gains were made in battling the virus. Hide Caption 6 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Pauline Cafferkey, a Scottish woman diagnosed with Ebola, is put on a plane in Glasgow, Scotland, on December 30, 2014. Cafferkey, a 39-year-old nurse who volunteered in Sierra Leone, was being transported to London for treatment. Hide Caption 7 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A child who survived the Ebola virus is fed by another survivor at a treatment center on the outskirts of Freetown, Sierra Leone, on November 11, 2014. Hide Caption 8 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Health workers in Monrovia cover the body of a man suspected of dying from the Ebola virus on October 31, 2014. Hide Caption 9 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Kaci Hickox leaves her home in Fort Kent, Maine, to take a bike ride with her boyfriend on October 30, 2014. Hickox, a nurse, recently returned to the United States from West Africa, where she treated Ebola victims. State authorities wanted her to avoid public places for 21 days -- the virus' incubation period. But Hickox, who twice tested negative for Ebola, said she would defy efforts to keep her quarantined at home. Hide Caption 10 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Health officials in Nairobi, Kenya, prepare to screen passengers arriving at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on October 28, 2014. Hide Caption 11 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic U.S. President Barack Obama hugs Ebola survivor Nina Pham in the Oval Office of the White House on October 24, 2014. Pham, one of two Dallas nurses diagnosed with the virus, was declared Ebola-free after being treated at a hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. The other nurse, Amber Vinson (not pictured), was treated in Atlanta and also declared Ebola-free. Hide Caption 12 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Health workers in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, transport the body of a person who is suspected to have died of Ebola on October 21, 2014. Hide Caption 13 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Health workers bury a body on the outskirts of Monrovia on October 20, 2014. Hide Caption 14 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Garteh Korkoryah, center, is comforted during a memorial service for her son, Thomas Eric Duncan, on October 18, 2014, in Salisbury, North Carolina. Duncan, a 42-year-old Liberian citizen, died October 8 in a Dallas hospital. He was in the country to visit his son and his son's mother, and he was the first person in the United States to be diagnosed with Ebola. Hide Caption 15 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Boys run from blowing dust as a U.S. military aircraft leaves the construction site of an Ebola treatment center in Tubmanburg, Liberia, on October 15, 2014. Hide Caption 16 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Aid workers from the Liberian Medical Renaissance League stage an Ebola awareness event October 15, 2014, in Monrovia. The group performs street dramas throughout Monrovia to educate the public on Ebola symptoms and how to handle people who are infected with the virus. Hide Caption 17 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Ebola survivors prepare to leave a Doctors Without Borders treatment center after recovering from the virus in Paynesville, Liberia, on October 12, 2014. Hide Caption 18 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A man dressed in protective clothing treats the front porch of a Dallas apartment on October 12, 2014. The apartment is home to one of the two nurses who were diagnosed with Ebola after treating Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian national who traveled to Dallas and later died from the virus. Hide Caption 19 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A woman crawls toward the body of her sister as a burial team takes her away for cremation October 10, 2014, in Monrovia. The sister had died from Ebola earlier in the morning while trying to walk to a treatment center, according to her relatives. Hide Caption 20 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A man digs a grave on October 7, 2014, outside an Ebola treatment center near Gbarnga, Liberia. Hide Caption 21 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A person peeks out from the Dallas apartment where Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person diagnosed with the Ebola virus in the United States, was staying on October 3, 2014. Hide Caption 22 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A girl cries as community activists approach her outside her Monrovia home on October 2, 2014, a day after her mother was taken to an Ebola ward. Hide Caption 23 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A health official uses a thermometer September 29, 2014, to screen a Ukrainian crew member on the deck of a cargo ship at the Apapa port in Lagos, Nigeria. Hide Caption 24 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Workers move a building into place as part of a new Ebola treatment center in Monrovia on September 28, 2014. Hide Caption 25 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Medics load an Ebola patient onto a plane at Sierra Leone's Freetown-Lungi International Airport on September 22, 2014. Hide Caption 26 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A few people are seen in Freetown during a three-day nationwide lockdown on September 21, 2014. In an attempt to curb the spread of the Ebola virus, people in Sierra Leone were told to stay in their homes. Hide Caption 27 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Supplies wait to be loaded onto an aircraft at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on September 20, 2014. It was the largest single shipment of aid to the Ebola zone to date, and it was coordinated by the Clinton Global Initiative and other U.S. aid organizations. Hide Caption 28 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A child stops on a Monrovia street September 12, 2014, to look at a man who is suspected of suffering from Ebola. Hide Caption 29 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic After an Ebola case was confirmed in Senegal, people load cars with household items as they prepare to cross into Guinea from the border town of Diaobe, Senegal, on September 3, 2014. Hide Caption 30 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A health worker wearing a protective suit conducts an Ebola prevention drill at the port in Monrovia on August 29, 2014. Hide Caption 31 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A burial team from the Liberian Ministry of Health unloads bodies of Ebola victims onto a funeral pyre at a crematorium in Marshall, Liberia, on August 22, 2014. Hide Caption 32 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Dr. Kent Brantly leaves Emory University Hospital on August 21, 2014, after being declared no longer infectious from the Ebola virus. Brantly was one of two American missionaries brought to Emory for treatment of the deadly virus. Hide Caption 33 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic An Ebola Task Force soldier beats a local resident while enforcing a quarantine on the West Point slum on August 20, 2014. Hide Caption 34 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Local residents gather around a very sick Saah Exco, 10, in a back alley of the West Point slum on August 19, 2014. The boy was one of the patients that was pulled out of a holding center for suspected Ebola patients after the facility was overrun and closed by a mob on August 16. A local clinic then refused to treat Saah, according to residents, because of the danger of infection. Although he was never tested for Ebola, Saah's mother and brother died in the holding center. Hide Caption 35 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Workers prepare the new Ebola treatment center on August 17, 2014. Hide Caption 36 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Liberian police depart after firing shots in the air while trying to protect an Ebola burial team in the West Point slum of Monrovia on August 16, 2014. A crowd of several hundred local residents reportedly drove away the burial team and their police escort. The mob then forced open an Ebola isolation ward and took patients out, saying the Ebola epidemic is a hoax. Hide Caption 37 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A health worker disinfects a corpse after a man died in a classroom being used as an Ebola isolation ward August 15, 2014, in Monrovia. Hide Caption 38 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Aid worker Nancy Writebol, wearing a protective suit, gets wheeled on a gurney into Emory University Hospital in Atlanta on August 5, 2014. A medical plane flew Writebol from Liberia to the United States after she and her colleague Dr. Kent Brantly were infected with the Ebola virus in the West African country. Hide Caption 39 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Members of Doctors Without Borders adjust tents in the isolation area in Kailahun on July 20, 2014. Hide Caption 40 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Boots dry in the Ebola treatment center in Kailahun on July 20, 2014. Hide Caption 41 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Dr. Jose Rovira of the World Health Organization takes a swab from a suspected Ebola victim in Pendembu, Sierra Leone, on July 18, 2014. Hide Caption 42 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Red Cross volunteers disinfect each other with chlorine after removing the body of an Ebola victim from a house in Pendembu on July 18, 2014. Hide Caption 43 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic A scientist separates blood cells from plasma cells to isolate any Ebola RNA and test for the virus April 3, 2014, at the European Mobile Laboratory in Gueckedou, Guinea. Hide Caption 44 of 45 Photos: The Ebola epidemic Health specialists work March 31, 2014, at an isolation ward for patients at the facility in southern Guinea. Hide Caption 45 of 45
Brantly's and Nancy Writebol's conditions significantly improved after receiving the medication, sources say. Brantly was able to walk into Emory University Hospital in Atlanta after being evacuated to the United States last week, and Writebol is expected to arrive in Atlanta on Tuesday.
On July 22, Brantly woke up feeling feverish. Fearing the worst, Brantly immediately isolated himself. Writebol's symptoms started three days later. A rapid field blood test confirmed the infection in both of them after they had become ill with fever, vomiting and diarrhea.
It's believed Brantly and Writebol, who worked with the aid organization Samaritan's Purse, contracted Ebola from another health care worker at their hospital in Liberia, although the official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case investigation has yet to be released.
The experimental drug, known as ZMapp, was developed by the biotech firm Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., which is based in San Diego. The patients were told that the treatment had never been tried before in a human being but had shown promise in small experiments with monkeys.
JUST WATCHED How the experimental Ebola serum works Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How the experimental Ebola serum works 02:32
According to company documents, four monkeys infected with Ebola survived after being given the therapy within 24 hours after infection. Two of four other monkeys that started therapy within 48 hours after infection also survived. One monkey that was not treated died within five days of exposure to the virus.
Brantly and Writebol were aware of the risk of taking a new, little-understood treatment and gave informed consent, according to two sources familiar with the care of the missionary workers. In the monkeys, the experimental serum had been given within 48 hours of infection. Brantly didn't receive it until he'd been sick for nine days.
The medicine is a three-mouse monoclonal antibody, meaning that mice were exposed to fragments of the Ebola virus and then the antibodies generated within the mice's blood were harvested to create the medicine. It works by preventing the virus from entering and infecting new cells.
The Ebola virus causes viral hemorrhagic fever, which refers to a group of viruses that affect multiple organ systems in the body and are often accompanied by bleeding.
Early symptoms include sudden onset of fever, weakness, muscle pain, headaches and a sore throat. They later progress to vomiting, diarrhea, impaired kidney and liver function -- and sometimes internal and external bleeding.
Map: The Ebola outbreak
The ZMapp vials, stored at subzero temperatures, reached the hospital in Liberia where Brantly and Writebol were being treated Thursday morning. Doctors were instructed to allow the serum to thaw naturally without any additional heat. It was expected that it would be eight to 10 hours before the medicine could be given, according to a source familiar with the process.
Brantly asked that Writebol be given the first dose because he was younger and he thought he had a better chance of fighting it, and she agreed. However, as the first vial was still thawing, Brantly's condition took a sudden turn for the worse.
Brantly began to deteriorate and developed labored breathing. He told his doctors he thought he was dying, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation.
Knowing his dose was still frozen, Brantly asked if he could have Writebol's now-thawed medication. It was brought to his room and administered through an IV. Within an hour of receiving the medication, Brantly's condition dramatically improved. He began breathing easier; the rash over his trunk faded away. One of his doctors described the events as "miraculous."
By the next morning, Brantly was able to take a shower on his own before getting on a specially designed Gulfstream air ambulance jet to be evacuated to the United States.
Writebol also received a vial of the medication. Her response was not as remarkable, according to sources familiar with the treatment. However, doctors on Sunday administered Writebol a second dose of the medication, which resulted in significant improvement.
JUST WATCHED Why isn't there an Ebola vaccine? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Why isn't there an Ebola vaccine? 02:31
JUST WATCHED Second Ebola patient heading to U.S. Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Second Ebola patient heading to U.S. 01:57
JUST WATCHED Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients 04:37
She was stable enough to be evacuated back to the United States.
The process by which the medication was made available to Brantly and Writebol is highly unusual.
World Health Organization spokesman Gregory Hartl cautioned that health authorities "cannot start using untested drugs in the middle of an outbreak, for various reasons."
Doctors Without Borders similarly weighed in on the side of caution.
"It is important to keep in mind that a large-scale provision of treatments and vaccines that are in very early stages of development has a series of scientific and ethical implications," the organization said in a statement.
"As doctors, trying an untested drug on patients is a very difficult choice since our first priority is to do no harm, and we would not be sure that the experimental treatment would do more harm than good."
ZMapp has not been approved for human use and has not even gone through the clinical trial process, which is standard to prove the safety and efficacy of a medication. It may have been given under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's "compassionate use" regulation, which allows access to investigational drugs outside clinical trials.
Getting approval for compassionate use is often long and laborious, but in the case of Brantly and Writebol, they received the medication within seven to 10 days of their exposure to the Ebola virus. ||||| Nancy Writebol, one of the two Americans who were infected with Ebola in Liberia, is expected to arrive in the United States at around midday on Tuesday to be treated at an Atlanta hospital, sources told NBC News.
Bruce Johnson, the president of SIM USA, an aid organization that Writebol works with, told MSNBC that she was “up and walking” and that she was getting stronger. She felt well enough to eat her favorite Liberian dish, potato soup, he said. He said that Writebol had received two doses of an experimental Ebola serum.
The other American, Dr. Kent Brantly, is already at the hospital and said to be improving. The two were working with a missionary organization, Samaritan’s Purse, when they contracted Ebola. More than 1,300 people have been sickened in the worst known outbreak of the virus.
IN-DEPTH
— Kate Snow and Erin McClam
First published August 4 2014, 4:47 AM | The most populous country in Africa has just reported its second case of Ebola. This time, the patient is a doctor who helped to treat Liberian-American Patrick Sawyer, who died of the illness last month in Nigeria. Three others who treated him are being tested for the disease, Nigeria's health minister says, per the AP. The news comes as American Nancy Writebol, a missionary infected in Liberia, is set to arrive in Atlanta tomorrow, NBC News reports. She's headed to the same hospital as Dr. Kent Brantly, who was working with the same missionary organization. Both of them may have had their lives saved by a secret drug shipped to Nigeria last week, CNN reports, based on an insider's account. A National Institutes of Health rep offered the drug, called ZMapp, to the missionary organization. ZMapp, which had been kept in subzero conditions, hadn't been tested on humans, the patients heard. But it had apparently worked well on monkeys, and Brantly and Writebol agreed to take it. Brantly, who believed he was going to die, saw his condition "nearly reversed," CNN notes, and two doses helped Writebol. |
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996 called on the Department of Defense (DOD) to embark upon an initiative to develop cruise missile defense (CMD) programs emphasizing operational efficiency and affordability. Advanced cruise missiles (CMs)âthose designed with stealthy capabilities to evade detectionâwere noted as a prominent threat prompting the need for effective CMD. This CMD initiative was to be coordinated with other air defense efforts; that is, with "cruise missile defense programs ... and ballistic missile defense programs ... mutually supporting" each other. Three years later, in conjunction with the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1999, the Senate Armed Services Committee noted: "[T]he committee does not believe that the Department of Defense has adequately integrated its various cruise missile defense programs into a coherent architecture and development plan." DOD has indicated a commitment to developing CMD capabilitiesâwithin its larger strategy of air defense requirementsâthat demonstrate operational effectiveness. Unlike past approaches to CMD that critics assert were "stovepiped"âindividually driven by the Services' respective objectivesâcurrent and future programs are meant to emphasize effectiveness based on inter-Service synergy, or jointness. Whether or not the Pentagon will be able to integrate CMD plans to a point of effective interoperability is an important question. Many analysts believe that no mission area will rely more on jointness than detection and intercept of advanced CMs. An examination of CMD development, therefore, offers some insight into the progress DOD is making in terms of increased joint warfighting capability. CMD today is primarily an issue of force protection for U.S. troops deployed in a theater of conflict. The CM threat to the United States appears lower than the theater CM threat, but it also seems likely to grow. Given ongoing proliferation challenges, there is general consensus that CM technology will continue to spread. Many claim that the United States' dominance of manned military aviation will drive many countries to adopt CMs as the "poor man's air force." By 2015, the CIA estimates that up to two dozen nations will be able to pose a serious CM threatâprimarily in theater but also through forward-deployed weapons platforms. Also, the U.S. failure to detect several Iraqi CMs launched against American assets during Operation Iraqi Freedom has led some in DOD to now deem CMD a "critical mission area." CMs present many operational challenges. Effective CMD requires rapid and accurate performance of a series of military tasks collectively known as the "kill chain." First, surveillance radars must detect manned and unmanned aircraft; including CMs. The second major step involves continuously tracking the aircraft along its course, a process complicated by what may be an elusive flight path. Next, the aircraft must be identified. It must be concretely determined whether the airborne object is a CM, or a friendly or neutral aircraft. This process, called combat identification, is vital to lowering the chances that a friendly or neutral aircraft might be erroneously identified as a threat, and attackedâa scenario that unfortunately played out several times during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Once a CM threat is identified, a decision on how to engage the CM must be made: Which defense assetsânaval, ground, or airborne platformsâwill be used to try to intercept the CM? The final step of the kill chain involves actually intercepting or neutralizing the CM with weaponsâmissiles and gunfire being the only two current options. Other technologies, such as directed energy weapons, are being studied. The U.S. military has historically fielded Service-oriented CMD systemsâindependent land-, air-, and sea-based weapons platforms with CMD applications. Although this strategy has yielded fairly effective point defense capabilities against conventional airborne threats, most analysts agree that an advanced CM threat will require more effective defenses. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), for example, is attempting to augment its sensor coverage capabilities, and link with Service weapons systems for target engagement of low flying CMs. Efforts are also underway to marry military sensors and radars employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide comprehensive air surveillance of the United States. Increased effectiveness against advanced CMs will require improved joint surveillance, tracking and combat identification capabilities, and increased weapons range. The Pentagon's efforts to improve CMD capabilities are addressed through multiple offices and strategies. Some of the most prominent ones are described below. JTAMDO was established in 1997 to ensure the coordination of CMD and ballistic missile defense programs as well as to integrate DOD's theater air and missile defense requirements. As a result of restructuring under the Unified Command Plan of 2002, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) took responsibility of global missile defense and JTAMDO was tasked with a support role to STRATCOM. JTAMDO's current mission is to develop joint capabilities and structures for an air and missile defense family of systems. JTAMDO's current activities also include force protection, homeland air security, assessing ballistic missile defense architectures, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense requirements. SIAP Joint Program Office (JPO) is tasked with leading efforts to develop a SIAPâthe integration of the Services' air defense technologies into a total, shared environmental awareness. Presently, the platforms of any one Service are only able to provide a partial picture of the total threat environment. A SIAP is intended to detect and continuously track all airborne objects and ensure that all allies within a theater have the same tracking data. Within a theater, where a myriad of assetsâfriendly, hostile, and neutralâmay be concurrently airborne, a SIAP would be central to timely decision-making regarding threat responses. The level of awareness offered by a SIAP will be most dependent upon newer data linkages, and the ability to track every object with one clear signature. SIAP JPO has conducted technical assessments to develop an integrated architecture for data sharing. The technology is primarily aimed at accelerating the interoperability of those systems designed for airborne threat detection and those designed for interceptâcommonly known as the "sensor to shooter" linkage. JSSEO projects fielding this technology in September 2005. It estimates SIAP development costs to be around $160 million from FY2004 to FY2009, and the Services will need to spend $600 million to incorporate SIAP technology into their existing weapons platforms. DOD hopes for a SAIP initial operational capability (IOC) by 2012. JCIET was deactivated in February 2005. When active, JCIET assessed issues associated with combat identification and finding doctrinal, technological, and procedural solutions to reduce the incidence of fratricide. JCIET coordinated joint exercises in which multiple Service platforms are tested for performance in detection, tracking, and identification of airborne threatsâCMs being among them. The data collection and evaluation from these exercises aids in determining how to address the advanced CM threat. JCIET efforts aided combat identification capabilities and can therefore contribute to a clearer air picture. IFC attempts to decouple Service-specific and platform-specific fire control radars from their weapons to create over-the-horizon and joint CMD intercept capabilities. Presently, fire control radars control specific weapons. The Navy, for example, can intercept a CM with a surface-to-air missile guided by the ship's Aegis radar. A Patriot missile can intercept CMs based on its radar's information, and an F-15's radar would guide its air-to-air missiles to intercept a CM. IFC would enable an airborne surveillance platform such as an E-2C Hawkeye, E-3 AWACS, or the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) to relay CM tracking information to either ground- or air-based assets for engagement. Furthermore, once ground-based weapons, for example, have been sent to intercept the CM, radars external to the launch platform will be able to direct the weapons towards the CM. These objectives of IFC would remove the horizon or line-of-sight limitations that currently exist for CMD, thus increasing the time and distance for intercept. Decoupling the fire control radar from the weapon could improve capabilities against stealthy CMs by providing numerous and supporting surveillance perspectives. Combined with the goals of a single integrated air picture, IFC would create a much wider and more defensible area of coverage against advanced CMs. IFC efforts for missile defense are now being undertaken within the Army's Integrated Fire Control Product Office and the Navy's IFC counter air program office. Generally at issue is whether or not DOD has adequately responded to congressional directives on CMD. This question is best addressed by examining the three main parts of the 1996 congressional CMD initiative: a suitable coordination of CMD with ballistic missile defense (BMD) efforts, the development of CMD for near-term as well as advanced CM threats, and affordability and operational effectiveness for all CMD efforts. Congress directed DOD to undertake BMD and CMD efforts in a mutually supportive fashion. Some argue that Pentagon efforts on CMD have taken a back seat to BMD efforts. In terms of resource allocation, much more focus has been placed on ballistic missile defense than on CMD. In its budget request for FY2005, for example, DOD sought $9.2 billion for the Missile Defense Agencyâthe office tasked with BMDâand asked for $239 million toward the development of CMD. On the one hand, it can be argued that BMD must remain paramount given the known ballistic missile threatânuclear missiles are already targeted at the United States and enemy ballistic missiles have already taken a toll on U.S. troops during wartime. On the other hand, some contend that the current level of prioritization may be too lopsided. As noted by the Defense Science Board, the CM threat is highly unpredictable and advanced CMs could emerge quickly and unexpectedly. In relation to the congressional directive to address near-term and future airborne threats, DOD has stressed effective theater and air missile defense as a prime objective. In addition to upgrading many of the Services' individual CMD weapons platforms, DOD is working toward many of the strategies relevant to future CMDâa single integrated air picture, better combat identification, and integrated fire control among them. DOD anticipates that such building blocks will enable the employment of a joint engagement zone (JEZ) for theater war fighting between 2015 and 2020. Currently, theater commanders try to reduce the chance of fratricide by separating CMD forces into distinct zones: missile engagement zones and fighter engagement zones. This separation, however, also reduces effectiveness. A JEZ is intended to enable interoperability among the Services' sensors and weapons systems for offensive and defensive operations. Will the CMD challenges inherent to creating a JEZ really be overcome by 2010? To do so would require adequate investments of time and effort by the Pentagon. However, JTAMDO, for example, estimates that as little as 20% of its time and manpower is currently going toward CMD efforts. At the same time, it estimates that upwards of 40% of its resources are being put toward support of the initial defensive operations of BMD. Moreover, JTAMDO resources are being expended toward homeland air security coordination, force protection, and WMD defense requirements. Although some measure of action toward addressing the CM threat is being taken, the level of urgency remains an issueâas DOD may now deem other defense activities more pressing. Congress noted that CMD measures should be undertaken with operational effectiveness as a core criterion. Since interoperability of resources remains the paramount feature in the Pentagon's activities to develop effective CMD, consequences associated with jointness are a key factor to monitor. Further, several CMD objectives will likely enable other mission areas. An effective SIAP, for example, not only will offer CMD applications but also will enable counter-air operations and battlefield interdiction efforts. Increased jointness associated with CMD efforts may also create some level of organizational friction, and Congress may come under pressure to provide oversight to resolve Service "turf battles." As CMD efforts become more integrated, Service control over traditionally clear boundaries may get cloudier. With enhanced IFC, for example, Air Force or Navy assets may be able to direct ground-based weapons that are currently under Army control. It is possible that narrow Service interests may hinder the implementation ofâand thus effectiveness ofâfuture joint CMD capabilities. Moreover, will the Services' CMD operational overlap lead to a reorganization of which Services controlâand are funded by Congress forâcertain weapons systems and programs? The congressional directive to develop affordable CMD measures is an important issue in terms of procurement. Current cost-exchange ratios associated with CMs favor attackers over defenders; cruise missiles can be cheap and defenses are costly. For example, Patriot missiles, bought at roughly $2.5 million apiece, can be effective interceptors for incoming CMs, but those CMs may be simple designs costing only a couple hundred thousand dollars apiece. Moreover, intercept costs are only one of many kill chain expenditures that can make CMD forces much more expensive than the CM threat. On the whole, the Pentagon seems to have promoted the pursuit of advanced CMD programs to combat sophisticated CM attacks. In terms of simple CM threats, however, more resources may be needed to produce less costly but nonetheless effective defenses. DOD's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has a low-cost cruise missile defense program that focuses on countering low-tech CMs by reducing the cost of interceptors. DARPA hopes to develop CMD interceptors that would cost as little as $40,000. Even cheaper intercept technologies may be required for cost-effective CMD, especially if faced with large-scale attacks by cheap CMs. Inexpensive but proven "jamming" technology (e.g., high-power microwaves) that can disrupt CM guidance systems might be a potentially useful approach. Also, point defense weapons, such as radar-guided machine guns with high rates of fire, could be employed against less sophisticated CMs. A final consideration pertains to the deactivation of JCIET. Combat identification remains, and is likely to remain one of the most challenging aspects of CMD. Overseers of DOD's activities may wish to ask why the department deactivated the only organization dedicated specifically to improving joint CMD combat identification capabilities. It is not evident that other organizations, such as JTAMDO, have increased their work on CMD combat identification issues to make up for JCIET's demise. Nor is it clear that improvement in other facets of CMD will make up for ineffective combat identification. If a friendly or neutral manned aircraft is inadvertently shot down by U.S. CMD platforms in the future, DOD's decision to deactivate JCIET may come under intense scrutiny. | Congress has expressed interest in cruise missile defense for years. Cruise missiles (CMs) are essentially unmanned attack aircraftâvehicles composed of an airframe, propulsion system, guidance system, and weapons payload. They may possess highly complex navigation and targeting systems and thus have the capability to sustain low, terrain-hugging flight paths as well as strike with great accuracy. CMs can be launched from numerous platformsâair-, land-, or sea-basedâand they can be outfitted with either conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Department of Defense is pursuing several initiatives that seek to improve capabilities against an unpredictable cruise missile threat. This report will be updated as events warrant. |
The extended appropriations process for FY2011 began with the Obama Administration's FY2011 budget requested in February 2010 and culminated with the enactment of P.L. 112-10 on April 15, 2011. During that time, Congressional debate centered around two proposals, H.R. 1 , which was approved by the House on February 19, 2011, and S.Amdt. 149 , offered as a substitute proposal during Senate consideration of H.R. 1 . Although both proposals were rejected by the Senate on March 9, they were viewed by some as the starting point of final negotiations between House and Senate leaders that eventually led to the compromise embodied by P.L. 112-10 . Between the start of FY2011 on October 1, 2010, and the enactment of P.L. 112-10 on April 15, 2011, the federal government was funded through a series of resolutions continuing funding at FY2010 levels, with adjustments and exceptions. This report is intended to facilitate comparative analysis of the key proposals in the now completed FY2011 appropriations process. The report begins with a brief analysis of how each proposal could be expected to impact the federal budget deficit, which was a consideration of great importance to many lawmakers. This is followed by a table depicting discretionary funding levels provided in each of the three proposals by appropriations subcommittee and bill title, and comparing the FY2010 and FY2011 enacted appropriations. The table reflects the most recent estimates of FY2011 appropriations, which remain subject to change. This will be the final update of this report. A key issue in the FY2011 appropriations debate was the impact of discretionary federal spending on the nation's budget deficit. The budget deficit represents the level of spending, as measured by outlays, in excess of revenues. Appropriations acts, like those detailed in this report, provide budget authority. The outlays for a fiscal year result from the budget authority provided in that fiscal year as well as some budget authority provided in previous fiscal years. Included in the outlay level are all types of spending (i.e., emergency, non-emergency, overseas contingency operations) occurring during the fiscal year. Under the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) March 2011 baseline, the last CBO baseline estimate published prior to the enactment of P.L. 112-10 , the budget deficit for FY2011 was estimated at $1,399 billion. In that baseline, CBO assumes a full-year continuation of funding in FY2011 at roughly FY2010 levels. The proposals analyzed in this report provide annualized discretionary outlay levels as follows: FY2011 President's Budget (February 2010)—$1,415 billion CBO Baseline—$1,361 billion H.R. 1 —$1,356 billion S.Amdt. 149 —$1,372 billion P.L. 112-10 —$1,365 billion H.R. 1 , the proposal which proposed the greatest reduction to budget authority relative to current levels, would result in a discretionary outlay level that is $5 billion under the CBO March 2011 baseline level of discretionary outlays. This reduction in discretionary outlays comprises 0.4% of the deficit estimated under the CBO baseline. Savings from other proposals that would produce smaller reductions in discretionary outlays would correspondingly represent a smaller fraction of the CBO March 2011baseline deficit. The proposal that was ultimately enacted, P.L. 112-10 , is expected to result in a discretionary outlay level that is $4 billion above the CBO March 2011 baseline level of discretionary outlays. Some reductions in discretionary spending could also affect the level of mandatory or net interest spending or the amount of revenue collected, potentially impacting the ultimate deficit level for FY2011. For a more detailed look at the broad budgetary impact on FY2011 spending proposals, see CRS Report R41771, FY2011 Appropriations in Budgetary Context , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. The table below is intended to provide a sense of how funding for federal departments and agencies would be impacted by the different proposals, rather than the impact of each proposal on overall budget numbers. The data represent discretionary appropriations as provided in the respective proposals, by bill title. The final column compares the FY2010 and FY2011enacted funding levels. The title and bill totals do not include scorekeeping adjustments. Rescissions of prior year funding are noted as separate line items and are not deducted from the title totals. | FY2011 funding levels were not enacted in the 111th Congress. Thus, the debate over FY2011 appropriations continued into the 112th Congress and FY2011 spending proposals became a key focal point in the budget debates between the now-Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Obama Administration. This report was originally intended to facilitate comparison of three key spending proposals for FY2011—the Administration's budget request, H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1—to FY2010 enacted funding levels. It has been updated to include the enacted FY2011 appropriations in P.L. 112-10. The report begins with a brief analysis of how each proposal could be expected to impact the federal budget deficit. The bulk of the report consists of a funding table that details the recommended discretionary appropriations in these proposals, by subcommittee and bill title, and compares the enacted FY2010 and enacted FY2011 appropriations. More detailed analysis of individual appropriations measures can be found at CRS.gov. This is the final update of this report. |
They say elephants never forget – and evidently they can vividly remember the sound of rain, so much so that they can tell when a storm is approaching even if it’s 150 miles away, and their ability to do so might one day save them from being killed by the thousands by poachers, according to research that includes a Texas A&M University professor.
Oliver Frauenfeld, assistant professor in the Department of Geography, and colleagues from the University of Virginia, Australia’s University of New South Wales and the University of Utah, have had their work published in the scientific journal PLOS One.
The team analyzed data from GPS tracking devices placed on elephants in 14 different herds in the Namibia region of Africa and the elephants’ movements were plotted for seven years. The region has a distinct rainy season and conditions are usually hot and dry with little precipitation.
The researchers found that elephants can “sense” thunderstorms — often hundreds of miles from their current location – and seem to predict approaching rain several days before it occurs.
“The onset of the rainy season there is very abrupt and lasts just a few weeks, and the rest of the time, there is little or no rain at all,” Frauenfeld explains.
“With the GPS device attached to them, we learned that the elephants can detect thunderstorms at great distances. We don’t know if they can actually hear the thunder or if they are detecting other low-frequency sounds generated by the storms that humans can’t hear. But there is no doubt they know what direction the rain is.”
Frauenfeld says the information could have conservation implications for helping elephants survive the rampant poaching trade in Africa by allowing wildlife officials better prediction of the location and movement of elephant herds.
A recent study by National Geographic estimates that at least 100,000 elephants were killed during a three-year period from 2010-2012, and Central Africa has lost 64 percent of the elephant population in the last decade. Some localized populations could be wiped out entirely within the next 10 years, the study says.
“While the environmental trigger that causes their movements remains uncertain, rain-system generated infrasound, which can travel great distances and be detected by elephants, is a possible trigger for changes in their migration patterns,” Frauenfeld adds.
“Our study suggests that the elephants are responding to a common environmental signal. The change in their movements occurs well before – from days to weeks – of any rain in the elephants’ current location.”
-30-
Contact: Oliver Frauenfeld at (979) 862-8420 or [email protected] or Keith Randall, News & Information Services, at (979) 845-4644 or [email protected]
More news about Texas A&M University, go to http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/
Follow us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/TAMU ||||| In South Africa, the Rhino DNA Index System or RhODIS project has unique DNA profiles for individual rhinos. If one is killed for its horn, the database aids in prosecuting poachers. Wildlife forensics has such a high degree of resolution now that DNA testing can actually show which country in Africa confiscated ivory came from, Allan said. Here, a tiger cub is donating a blood sample for DNA sequencing.
In India, the illegal metal snares used to catch tigers were being cleverly camouflaged. To fight back, the TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network trained forest guards to use robust, easy-to-assemble Deep Search Metal Detectors. “Word kind of got around that there was some sort of magic technology out there that was going to find every poacher in the forest instantly,” Allan said.
The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool, known as SMART, is a free open-source software created by a community of conservation organizations. Available in local languages, the software is designed to make wildlife conservation activities and wildlife law enforcement patrols more effective. Tracking animals, patrols and vehicles means an influx of data, and SMART can crunch it all to show stakeholders the big picture.
Satellite technology has transformed basic tracking collars. Accelerometers inside can indicate whether the animal is well, sick or has died given its motion and the satellite connection means the animals are easier to locate. The collars can be used on a wide range of animals, from birds on up to elephants. Allan said the price has been prohibitive for developing countries, so he hopes it will come down.
Mesh networks are digital communications systems originally developed for the military, Allan explained. With help from a $5 million Google grant, WWF is installing a mesh network to relay sensor and device data. Rangers on the ground can also use the network to communicate without poachers being able to listen in.
Getting a visual on poachers before they strike is tall order. Masts with static night vision cameras are used to keep an eye out, but the image angle and range are limited, according to Allan. Light aircraft are expensive, require a pilot, need runways and could be shot down. For these reasons, unmanned aerial vehicles are emerging as a potential solution. Cost is still an issue but poachers can’t hide easily from UAVs with thermal detection patrolling the skies.
Wildlife conservationists need to know where the animals are in order to protect them. Radio-frequency identification tags are an important tool, WWF’s Crawford Allan said. RFID chips implanted in rhinoceros horns connect to ground or mobile sensors so when one falls off the grid, a team can work on tracking it down and check the animal's welfare. The tags work for other species, as well. Here, two Canada Lynx kittens are tagged by rangers from the US Fish and WIldlife Services.
One of the first technologies rolled out consistently to monitor wildlife, camera traps were catching poachers in the act. They’ve since evolved into tinier, almost impossible to detect digital devices. Some have live video feeds, automatic triggers, remote access, heat sensing, vibration detection and are smart enough to triangulate shotgun sounds so park rangers know exactly where to go.
There’s no silver bullet solution to protecting endangered species. We can't stand guard over every single one of them, as this man is doing to protect black rhinos in Zimbabwe. But technology can be helpful in staying ahead of wildlife poachers who have been winning the war for too long, according to Crawford Allan, a senior director based at the World Wildlife Fund for a large international wildlife trade monitoring program called TRAFFIC. Here’s a look at their arsenal.
If you want to know when it's going to rain, ask an elephant. Apparently, they just know. That's according to new research suggesting the lumbering giants can sense when a storm is coming, even if the ominous clouds are gathering a long way off.
A team from Texas A&M, the University of Virginia, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Utah wanted to learn more about the sudden movements of elephant herds during seasonal shifts, suspecting that migrations near the end of dry seasons were somehow related to faraway thunderstorms the creatures could perhaps detect.
Using GPS trackers, the researchers analyzed the movements of 14 elephants in Africa's Namibia region over 7 years, matching weather data with herd movements. When all of the data was crunched, they found something striking: The elephants seemed to be able to "sense" storms happening up to 150 miles away, and that was the direction in which they pointed their trunks for migration.
"We don’t know if they can actually hear the thunder or if they are detecting other low-frequency sounds generated by the storms that humans can’t hear. But there is no doubt they know what direction the rain is," said Oliver Frauenfeld, assistant professor in the geography department at Texas A&M, in a statement.
The Namibia region has a short, distinct rainy season, lasting only a few weeks. Luckily, it seems, for the elephants, they are able to get some inside information on where all of that cool, life-sustaining water will be.
While the researchers aren't yet certain what specifically sets off the elephants' keen weather-sense, one side benefit is clear: If wildlife officials tasked with protecting elephants from poachers can use weather data to make predictions about where elephants will go, they have a better chance of protecting the herds. ||||| Abstract The factors that trigger sudden, seasonal movements of elephants are uncertain. We hypothesized that savannah elephant movements at the end of the dry season may be a response to their detection of distant thunderstorms. Nine elephants carrying Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers were tracked over seven years in the extremely dry and rugged region of northwestern Namibia. The transition date from dry to wet season conditions was determined annually from surface- and satellite-derived rainfall. The distance, location, and timing of rain events relative to the elephants were determined using the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) satellite precipitation observations. Behavioral Change Point Analysis (BCPA) was applied to four of these seven years demonstrating a response in movement of these elephants to intra- and inter-seasonal occurrences of rainfall. Statistically significant changes in movement were found prior to or near the time of onset of the wet season and before the occurrence of wet episodes within the dry season, although the characteristics of the movement changes are not consistent between elephants and years. Elephants in overlapping ranges, but following separate tracks, exhibited statistically valid non-random near-simultaneous changes in movements when rainfall was occurring more than 100 km from their location. While the environmental trigger that causes these excursions remains uncertain, rain-system generated infrasound, which can travel such distances and be detected by elephants, is a possible trigger for such changes in movement.
Citation: Garstang M, Davis RE, Leggett K, Frauenfeld OW, Greco S, et al. (2014) Response of African Elephants (Loxodonta africana) to Seasonal Changes in Rainfall. PLoS ONE 9(10): e108736. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108736 Editor: Alan McElligott, Queen Mary, University of London, United Kingdom Received: March 6, 2014; Accepted: September 3, 2014; Published: October 9, 2014 Copyright: © 2014 Garstang et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report. Competing interests: Michael Garstang and Steven Greco are both associated with Simpson Weather Associates, Inc., a private for profit environmental research company. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction Conservation of elephant populations, particularly in areas where poaching has been prevalent, is a pressing ecological issue. The management of elephant populations in both protected and unprotected areas requires an understanding of the predominant historical movement patterns of family groups [1]–[2]. Beyond the mapping of past elephant movements, it is important to understand what environmental cues might trigger the movement of elephants from one area to another. In dry areas, one such environmental trigger could be rainfall, particularly when it occurs at the end of a prolonged dry season. It is likely that any change in movement from dry to wet season conditions—ranging from distant migration-like excursions to localized movement—may be influenced by the habitat of the region (water, vegetation, and terrain) and dictated by topographically confined seasonal food and water sources [3]–[4]. The relationship between elephants and rainfall is embedded in the mythology and legends of people living for centuries in close contact with these animals. Turkana legend in northern Kenya holds that sighting an elephant at the end of the dry season is a sign that rain is imminent [1]. The Samburu people, further south in Kenya, have a similar belief, where the sudden appearance of an elephant, after months of no rain, signals the coming of the rains [1]. In India, the elephant is believed to bring the monsoon rain and is considered to be allied to cumulus clouds [1]. Surprisingly little research has been conducted on how elephants that populate arid environments might respond to rainfall triggers. Lindeque and Lindeque [5] reported a response of elephants in the eastern end of the Etosha National Park and Damaraland (Namibia) to rainfall well removed from where the herds were and well in advance of the rains. Leggett [6] observed elephants in the Kunene region of Namibia changing their movements within 24 hours of distant rainfall, heralding the start of the wet season. Neither study provided a possible cause for the observed change in elephant movement, however. Loarie et al. [7] attempted to determine whether there was an underlying order in the effects imposed by climate, water and vegetation upon elephant movement. They examined these relationships over an extended transect from Namibia to Mozambique (2500 km) over multiple years (2000–2006). Tracking was not conducted simultaneously over the entire transect but in separate areas for different years. They found that elephants moved consistently over greater distances in the wet than in the dry season and covered larger areas in the drier regions than in the wetter regions. Although the authors partitioned the year into dry and wet seasons for each of the twelve regions across this extensive transect, no details were provided as to the criteria used for this dry to wet partition. In the study most closely related to ours, Birkett et al. [8], using tracking data from Global Positioning System (GPS) collared elephants over a 3-year period in the Kruger National Park (South Africa), determined major seasonal break points in the movement of these elephants. After identifying the week (within each year) when elephant movements changed significantly, they related the weekly mean rainfall from rain gages located within the ranges of those animals. The authors found that 56% of the tracked elephants increased their step length after the rainfall break point. However, they also identified significant interannual variability in the rainfall/movement relationships. Kelley and Garstang [9], using observations from a system similar to the International Monitoring System for the detection of nuclear explosions, demonstrated that sound pressure levels generated by thunderstorms could be detected by elephants at distances greater than 100 km. They further speculated that, in the presence of a near surface (100 m) nocturnal inversion, elephants might be capable of locating the source of the sound. The goals of this study were to determine whether elephants changed their movement behavior with changes in the rainfall regime and whether the changes in movement were in response to some specific remotely generated signal. Drawing upon the conclusions of Kelly and Garstang [9], we postulated that such behavior would be most clearly demonstrated in environments with protracted dry seasons broken by an abrupt and distinct change to wet conditions such as that experienced by the Kunene elephants of northwestern Namibia. We defined rainfall criteria that identified the transition date in each year from dry to wet conditions. We then examined movements of individually collared elephants relative to these rain events. A record of continuous tracking of elephants over a period of years is required to provide multiple seasonal changes and potential movement responses. Here, we utilized an unusually long data set of GPS positions of 14 Namibian elephants observed from 2002–2009. This represents one of the most extensive records of elephant movements available and forms the foundation for this study. Owing to the extremely dry climate and rainfall seasonality of western Namibia, we used the rather abrupt transition from dry to wet conditions to determine whether a statistically significant change in elephant movement could be detected. The characteristic convective nature of the first significant rainstorms of the wet season allowed us to postulate that infrasound produced by these storms might represent a remotely generated signal of the onset of the rains that is detected and responded to by these elephants. (Note: In the sections that follow, data are used over time periods that range over four to eight years, the shorter data sets not being independent of the longer sets.)
Discussion and Conclusions We conclude that a statistically significant change in movement was observed prior to or near the time of onset of the wet season. Such changes in movement also occurred prior to wet episodes within the dry season. In concert with results found by Loarie et al. [7] and Birkett et al. [8], changes in the movement of elephants were found to both precede and follow the transition from dry to wet conditions, with a preponderance of the statistically significant changes found in the 24 days prior to rather than in the 24 days following the dry–wet transition. In several instances, elephants in different (but proximal) locations exhibited near simultaneous change in movement, and these movements were unlikely to have occurred by random chance. This behavior suggests that the animals could be responding to a common environmental signal. The transition from dry conditions to wet conditions was defined by a rainfall amount in a given grid element in a given area (Region (a)) preceded by 24 days with <5 mm/day in any grid element and followed by 24 “wet” days. This criterion provided a useful, objective method for identifying the transition date partitioning the dry from the wet seasons. A modified version of this criterion also served to identify wet periods within the dry season. Most significant wet season rain storms in this region are convective in nature and contain lightning. Lightning discharges may, however, occur in so called “dry storms” that produce little or no measurable rain [22]–[23]. These rain storms were located in a much larger region (Region (b)), potentially remote from the location of the elephants. The above evidence suggests that elephants change their movement behavior both in response to a seasonal change in rainfall (dry to wet) and to wet episodes occurring in the dry season. The evidence presented suggests that such responses are triggered by rainfall occurring at some distant location, perhaps as much as 300 km from the location of the elephants. This, in turn, implies a signal coincident with, and perhaps produced by, the rain event itself [9]. Such a signal may be required to travel over distances greater than 300 km in time periods of much less than 24 hours [9]. Such distances are well within the threshold of detection of thunderstorms by elephants as determined by Kelley and Garstang [9]. The interaction of the elephants observed in this study with their habitat (terrain, vegetation and water) and with humans may have conditioned these elephants to remain in protected areas, frequent river channels, and limit their excursions outside of these known areas. Such conditioning may well play an important role in influencing the larger movement behavior of the current elephant population in northwest Namibia. No extended seasonal movements were observed in the Kunene region comparable to those reported by Lindeque and Lindeque [12] in Damaraland east of Etosha National Park. Changes in vegetation may occur prior to the arrival of the rains and thus trigger movement before the rains arrive. Because such changes in vegetation are due to a complex set of factors including changing length of day, solar insolation, slope, aspect, soil type, and soil moisture, among others, it is less likely that this greening will trigger simultaneous changes in movement behavior by more than one elephant. Furthermore, such changes in vegetation do not occur in the dry season when we observe changes in movement by the elephants in response to rainfall. While it remains possible that smell generated by rain storms could produce a response, the transmission of olfactory signals detectable by elephants would depend both upon surface wind speeds and direction and upon concentrations [24]–[25]. We suggest instead that low-frequency sounds produced by rain storms [9] represent a more plausible explanation of a detectable signal generated by a distant rain event. Not all rainstorms may generate infrasonic signals and not all elephants will exhibit a response to such sounds. Nevertheless, the response documented in this study suggests that the elephants of western Namibia change their movement behavior roughly coincident with a change in the seasonal rainfall climate of the region. This change in movement occurs well before (days to weeks) any rain actually falls in the elephants' location. Although such a response is in near coincidence with the change from dry to wet season conditions, rain events within the dry season may also trigger a change in elephant movement. We hypothesize that such responses by elephants to spatially remote events could be ascribed to the detection of infrasonic signals generated by that event. The existing measurements, however, do not provide unequivocal evidence of this possibility. Given the temporal coarseness of the GPS measurements available and the lack of continuous, long-term monitoring for some animals, we realize that these limitations pose significant barriers to reaching definitive conclusions regarding the factors that motivate relatively sudden elephant movement changes. The lack of a consistent response (i.e., increasing vs. decreasing mean, variance, or autocorrelation) certainly adds additional complexity to our analysis. Additionally, we acknowledge that BCPA is but one method that can be used to retrospectively examine animal movements. A variety of methods are available (e.g., Fleming et al. [26], Yackulic et al. [27], Breed et al. [28], Boettiger et al. [29]), and we encourage their adaptation to problems allied with elephant tracking and conservation. While the elephants in the dry and rugged Kunene region of Namibia may change their movements in response to distant rainfall, these elephants do not leave their dry season range or head towards the early rainstorms. The learned and adaptive behavior of the Kunene elephants may not only reflect the exigencies of their habitat and climate but exhibit a residual response to the recent and extreme social dislocation suffered by this population. Additional study is clearly needed to understand what motivates these early seasonal changes in movement behavior.
Acknowledgments The communities and conservancies of northwestern Namibia, and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism are thanked for their previous support of the tracking studies used in this paper. We also acknowledge Earthwatch Institute, Denver Zoo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wilderness Trust, Wildlife Conservation society, Ikahirongo Elephant Lodge, and Wilderness Safaris for their previous support. We wish to thank E. Gurarie for his guidance and provision of the BCPA program. Our thanks also go to Mary Morris for all of her bibliographic research, preparation and production of the manuscript and to Simpson Weather Associates and the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia for their support of this research. We would also wish to acknowledge and thank the Editor and three reviewers for their careful and critical reading of earlier drafts of this manuscript. | Maybe the Weather Channel should start hiring elephants. A study in PLoS ONE suggests the creatures can detect rainstorms happening 150 miles away, possibly by hearing them even from that far off. Migrating elephants are known to change direction out of the blue, and researchers haven't been certain why. The Namibian research team figured it might be because of rain—as Phys.org explains, elephants are regularly looking for water in the region, which is dry outside of the January-to-March rainy season. Researchers placed GPS devices on elephants in 14 different herds for seven years. Meanwhile, they kept track of rainfall in the region. They found that changes in the elephants' movements were associated with the direction of rain. "We don’t know if they can actually hear the thunder or if they are detecting other low-frequency sounds generated by the storms that humans can’t hear," a researcher says, as the tamuTimes reports. "But there is no doubt they know what direction the rain is." This information may help officials protect elephants, Discovery reports, because it could provide some guidance as to where the animals are headed. (The news comes amid fears African elephants could be wiped out within a century.) |
The Committee of the Whole has been an accepted practice in the United States Congress since the First Congress convened in 1789. It was used earlier in many of the colonial legislatures, as well as in the Continental Congress. The custom has its antecedents in English parliamentary practice. De Alva Stanwood Alexander, an historian of the House of Representatives and a former Representative himself, wrote: This Committee has a long history. It originated in the time of the Stuarts, when taxation arrayed the Crown against the [House of] Commons, and suspicion made the Speaker a tale-bearer to the King. To avoid the Chair's espionage the Commons met in secret, elected a chairman in whom it had confidence, and without fear of the King freely exchanged its views respecting supplies. The informality of its procedure survived the occasion for secrecy, but to this day the House of Commons keeps up the fiction of concealment, the Speaker withdrawing from the hall when the Committee convenes, and the chairman occupying the clerk's desk. Use of the Committee of the Whole in the current practice of the House of Representatives has changed considerably from the form first used in 1789. Until the early 1800s, the House used committees of the whole to work out the broad outlines of major legislation. A select committee would then be appointed to draft a bill. When the select committee reported the bill to the House, the House would then refer the measure to a Committee of the Whole for debate and amendment before itself considering the question of passage. Historian Ralph Volney Harlow commended on the committee of the whole as a forum in which the broad outline of legislation could be discussed: The committee of the whole is really a compromise between a regular session, and an adjournment for purposes of discussion. The latter method could not be used to advantage in any large assembly, because some restraining influence would be necessary. But the primitive form of the committee of the whole was probably a short adjournment, during which members could move about from one to another, and freely discuss the merits of the matter under consideration. Gradually, the standing committee system grew up in the House of Representatives, replacing the temporary select committees of the earlier era. Standing committees assumed the overview and drafting functions previously divided between a committee of the whole and a select committee. As a result, the purpose for convening in Committee of the Whole began to change. The concept found in current practice is that of the principal forum for discussion and amendment of legislation. Contemporary Committee of the Whole procedures are not without some restriction, but they are more flexible than those employed in the formal sessions of the House of Representatives. For a comparison of characteristics of the House and the Committee of the Whole in contemporary practice, please see Table 1 at the end of this report. When the House of Representatives resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, two simple rituals mark the transformation. First, the mace—a column of ebony rods which sits on a green marble pedestal to the right of the Speaker on the podium—is moved to a white marble pedestal positioned lower on the podium. The mace represents the authority of the sergeant of arms to maintain order in the House. When it is removed from the higher position on the podium, it signals the House is no longer meeting as the House of Representatives in regular session, but in the Committee of the Whole. Second, the Speaker descends the podium, and designates a majority party colleague to take his place and assume the duties of the presiding officer during the deliberations of the Committee of the Whole. The Member designated by the Speaker thus becomes the chairman of the Committee of the Whole and is responsible for recognizing Members, maintaining order, and ruling on points of order. During meetings of the Committee of the Whole, Members address the chair not as "Mr. Speaker" but as "Mr. Chairman" or "Madam Chairman." Under the Standing Rules of the House, a measure that raises revenue, directly or indirectly appropriates money, or authorizes the expenditure of money must be considered in the Committee of the Whole. Other types of measures may be considered in the Committee of the Whole, if the House so decides, or if a rule-making statute so requires. In either case, the House of Representatives must first agree to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. It does so in three ways: by unanimous consent, by adopting a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, or by adopting a "special rule" that authorizes the Speaker to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a specified measure. In addition to making the consideration of a specific measure in order in the Committee of the Whole, each of these three approaches will most likely limit general debate time and assign its control. They may also specify the number and types of amendments which may be offered, may designate debate time on amendments, and may waive points of order against House rules, if a provision in the measure could otherwise be held in violation of them. Once the House resolves itself into the Committee, the measure before the Committee is debated and amended. In general, the Committee of the Whole observes the rules of procedure of the House of Representatives insofar as they are applicable. There are several important differences between proceedings in the House of Representatives and proceedings in the Committee of the Whole that make legislative deliberation in the Committee an attractive alternative. In the House, a majority of the membership is required to constitute a quorum to conduct business. If all 435 seats are filled, a majority is 218 members. In the Committee of the Whole, however, only 100 members are required to constitute a quorum. The chairman may vacate further proceedings under a quorum call as soon as 100 members have answered the call, and the minimum 15-minute period allowed for a quorum call need not be used in its entirety, as is the case in the House. In addition, the chairman of the Committee is generally allowed the discretion of whether or not to permit a quorum call during general debate. Furthermore, if the presence of a quorum has been established once during any day's deliberations in the Committee, the chairman need not entertain a quorum call unless a pending question has been put to a vote during the amendment process. The basic rule governing debate in the House is the "one-hour" rule. In theory, this means any Member receives one hour to debate when recognized on any question. By custom, this hour is divided between the majority and minority, with each side receiving 30 minutes. Members often yield time to one another, but normally only for the purpose of debate, and not for the offering of amendments or procedural motions. It is unusual for the House to proceed to a second hour of debate under the "one-hour" rule. In the Committee of the Whole, however, the basic rule governing debate of amendments is the "five-minute" rule. Supporters of amendments offered in Committee receive five minutes of debate time and opponents of the proposition receive five minutes. Thus, more Members are likely to participate in debate under the "five-minute" rule in Committee than is possible under the "one-hour" rule in the House. To gain five minutes of debate time on a pending amendment, a Member may offer a nonsubstantive amendment, also called a "pro forma amendment," to "strike the last word" or "strike the requisite number of words." Thus, a Member overcomes the rule applicable in the Committee of allowing only five minutes for a Member to speak in support of an amendment and five minutes for a Member to speak in opposition to an amendment. A Member may also seek unanimous consent to continue for a short, specified period of time. In the House, debate can be ended by moving the previous question. However, the previous question not only ends debate, it also brings the matter before the House to an immediate vote. This precludes the possibility of any further amendments or discussion. Neither debate nor amendments to the motion for the previous question are in order. The previous question is not in order in the Committee of the Whole. However, additional and more flexible choices exist. A motion either to close debate or to limit the time for further debate (e.g., to 20 minutes, to 4:00 p.m.) may be offered in the Committee of the Whole. Either motion is debatable and can be further refined through amendment. In practice, the floor manager of a bill will more often ask unanimous consent that debate be either closed or limited and offer a motion only if unanimous consent cannot be obtained. In addition, even if a motion to close debate is agreed to in the Committee of the Whole, Members may still offer amendments they have filed at the desk. These will be considered, but without debate. However, if Members had their amendments printed in the Congressional Record in advance of floor proceedings, they are guaranteed 10 minutes of debate on those amendments. In practice, this protection can be overturned by a "special rule" adopted by the House prior to the commencement of proceedings in the Committee if the special rule provides other amendment procedures. A smaller number of Members are required to support a call for a recorded vote in the Committee than are required in the House. In the House, one-fifth of those present and supporting a recorded vote constitutes a sufficient number to trigger a recorded vote. If the minimum 218 Members necessary to constitute a quorum in the House are present, the number needed to call for a recorded vote would be 44. In Committee, 25 Members are needed under any circumstances to support the call for a recorded vote. The Committee of the Whole dissolves itself by "rising." If the Committee has not completed consideration of the measure before it, the floor manager may offer a simple motion to rise. At a later time, the House may choose to resolve itself again into the Committee of the Whole to resume consideration of the same measure. If the Committee has completed its deliberations, Members may agree to a motion to rise and report to the House of Representatives the actions and recommendations of the Committee. Once the decision to rise has been made, the chairman of the Committee descends the podium and the Speaker ascends to take his place as presiding officer of the House of Representatives. The mace is returned to its original location. The chairman then reports to the House those amendments that were adopted in the Committee and the Committee's recommendation on the question of final passage of the measure. (Neither second-degree amendments nor substitutes that were adopted nor any first or second-degree amendments that were defeated in the Committee are reported to the House.) The House must then formally agree to any amendments reported by the Committee. Therefore, it is possible that amendments that were adopted by the Committee of the Whole could be defeated by the House of Representatives. The House may agree to all the amendments reported to it by the Committee of the Whole through one vote ("en gros"), or separate votes may be demanded on any amendments agreed to in the Committee. The votes on amendments could also be structured pursuant to the provisions of a "special rule" adopted earlier. Votes are put on such amendments in the order in which they appear in the bill, not in the order by which the request was made. The House then considers, with the possibility of several intervening motions such as a motion to recommit, the question of final passage of the measure. | The Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, more often referred to as the "Committee of the Whole," is the House of Representatives operating as a committee on which every Member of the House serves. The House of Representatives uses this parliamentary device to take procedural advantage of a somewhat different set of rules governing proceedings in the Committee than those governing proceedings in the House. The purpose is to expedite legislative consideration. This report briefly reviews the history of the Committee of the Whole, describes the current procedure associated with it, and identifies its procedural advantages. It will be updated if the rules and procedures change. |
Temperatures could drop to sweatshirt weather by Tuesday, when an unseasonably cool pool of air is expected to reach the northern and northeastern U.S. The Post's Jason Samenow tells you what to expect. (Casey Capachi and Jason Samenow/The Washington Post)
Call it the ghost of the polar vortex, the polar vortex sequel, or the polar vortex’s revenge. Meteorological purists may tell you it’s not a polar vortex at all. However you choose to refer to the looming weather pattern, unseasonably chilly air is headed for parts of the northern and northeastern U.S at the height of summer early next week.
Click to enlarge. (WeatherBell.com, adapted by CWG)
Bearing a haunting resemblance to January’s brutally cold weather pattern, a deep pool of cool air from the Gulf of Alaska will plunge into the Great Lakes early next week and then ooze towards the East Coast.
6-10 day temperature outlook from National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center
Of course, this is July, not January, so temperatures forecast to be roughly 10 to as much as 30 degrees below average won’t have quite the same effect.
Temperature anomalies (or difference from normal) Tuesday midday from European model (WeatherBell.com)
But make no mistake, in parts of the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest getting dealt the chilliest air, hoodies and jeans will be required. Highs in this region could well get stuck in the 50s and 60s – especially where there is considerable cloud cover.
GFS model forecast highs Tuesday (WeatherBell.com)
Wednesday morning’s lows may drop into the 40s over a large part of the central U.S. Remember, this is July!
GFS model forecast lows Wednesday morning (WeatherBell.com)
The heart of the chilly airmass will probably just skirt the East Coast, but temperatures are likely to be about 10 degrees below normal. Highs may struggle to reach 80 in D.C. next Tuesday and Wednesday with widespread lows in the 50s (even 40s in the mountains).
GFS model 7-day forecast (WeatherBell.com)
(Note, as with any extended forecast, there is some uncertainty here. If the cool air mass loses some punch, highs may still reach 80-85 around D.C., with lows in the 60s, rather than the 50s)
The pattern may last only a few days, but will probably set some records, especially around the Plains and Great Lakes – where water temperatures are still depressed from the frigid winter in which ice remained on Lake Superior into June.
What’s behind this unusual winter weather pattern primed for the dog days of summer? A lot of it is simply chance (randomness), but Weather Underground’s meteorologist Jeff Masters says Japan’s typhoon Neoguri is playing a role in the pattern’s evolving configuration:
….the large and powerful nature of this storm has set in motion a chain-reaction set of events that will dramatically alter the path of the jet stream and affect weather patterns across the entire Northern Hemisphere next week. Neoguri will cause an acceleration of the North Pacific jet stream, causing a large amount of warm, moist tropical air to push over the North Pacific. This will amplify a trough low pressure over Alaska, causing a ripple effect in the jet stream over western North America, where a strong ridge of high pressure will develop, and over the Midwestern U.S., where a strong trough of low pressure will form.
What amazes me most about the pattern is not so much the forecast temperatures, but the uncanny similarities in the weather patterns over North America seen in both the heart of winter and heart of summer. All of the same features (refer to the map at the top of this post) apparent in January are on the map in mid-July: low pressure over the Aleutians (blue shading), a large hot ridge (yellow and red shading) over the western U.S., the huge cold low or vortex over the Great Lakes (blue and green shading), and then the ridge over northeast Canada (yellow and red shading).
It’s not at all clear what this means or what, if anything, it portends. Weather patterns cycling through a certain circulation regime can repeat (and we’ve seen this pattern multiple times since November-December), but with El Nino forecast to develop, the global configuration of weather systems is likely to change.
Related: Extreme Great Lakes ice extent could portend cool summer for eastern U.S.
As news of this cool air episode breaks, you may notice meteorologists bickering over whether this is a “polar vortex” event or not. For their part, several National Weather Service offices are using the term. Writes the National Weather Service forecast office in State College (it’s technical, but note the text I’ve bolded and underlined):
THE HIGHLY ANOMALOUS AMPLIFICATION OF THE LARGE SCALE PATTERN IS A VIRTUAL LOCK BY THE END OF THE PERIOD AS INDICATED BY ALL MEDIUM RANGE GLOBAL NUMERICAL MODELS AND ENSEMBLE SYSTEMS. THIS WELL- ADVERTISED HIGH MERIDIONAL EVENT WILL FEATURE A FULL-LATITUDE RIDGE AND SEARING HEAT OUT WEST…NOT TO BE OUTDONE BY THE RETURN OF THE POLAR VORTEX IN THE EAST OVER QUE/ONT AND THE UPPER GREAT LAKES. CONSIDERING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE UPPER LEVEL TROUGH WITH 500MB STANDARDIZED ANOMALIES ON THE ORDER OF -3 TO -4SD IN BOTH THE DETERMINISTIC GLOBAL MODELS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ENSEMBLE MEANS…CONFIDENCE IN A PERIOD OF BELOW AVG TEMPS /DURING WHAT IS CLIMATOLOGICALLY THE HOTTEST TIME OF THE YEAR/ IS VERY HIGH FROM TUE-THU OF NEXT WEEK.
And look at this graphic released from the National Weather Service forecast office out of Chicago:
But Larry Cosgrove, an energy meteorologist, says that while the looming cool air mass is “admittedly impressive”, calling it a polar vortex is hogwash.
“It’s insane,” Cosgrove wrote on his Facebook page. “Poor wording combined with misunderstanding of the term make a mockery out of synoptic meteorology.”
Cosgrove’s argument is that the air mass doesn’t meet the “polar vortex” standard – its pressure isn’t low enough and the air isn’t sufficiently cold and truly Arctic in origin (i.e. not below freezing at 5,000 feet). “[On] TWO counts we fail to reach the standard for calling such an upper low a vortex,” he says.
Related: What the polar vortex is and is not, in one graphic | A deep dive into the polar vortex
I’m taking the middle road here; hence the headline of the post – a “poor man’s polar vortex”
More: The unintentional beauty of the polar vortex ||||| The middle of July is typically one of the hottest weeks of the year in the Midwest and Central United States.
Well, not this year. Instead, the region that was locked in the deep freeze for the entire winter and much of the spring — Lake Superior's ice cover lasted until June, setting a new record — is about to shiver again. OK, maybe not shiver. But it's going to be 20 to 30 degrees cooler than average for this time of year.
Six-to-10 day temperature outlook from the National Weather Service, showing the huge area of below average temperatures across the eastern half of the country. Image: NOAA
High temperatures in northern Minnesota on Sunday may barely crack 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with a high of just 60 degrees on Monday, and overnight lows that could dip into the 40s. This is fall jacket weather, when it should be air conditioner, ice cream truck, and lemonade weather.
Is this the polar vortex all over again, but in the summer?
The strange weather pattern has its roots near Hudson Bay, Canada, where so much of last winter's cold originated. The cold air will be spinning around underneath an area of low pressure at upper levels of the atmosphere, which the jet stream, which is the river of air at about 30,000 feet, is going to steer south, into the U.S., over the weekend.
The dip in the jet stream, known as a "trough," is connected via a long chain of events to once-Super Typhoon Neoguri, which struck Japan on Wednesday as a weakened tropical storm, according to Jeff Masters of Weather Underground.
The large and powerful nature of this storm has set in motion a chain-reaction set of events that will dramatically alter the path of the jet stream and affect weather patterns across the entire Northern Hemisphere next week. Neoguri will cause an acceleration of the North Pacific jet stream, causing a large amount of warm, moist tropical air to push over the North Pacific. This will amplify a trough low pressure over Alaska, causing a ripple effect in the jet stream over western North America, where a strong ridge of high pressure will develop, and over the Midwestern U.S., where a strong trough of low pressure will form. This jet stream pattern is similar to the nasty "Polar Vortex" pattern that set up during the winter of 2014 over North America, and will cause an unusually cool third week of July over the portions of the Midwest and Ohio Valley, with temperatures 10 - 20°F below average.
On jet stream charts, this looks like a textbook January weather pattern (it bears "a haunting resemblance," according to the Capital Weather Gang blog), not July, so it's possible that Mother Nature just mixed up her "J" months.
Temperature departures from average forecast for Sunday, July 13, 2014. The cold air, in blue and green, will be poised to enter the Midwest. Image: WeatherBell Analytics
This cannot strictly be viewed as an actual polar vortex event, but there are some similarities to the weather pattern in place during the winter of 2013-14. The real polar vortex, which to meteorologists means something different than it has meant colloquially, concerns a pattern of winds in the upper atmosphere — at or above the height that most jet aircraft fly — which typically pens in extremely cold air across Canada and the Arctic, and grows particularly strong during the winter.
Polar vortexes exist in both hemispheres. They are not a new phenomenon, having been in weather textbooks for decades.
In January, the vortex weakened and wobbled a little bit to the south of its typical position. This and a few other factors helped bring some of the extremely cold air southward. That's when the term “polar vortex” took on a life of its own via social media, and now is used colloquially by many people to refer to unusual cold.
Temperature departures from average forecast for Tuesday, July 15, 2014. The colder than average temperatures will have spilled almost to the Gulf Coast, as warm weather builds in the West and Northwest. Image: WeatherBell Analytics
Here's how the National Weather Service's Weather Prediction Center in Maryland describes the upcoming event (ALL CAPS is their style, because apparently, government weather forecasters like to shout):
A HIGHLY ANOMALOUS AMPLIFICATION OF THE FLOW ACROSS NORTH AMERICA IS INDICATED BY THE GLOBAL NUMERICAL MODELS AT THE MEDIUM RANGE. A DEEP UPPER LOW... NOT THE POLAR VORTEX AS ITS ORIGINS ARE FROM THE NE PACIFIC... WILL SWING THROUGH THE GREAT LAKES EARLY NEXT WEEK WITH AN IMPRESSIVE COLD SHOT OF AIR INTO THE CENTRAL AND THEN SOUTHERN PLAINS AND THE MIDWEST.
According to the National Weather Service forecast office in Chicago, the coldest that temperatures have been since 1979 at the 850 millibar pressure level, which is at about 5,000 feet above the surface, have been around 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Computer model forecasts for next week show such temperatures bottoming out at 41 degrees Fahrenheit, indicating the unusual nature of this cold snap. Forecasters look at 850 millibar temperatures to get an idea of what surface temperatures may be.
Forecast temperature departures from average for the entire globe, on Tuesday, July 15, 2014. Image: The Climate Reanalyzer
The upcoming cool conditions will be offset by record warmth in the West, where 100% of California is experiencing drought conditions, and record heat may occur in Seattle and Portland early next week as well. The heat in the West, combined with the dryness, poses a wildfire risk.
The cool air mass will affect much of the Midwest, Central and Plains states as well as the Ohio Valley before spilling into the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. In many areas, including Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York, the cool weather will be a welcome respite from the hot, humid and stormy conditions that have been the theme this week.
In fact, the cold front may make it all the way to the Gulf Coast, which is extremely unusual for this time of year.
It's worth noting, though, that while the U.S. experiences unusual cold, much of the world will be remarkably warm for this time of year. May was the world's hottest such month on record, and it's likely that June and July will rank in the top five as well.
Correction, July 11: We updated the captions on the maps to show the correct dates. ||||| Unseasonably cold weather is forecast next week across the Midwest and Northeast, parts of which are expected to see temperatures as low as the 40s and 50s -- and that's rare for July.
Naturally, this has media commentators speculating that the much-vaunted "polar vortex," which was blamed for this winter's brutally cold and snowy weather across much of the eastern U.S., has returned.
Polar Vortex in Summer Polar Vortex in Summer
But while it's a catchy term that gets a lot of attention, the polar vortex isn't really to blame for the unusually cool weather that much of the nation is expected to see next week.
(MORE: 10 Cities On Track For a Cool Summer As Cold Blast Approaches)
Here's why: The polar vortex is a feature in the upper atmosphere over the Earth's poles. In fact, there are two polar vortices -- one over the North Pole and one over the South Pole as well.
Both are rooted very high up in the layer of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere, which begins roughly about 25,000 feet to 45,000 feet above the Earth's surface, but their circulations extend down into the troposphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere where we experience our weather. The portion of the circulation in the troposphere exhibits a much more wavy flow.
Sometimes, the polar vortex does not shift, but rather pieces of the larger spin can break off and sweep toward southern Canada, helping to drive Arctic cold plunges into the U.S.
The problem with the way this is often discussed in the media, however, is that the polar vortex exists in the stratosphere and not in the troposphere. So laying the blame for this anomalously cold outbreak of air on the polar vortex is incorrect -- this air bubble is in an altitude much lower than where the polar vortex is located.
So what, exactly, are we going to see happen next week if it's not really caused by the polar vortex?
(MORE: Polar Vortex, Bombogenesis, Derecho: 'New' Weather Words that Aren't Actually New)
It's more accurate to say that the anomalously cold air is related to the circumpolar vortex in the troposphere, the lower layer of the atmosphere, which is a pattern of winds that feature a broad, irregular generally west-to-east flow around the pole, rather than a flow that's consistently centered right at the pole like the stratospheric polar vortex.
Within that curvy irregular flow are troughs -- dips in the jet stream toward the equator -- and ridges of high pressure.
"Filaments of the bottom section of the polar vortex, near the jet stream level, routinely extend into the mid-latitudes, often giving us our coldest outbreaks in winter and anomalously cold air in the summer," explains Dr. Greg Postel, storm specialist at The Weather Channel.
"This is what we're seeing now, and what we frequently see in the winter."
The stratospheric polar vortex is shown on the left, while the tropospheric circumpolar vortex is on the right. The latter is the one that will bring next week's unusually cool summertime temperatures. (Left: Courtesy of NOAA. Right: Courtesy of the University of Washington)
Because of that, what we'll see next week is a trough, a dip in the jet stream that's actually a lobe of the tropospheric circumpolar vortex -- like a spoke on a wheel. As Stu Ostro, senior meteorologist for The Weather Channel, notes, it's a strong one for this far south in the middle of the North American summer.
"But it's just a spoke, and there will be other troughs next week over the Atlantic and Eurasia and the Pacific, as there are constantly troughs/spokes (and ridges between the troughs) around the world," he adds. "The thing over the Great Lakes is not the whole wheel, and is just a little component of the tropospheric circumpolar vortex, and is not the stratospheric polar vortex."
MORE: What Happened During the Last 'Polar Vortex' | OK, to be fair, the polar vortex that’s heading our way next week isn't technically a polar vortex—but it is going to bring significantly cooler weather, according to the Washington Post. Temperatures are predicted to be 10 to 30 degrees lower than average for July in the northern and northeastern parts of the US, with some Midwest and Great Lakes regions seeing highs in the 50s and 60s. The Post has bestowed a variety of names—including the "polar vortex’s revenge" and the "poor man’s polar vortex"—on the coming weather, but weather sticklers explain that while it resembles the cold front that blasted a good portion of the country in January, it’s quite different. What we’ll experience this time around is actually related to the tropospheric circumpolar vortex. "The polar vortex exists in the stratosphere and not in the troposphere," explains Weather Underground. "So laying the blame for this anomalously cold outbreak of air on the polar vortex is incorrect—this air bubble is in an altitude much lower than where the polar vortex is located." Meanwhile, Mashable points out that May 2014 was listed by NASA as the world’s hottest May on record and predicts that June and July will probably crack the top five. If that doesn’t mitigate your disappointment at having to pull a sweatshirt out of storage in the middle of July, here are some gentle reminders that next week probably won't be so bad after all. |
Section 101 establishes the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (Board), a new,independent regulatory body, to oversee the auditing of issuers (public companies which are subjectto the federal securities laws). The Board's oversight of auditors is for the purpose of protecting theinterests of investors. The Board shall not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government and shallbe a nonprofit corporation subject to the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. Noemployee shall be deemed an officer, employee, or agent of the federal government. The Board is subject to the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission, andsubject to this oversight the Board shall register public accounting firms which prepare audit reportsfor issuers subject to SEC registration, establish standards concerning the preparation of auditreports, conduct inspections of registered public accounting firms, conduct investigations anddisciplinary proceedings where justified upon registered public accounting firms, perform otherduties as determined by the SEC, enforce compliance with the Act, and set the budget and managethe operations of the Board and its staff. The Board shall have five members, who shall be prominent individuals of integrity with ademonstrated commitment to the interests of investors and the public. They must understand thefinancial disclosures required of issuers under the securities laws and the obligations of accountantsconcerning the preparation and issuing of audit reports concerning these disclosures. Only two members of the Board shall be or have been certified public accountants. If oneof those persons is the chairperson, that person may not have been a practicing certified publicaccountant for at least five years before appointment to the Board. Each Board member must serveon a full-time basis and may not have other employment while serving on the Board. No Boardmember can share in the profits of or receive payments from a public accounting firm, except forfixed continuing payments under standard retirement arrangements, subject to conditions imposedby the SEC. Not later than ninety days after the Act's enactment, the SEC, after consulting with theChairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Secretary of theTreasury, shall appoint the chairperson of the Board and other initial members and shall designateeach person's term of service. The term of service of each Board member is five years, except that the terms of office of theinitial Board members shall expire in annual increments. Any Board member appointed to fill avacancy occurring before the expiration of the term of the predecessor shall be appointed only forthe remainder of that term. No person may be a member or chairperson of the Board for more than two terms, whetheror not consecutive. A member of the Board may be removed by the SEC for good cause. The Board may issue rules concerning its operation and administration and other matters,subject to the approval of the SEC. The Board must submit an annual report to the SEC; the SEC shall transmit a copy of thatreport to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committeeon Financial Services. Section 102 requires that, beginning 180 days after the Commission determines that theBoard can fulfill its duties, it shall be unlawful for any person not a registered public accounting firmto prepare or issue or participate in the preparation or issuing of any audit report concerning anyissuer. Each accounting firm must submit as part of its application for registration the names of allissuers for which it prepared or issued audit reports during the preceding calendar year; the annualfees received from each issuer for audit services, other accounting services, and non-audit services;other current financial information as requested by the Board; a statement of the firm's qualitycontrol practices; a list of all accountants associated with the firm who help to prepare audit reports;information concerning civil, criminal, or administrative actions or disciplinary proceedings pendingagainst the firm or any person associated with the firm in connection with any audit report; copiesof any disclosures filed by an issuer with the Commission concerning accounting disagreements; andany other specified information. The Board shall approve a completed application for registration not later than 45 days afterthe date of receipt unless the Board issues a notice of disapproval or requests more information. Each registered public accounting firm shall submit an annual report to the Board and may berequired to update reports more frequently. Registration applications and annual reports shall bemade available for public inspection. The Board shall assess and collect a registration fee and an annual fee from each registeredpublic accounting firm to cover the costs of processing and reviewing. Section 103 requires the Board to establish by rule such quality control standards to be usedby registered public accounting firms in the preparation and issuing of audit reports, as required bythe Act or the rules of the Commission or as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for theprotection of investors. The Board may consult with professional groups of accountants or advisorygroups. The Board's rules shall require that each registered public accounting firm must keep workpapers for at least seven years, provide a concurring or second partner review of the audit report, anddescribe in each audit report the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer. The Board shall cooperate with professional groups of accountants and advisory groups inthe examination of the need for changes in accounting standards. Section 104 requires the Board to conduct a continuing program of inspections to assess thedegree of compliance of each registered public accounting firm. Inspections shall be conductedannually for each registered public accounting firm providing audit reports for more than 100 issuersand at least once every three years for each firm providing audit reports for 100 or fewer issuers. Section 105 requires the Board to issue rules concerning fair procedures for the investigationand disciplining of registered public accounting firms and associated persons of the firms. TheBoard may conduct an investigation of any act or practice by a registered public accounting firmwhich may be a violation of the Act, the Board's rules, or the securities laws concerning preparationand issuing of audit reports and liabilities of accountants. If a registered public accounting firm or person associated with the firm refuses to cooperatewith the investigation, the Board may impose such sanctions as suspending or revoking theregistration of the public accounting firm. The Board may refer an investigation to the Commission, any other federal functionalregulator, the Attorney General of the United States, the attorney general of one or more states, andthe appropriate state regulatory authority. For the most part information received by the Board concerning an investigation shall beprivileged and confidential in any proceeding in federal court, state court, or administrative agencyuntil presented in connection with a public proceeding. If the Board finds that a registered public accounting firm has violated the Act, the rules ofthe Board, or the securities laws concerning audit reports and accountants, it may impose appropriatesanctions, including temporary suspension or permanent revocation of registration; a civil penaltyfor each violation in an amount not more than $100,000 for a natural person or $2,000,000 for anyother person; if in a case involving intentional or other knowing conduct, a fine not more than$750,000 for a natural person or $15,000,000 for any other person; censure; or any other appropriatesanction. Such sanctions as registration suspension and revocation and the larger monetary penaltiesshall apply only to intentional or knowing conduct, including reckless conduct, or in repeatedinstances of negligent conduct. Section 106 states that any foreign accounting firm which prepares or furnishes an auditreport concerning any issuer is subject to the Act and the rules of the Board and the SEC issuedunder the Act to the same extent as a United States public accounting firm. Audit workpapers of theforeign accounting firm shall be produced if a United States public accounting firm relies upon theopinion of a foreign accounting firm in auditing an issuer. The Commission and the Board may exempt any foreign public accounting firm from anyprovision of the Act or from rules of the Board or the Commission in the public interest or for theprotection of investors. Section 107 provides that the Commission shall have oversight and enforcement authorityover the Board. No rule of the Board shall become effective without prior approval by theCommission. The Board is to be treated as a registered securities association for purposes ofapproval of its rules by the Commission. The Commission may modify a sanction imposed by theBoard upon a registered public accounting firm if it finds that the sanction is not necessary orappropriate or is excessive, oppressive, or inadequate. Section 108 allows the Commission to recognize as "generally accepted" for purposes of thesecurities laws any accounting principles established by a standard setting body that is a privateentity, has a board of trustees the majority of whom are not and have not been for two yearsassociated with a registered public accounting firm, is funded as required, has adopted proceduresto ensure prompt changes to accounting principles necessary to reflect changing business practices,and considers the need to keep standards current. This standard setting body must have the capacityto assist the Commission. The standard setting body must submit an annual report to theCommission and the public. The SEC shall conduct a study on adoption by the United States financial reporting systemof a principles-based accounting system to replace the rules-based accounting system. Section 109 concerns funding of the Board and the standard setting body, known as theFinancial Accounting Standards Board. The Board and the standard setting body shall establish anannual budget, which is subject to approval by the SEC. The budget of the Board shall be payable from annual accounting support fees assessed uponpublicly traded companies. Section 201 prohibits a registered public accounting firm which performs an audit for anyissuer to provide to that issuer any non-audit service, such as bookkeeping, financial informationsystems design, actuarial services, management functions, investment banking service, and legalservices. Accounting firms may provide certain other non-audit services, including tax services, foran audit client if the activity is approved by the audit committee of the issuer. Section 202 requires that all auditing services and non-audit services provided to an issuerby the auditor of the issuer be preapproved by the audit committee of the issuer (or, if no suchcommittee exists, the entire board of directors of the issuer). Approval by an audit committee of anon-audit service to be approved by the auditor shall be disclosed to investors in periodic reports. Section 203 prohibits a registered public accounting firm from providing audit services toan issuer if the lead audit partner has performed audit services for the issuer in each of the fiveprevious fiscal years. Section 204 requires each registered public accounting firm performing an audit for an issuerto report to the audit committee all critical accounting policies and practices, all alternativetreatments of financial information, and other material written communications. Section 206 makes it unlawful for a registered public accounting firm to perform any auditservice if a chief executive officer, controller, chief financial officer, or chief accounting officer wasemployed by that independent registered public accounting firm and participated in any capacity inthe audit of that issuer during the one year period preceding the date of the initiation of the audit. Section 301 requires each member of the audit committee of the issuer to be a member of theboard of directors of the issuer and to be independent otherwise. In order to be consideredindependent, a member of an audit committee may not accept any consulting, advisory or othercompensatory fee from the issuer or be an affiliated person of the issuer or any subsidiary. Each audit committee must establish procedures for the treatment of complaints concerningaccounting or auditing matters and anonymous submissions by employees of the issuer concerningquestionable accounting or auditing matters. Section 302 directs the Commission to issue a rule requiring for each company filing periodicreports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that the principal executive officer and theprincipal financial officer certify in each annual or quarterly report that the signing officer hasreviewed the report and that, based on the officer's knowledge, the report does not contain untruestatements and does not omit statements resulting in a misleading report and that the financialstatements fairly represent the financial condition of the company. The signing officers areresponsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls. The signing officers must discloseto the issuer's auditors and to the audit committee significant deficiencies in the internal controls andany fraud which involves management or employees who have a significant role in the issuer'sinternal controls. The requirements of this provision shall not be diminished if an issuer reincorporates ortransfers domicile or offices from inside the United States to a foreign country. Section 303 declares unlawful any officer's or director's taking any action fraudulently toinfluence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead any independent public or certified accountant engaged inauditing financial statements for the purpose of making those financial statements materiallymisleading. Section 304 provides that, if an issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatementbecause of material noncompliance of the issuer as a result of misconduct, the chief executive officerand the chief financial officer shall reimburse the issuer for any bonus received during the during theprevious twelve month period and any profits from the sale of securities of the issuer during thattwelve month period. Section 305 gives the SEC the authority to bar a person from serving as an officer or directorif that person committed a securities law violation and his conduct demonstrated unfitness to serveas an officer or director. The Commission may also seek in federal court any equitable relief appropriate or necessaryfor the benefit of investors. Section 306 prohibits directors or executive officers from engaging in transactions involvingany equity security of the issuer during any blackout period if the director or officer acquires theequity security in connection with service or employment as a director or officer. A "blackoutperiod" is defined as any period of more than three consecutive business days during which theability of not fewer than 50% of the participants or beneficiaries under all individual retirementaccount plans maintained by the issuer to purchase or sell any equity of the issuer held in anindividual account plan is temporarily suspended by the issuer or by a fiduciary of the plan. This section also requires that participants in retirement plans be provided with written noticeat least 30 days before a blackout period. There are two exceptions to the 30 day notice: 1. thedeferral of the blackout period would violate ERISA provisions requiring fiduciaries to actexclusively on behalf of participants and ERISA provisions requiring trustees to act prudently intheir decisions concerning plan assets could not be complied with or 2. the inability to provide noticeis because of unforeseeable events or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the planadministrator. The Secretary of Labor may assess a civil penalty against a plan administrator of up to $100a day from the date of the plan administrator's failure or refusal to provide notice to participants andbeneficiaries. Section 307 requires the Commission to issue rules in the public interest and for theprotection of investors to set forth minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys whopractice before the Commission in representing issuers. The rules must require an attorney to reportevidence of a material violation of securities law or breach of fiduciary duty by the company or itsagent to the chief legal counsel or to the chief executive officer of the company. If the counsel orofficer does not respond to the evidence, the attorney must report the evidence to the audit committeeor to the board of directors. Section 308 allows civil penalties levied by the Commission as a result of any judicial oradministrative action to be placed into a disgorgement fund for the benefit of harmed investors. TheSEC may also accept gifts and bequests for this fund. Section 401 requires each financial report filed as part of periodic disclosures by an issuerto reflect all material correcting adjustments identified by a registered public accounting firm. The Commission is required to issue rules providing that annual and quarterly financial reports filed with the Commission shall disclose all material off-balance sheet transactions that mayhave a material current or future effect on financial condition, changes in financial condition, orsignificant components of revenues or expenses. The Commission must also issue rules providing that pro forma financial informationincluded in any report filed with the SEC shall not contain an untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the pro forma financial information notmisleading. The SEC is required to conduct a thorough study of special purpose entities, including thepotential exposure faced by investors. Section 402 prohibits personal loans of any kind by an issuer to a director or executive officerof the issuer. Section 403 requires insiders, defined as officers, directors, and 10% shareholders, to filewith the SEC reports of their trades of the issuer's stock before the end of the second business dayon which the trade occurred or at such other time if the SEC determines that the two-day period isnot feasible. Beginning within one year after passage of this Act, the filing shall be doneelectronically and the information shall be provided on an Internet site within one day after filing. Section 404 requires the Commission to prescribe rules requiring each annual report tocontain an internal control report which shall state the responsibility of management for establishingand maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting and anassessment of the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer forfinancial reporting. Section 405 exempts registered investment companies from certain disclosure requirements,such as filing a statement assessing the effectiveness of internal controls. Section 406 requires the SEC to issue rules to require each issuer to disclose whether or not,and, if not, the reason why, it has adopted a code of ethics for senior financial officers, such as theprincipal financial officer, comptroller, or principal accounting officer. Section 407 requires the Commission to issue rules to require each issuer to disclose whetheror not, and, if not, the reason why, the audit committee of that issuer has at least one member whois a financial expert. A "financial expert" is a person who: 1. has an understanding of generallyaccepted accounting principles and financial statements; 2. experience in the preparation or auditingof financial statements of generally comparable issuers; 3. experience in the application of theseprinciples in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals, and reserves; 4. experience withinternal accounting controls; and 5. an understanding of audit committee functions. Section 408 requires the Commission to review disclosures by issuers at least once everythree years. Section 409 requires each issuer to disclose in plain English to the public on a rapid andcurrent basis additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition andoperations of the issuer. Section 501 requires the Commission or a registered securities association or nationalsecurities exchange within one year to adopt rules designed to address conflicts of interest facingsecurities analysts. These rules must restrict the pre-publication clearance of research orrecommendations by investment bankers not directly responsible for investment research, limit thesupervision and compensatory evaluation of research personnel to officials not engaged ininvestment activities, and protect securities analysts from retaliation or threats of retaliation byinvestment banking staff because of unfavorable research reports. The rules must also require a stock analyst to disclose the extent to which he owns stockbeing discussed, whether he or his employer has received any income from the company whose stockis being discussed, whether his employer has had any business dealings within the past year with thecompany, and whether the analyst's compensation was tied to investment banking revenue. Section 601 authorizes the appropriations of the SEC for fiscal year 2003. It shall receive$776,000,000, of which $102,700,000 shall be available to fund additional compensation, includingsalaries and benefits; $108,400,000 shall be available for information technology, securityenhancements, and recovery and mitigation activities in light of the attacks on September 11, 2001;and $98,000,000 shall be available to add at least 200 qualified professionals to provide enhancedoversight of auditors and audit services and support staff to strengthen full disclosure. Section 602 authorizes the Commission to censure any person or deny to any person theprivilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission if the Commission finds that person notto possess the qualifications to represent others, to be lacking in character or integrity or to haveengaged in unethical or improper professional conduct, or to have willfully violated or willfullyaided or abetted the violation of the securities laws or regulations. Section 603 allows a court to prohibit a person from participating in an offering of pennystock. Section 604 authorizes the SEC to bar from the securities industry persons who have beensuspended or barred by a state securities, banking, or insurance regulator because of fraudulent,manipulative, or deceptive conduct. This title requires that a number of studies and reports be conducted. For example, theComptroller General is required to conduct a study concerning factors leading to the consolidationof public accounting firms. The Commission is required to conduct a study concerning the role andfunction of credit rating agencies in the operation of the securities market. The Commission is alsorequired to conduct a study of securities professionals who have aided and abetted violations of thefederal securities laws. The Commission must review and analyze its enforcement actionsconcerning violations of securities law reporting requirements and restatements of financialstatements over the past five years. The General Accounting Office is required to conduct a studyon the role of investment banks and financial advisers in assisting public companies in manipulatingtheir earnings and obscuring their true financial condition. GAO is specifically directed to addressthe role of investment banks in the bankruptcy of Enron and the failure of Global Crossing. Section 801 indicates that Title VIII of the bill may be cited as the "Corporate and CriminalFraud Accountability Act of 2002." Section 802 creates two new federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 imposes criminal sanctionsfor destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations and bankruptcy. Underthis section, anyone who "knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, ormakes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct,or influence the investigation or proper administration of any department or agency of the UnitedStates or any case filed under title 11 [of the United States Code, dealing with bankruptcy], or inrelation to or in contemplation of any such matter or case" would be subject, upon conviction, toimprisonment of up to 20 years, a fine under title 18 of the United States Code, or both. Under 18U.S.C. § 3571, individuals convicted of a felony may be fined the greater of either the amount setforth in the offense statute or an amount not more than $250,000, while the maximum fine for anorganization convicted of a felony would be the greater of the amount set forth in the offense statuteor an amount of not more than $500,000. This section also provides for an alternative fine based onpecuniary gain or loss. If anyone has derived pecuniary gain from the offense or if the offense resultsin pecuniary loss to any person, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice thegross gain or twice the gross loss, unless the imposition of a fine under this subsection would undulycomplicate or prolong the sentencing process. New 18 U.S.C. § 1520, in part, provides criminal sanctions for destruction of corporate auditrecords. Under subsection 1520(a)(1), an accountant who conducts an audit of an issuer of securitiesto which 15 U.S.C. § 78j-1(a) applies is required to maintain all audit or review workpapers for 5years after the end of the fiscal period within which the audit or review was concluded. Subsection1520(a)(2) directs the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations within 180 days, after a notice andcomment period, regarding record retention relating to such an audit or review, and authorizes theSEC to amend or supplement them. Anyone who knowingly and willfully violates 18 U.S.C. §1520(a)(1) or any rules or regulations promulgated under 18 U.S.C. § 1520(b) is subject to a fineunder title 18 of the U.S. Code, (3) imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both. (4) The provisions ofnew 18U.S.C. § 1520 do not alter any other obligations or duties imposed by federal or state laws orregulations regarding record retention. (5) Section 803 renders debts incurred in violation of securities fraud laws nondischargeable inbankruptcy proceedings. More specifically, it amends 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) by adding a newsubsection (19) providing that a discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or1328(b) does not discharge an individual debtor from a debt that meets two criteria: (1) the debt isfor a violation of federal securities laws; state securities laws; regulations under federal or statesecurities laws; common law fraud, deceit or manipulation in connection with the purchase or saleof any security; and (2) the debt results from a judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered ina federal or state judicial or administrative proceeding; a settlement agreement entered into by thedebtor; or a court or administrative order for damages, fine, penalty, citation, restitution,disgorgement, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the debtor. While creating no new private rights of action, section 804 modifies 28 U.S.C. § 1658 toestablish a statute of limitations for private rights of action involving a claim of fraud, deceit,manipulation, or contrivance in violation of a securities regulatory requirement committed on orafter the effective date of the Act. The new limitation period is the earlier of either 2 years afterdiscovery of the facts constituting the violation or 5 years after the commission of the violation. Section 805 directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the sentencingguidelines for obstruction of justice and violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1520 to ensure that theyare sufficient to deter and punish such offenses. In addition, it directs the Commission to providea specific offense characteristic sentencing enhancement under Guideline 2B1.1 for a fraud offenseendangering the solvency or financial security of a substantial number of victims. Further, theCommission is directed to make certain that the organizational sentencing guidelines under Chapter8 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are sufficient to deter and punish organizational criminalmisconduct. The Commission must promulgate these guidelines or amendments within 180 daysof enactment of the Act. Section 806 adds new 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, which creates a civil action to protect employeesof publicly traded companies against discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment inretaliation for whistleblowing in securities fraud cases. This section covers situations where suchemployees have engaged in any lawful act to provide information, to cause information to beprovided, or otherwise to assist any investigation by a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency,a Member of Congress or congressional committee, or a person having supervisory authority overthe employee or investigative authority for the employer, regarding any violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1341 (mail fraud), 1343 (wire fraud), 1344 ( bank fraud), 1348 (securities fraud againstshareholders), or any SEC rule or regulation; or of any federal law regarding fraud againstshareholders. In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A authorizes an employee alleging such wrongfuldischarge or other discrimination to seek relief by filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor,using procedures set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(1). In the absence of delay due to bad faith ofthe employee, if the Secretary of Labor does not issue a final decision within 180 days, the employeemay bring an action in the appropriate U.S. District Court, seeking de novo review. (6) The section requires that anaction brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1) must be commenced within 90 days after thedate on which the violation occurs. (7) Remedies provided an employee prevailing in an action undersection 1514A(b)(1) includes all relief necessary to make him or her whole, including reinstatementwith pre-discrimination seniority status, back pay with interest, and compensation for any specialdamages incurred due to the discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, andreasonable attorneys fees. (8) Section 1514A(d) leaves the employee with all rights, privileges or remedies under federal or statelaw or any collective bargaining agreement. Section 807 creates a new securities fraud crime with penalties including a fine under Title18, U.S. Code. (9) Theoffense covers anyone who knowingly executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice to defraudany person in connection with a security of an issue with a class of securities registered under 15U.S.C. § 78l or required to file reports under 15 U.S.C. § 78o(d); or to obtain by false or fraudulentpretenses, representations or promises, any money or property in connection with purchase or saleof a class of securities registered under 15 U.S.C. § 78l or required to file reports under 15 U.S.C.§78o(d). Upon conviction an offender would face up to 25 years in prison, a fine under Title 18,U.S.C., or both. Section 901 designates this title of the Act as the "White-Collar Crime Penalty EnhancementAct of 2002." Section 902 adds a new 18 U.S.C. § 1349 to the U.S. Code, which indicates that any personwho attempts or conspires to commit an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1341-1348 (dealing generallywith fraudulent acts of various types) shall face the same penalties as those provided for the offensethat was the object of the attempt or the conspiracy. Section 903 increases the potential maximum term of imprisonment available uponconviction for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) or wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), other than mail fraudor wire fraud affecting a financial institution, from five years to twenty years. Section 904 raises the maximum criminal penalties available upon conviction of anyonewillfully violating Title I, subtitle B, part 1 of ERISA, or any regulation or order issued thereunder. Heretofore, 29 U.S.C. § 1131 provided that individual offenders faced a maximum fine of $5,000(unless a larger fine was imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3571), (10) a maximum term ofimprisonment of 1 year, or both. Section 904 of the Act increases the maximum fine for anindividual defendant convicted under 29 U.S.C. § 1131 to $100,000, and the maximum term ofimprisonment to 10 years. Under the new language in this offense provision, organizationaldefendants will face an increased fine level, raised from $100,000 to $500,000. It is noteworthy thatthe increased maximum term of imprisonment changes this offense from a misdemeanor to afelony. (11) Section 905 directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission, within 180 days of the date ofenactment of the Act, to review, and, as appropriate, to amend the applicable sentencing guidelinesand related policy statements to implement the Act, thereby ensuring, among other things, that thepertinent guidelines and policy statements reflect the seriousness of the offenses, the growingincidence of such fraud offenses, and the need to modify these guidelines and policy statements todeter, prevent, and punish such offenses. Section 906 creates a new 18 U.S.C. § 1350, dealing with corporate responsibility forfinancial reports. Subsections 1350(a) and (b) require the chief executive officer and chief financialofficer (or their equivalent) of an issuer to certify the accuracy of periodic financial statements filedby the issuer with the SEC under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a) or 78o(d) and the compliance of those reportswith statutory requirements in 18 U.S.C. § 1350. Anyone who makes such a certification knowingthat the report accompanying the certifying statement does not meet the statutory requirementswould, upon conviction, face up to $1 million in fine, up to 10 years in prison, or both. Anyonewillfully certifying compliance knowing that the periodic report accompanying the statement doesnot comport with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 would face a fine of up to $5 million,imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both. (12) Section 1001 states that it is the sense of the Senate that the federal income tax return of acorporation should be signed by the chief executive officer of the corporation. Section 1101 designates this title of the Act as the "Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of2002." Section 1102 amends 18 U.S.C. § 1512 to add a new subsection (c) which defines a newcrime. Under this new subsection, anyone who corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals arecord, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for usein an official proceeding or who otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes such a proceeding, orattempts to do any of these things, faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, a fine under Title 18, U.S.Code, (13) or both. Under Section 1103 , 15 U.S.C. § 78u-3 is amended to afford the SEC the right, during thecourse of a lawful investigation of possible securities law violations by an issuer of publicly tradedsecurities or its directors, officers, partners, controlling partners, agents, or employees, the power,under specified circumstances, to petition a U.S. district court for temporary freeze authority. Thismechanism would become available when the SEC deems it likely that the issuer will be makingextraordinary payments to any of those persons. In response to such a petition, the court may requirethe issuer to escrow those payments in an interest-bearing account for 45 days under courtsupervision. Unless impracticable or contrary to the public interest, the court will give those affectednotice and an opportunity to be heard. An order entered under this provision may be extended forup to 45 additional days upon good cause shown. If the issuer or any of those persons referenced ischarged with a securities law violation before the expiration of such an order, the order shallcontinue in effect, subject to court approval, until the conclusion of pertinent legal proceedings. Otherwise, the order will terminate and the payments will be returned to the affected recipients. Section 1104 directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review sentencing guidelinesapplicable to securities fraud, accounting fraud, and related offenses, to consider sentencingenhancements for officers or directors of publicly traded corporations who commit such offenses,and to report thereon to Congress. The section specifies considerations that should be taken intoaccount by the Commission in making its review. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed topromulgate resulting new guidelines or amendments to existing guidelines within 180 days of thedate of enactment of the Act. Section 1105 amends 15 U.S.C. § 78u-3 to provide the Commission authority, in anycease-and-desist proceeding under Section 78u-3(a), to issue an order prohibiting anyone who hasviolated Section 10(b) (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) or related rules or regulations from acting as an officeror director of any issuer of a class registered under Section 12 (15 U.S.C. § 78l) or required to filereports pursuant to section 15(d) (15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)), if the person's conduct demonstrates unfitnessto serve in such capacity. In addition, it amends 15 U.S.C. § 77h-1 to authorize the SEC, in such acease-and-desist proceeding, to issue an order prohibiting any person who has violated section17(a)(1) (15 U.S.C. § 78q(a)) or related rules or regulations from acting as an officer or director ofsuch an issuer if the person's conduct demonstrates unfitness to serve in such a capacity. In eitherof these types of orders prohibiting service as an officer or director of such an issuer, the prohibitionmay be conditional or unconditional and may be permanent or for such time as the SEC maydetermine. Under Section 1106 of the Act, the criminal penalties available under 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a) forindividual defendants are increased from a maximum fine of $1 million to $5 million and amaximum term of imprisonment from 10 years to 20 years, or both, while the maximum fine fororganizational defendants is increased from $2.5 million to $25 million. (14) Finally, Section 1107 amends 18 U.S.C. § 1513 to add a new subsection which provides,upon conviction, for imposition of a sentence including a fine under Title 18, U.S. Code;imprisonment for up to 10 years; or both; upon anyone who knowingly takes harmful action,including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, with intent toretaliate for providing truthful information to a law enforcement officer regarding the commissionor possible commission of any federal offense. | On July 30, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, P.L.107-204 . This law has been described by some as the most important and far-reaching securitieslegislation since passage of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq ., and the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a et seq ., both of which were passed in the wake of the stockmarket crash of 1929. The Act establishes a new Public Company Accounting Oversight Board which is to besupervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Act restricts accounting firms fromperforming a number of other services for the companies which they audit. The Act also requiresnew disclosures for public companies and the officers and directors of those companies. Among theother issues affected by the new legislation are securities fraud, criminal and civil penalties forviolating the securities laws and other laws, blackouts for insider trades of pension fund shares, andprotections for corporate whistleblowers. This report will not be updated. |
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 ||||| (CNN) Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton raised his fist in a black-power salute after scoring a touchdown. Pittsburgh Steeler Alejandro Villanueva was joined on the field by his teammates this time.
And many San Francisco 49ers knelt during the National Anthem, although some put their hands over their hearts.
For the second consecutive Sunday, NFL players around the country and in London demonstrated in a variety of ways in response to President Trump's call for NFL owners to fire any "son of a bitch" who "disrespects our flag."
Former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick pioneered the protests last year when he took a knee during the anthem over what he said was social and racial injustice.
As they were last week, some players' protests were met with boos from fans.
Here's a roundup of highlights from stadiums around the league.
Boos in Baltimore
Before the Baltimore Ravens took the field against Pittsburgh Steelers, the public-address announcer asked the crowd to join the Ravens organization "to pray that we as a nation embrace kindness, unity, equality, and justice for all Americans," CNN affiliate WJZ reported
The Ravens took a knee, then stood for the playing of the National Anthem, the station reported. The crowd appeared to boo as players knelt.
If you didn't go to the game, this is what we did pre-game. I was proud to read this. pic.twitter.com/1C653C8hlP — Bruce Cunningham (@Bruce45Sports) October 1, 2017
Last week, fans also booed when the Dallas Cowboys, including owner Jerry Jones, took a knee before locking arms during the anthem.
The Steelers all took the field before the anthem and stood during the song. Many Steelers, including head coach Mike Tomlin and quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, were shown with their hand over their hearts.
So was Steeler tackle Alejandro Villanueva, a former captain in the Army and an ex-Ranger. Last week, while the rest of his teammates remained in the locker room during the anthem, Villanueva stood in the tunnel alone with his hand over his heart.
Fists raised in Cleveland
Some players took stronger stances.
Several Cleveland Browns players held their fists high during the anthem before their game against the Cincinnati Bengals. At least one Browns fan also raised his fist in the air while those next to him saluted or held their hands over their hearts.
Bengals players were shown standing. The broadcast didn't show any players from either team kneeling.
Lynch vs. Trump
Oakland Raiders running back Marshawn Lynch was spotted walking into Sports Authority Field in Denver Sunday wearing a T-shirt that read, "EVERYBODY VS. TRUMP," according to KGO, a CNN affiliate
Raiders RB Marshawn Lynch wearing an "Everybody vs Trump" T-shirt: pic.twitter.com/7aiCUbjLUD — Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) October 1, 2017
Lynch later sat on the bench, as he usually does, during the playing of the National Anthem before the game with the Denver Broncos -- the only Raider to do so, according to multiple reports.
JUST WATCHED Baker on NFL players' protest: It's outrageous Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Baker on NFL players' protest: It's outrageous 00:56
Taking a knee in London
A trio of Miami Dolphins players -- Kenny Stills, Michael Thomas and Julius Thomas -- also took a knee as the anthem played before their game against the New Orleans Saints at Wembley Stadium in London, England, according to CNN affiliate WFOR . The three players stood for the British national anthem, the station reported.
The Saints, including quarterback Drew Brees, were seen kneeling as a team before the anthem. Most Saints players stood while the anthem played, and some locked arms.
The New Orleans Saints team kneels before standing for the National Anthem in a game against the Miami Dolphins in London's Wembley Stadium.
Other players kneel, sit, wear T-shirts
Several Buffalo Bills players took a knee during the anthem before the game against the Atlanta Falcons; most Bills players stood with their arms linked. The Falcons, including head coach Dan Quinn, stood with their arms linked, too.
Detroit Loins players Jalen Reeves-Maybin and Steve Longa took a knee during the anthem before playing the Minnesota Vikings. Some Lions players locked arms, as well as the entire Vikings team, according to announcer.
Steve Longa, a linebacker with the Detroit Lions, takes a knee with teammate Jalen Reeves-Maybin during the National Anthem before playing the Minnesota Vikings in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Before the game between the Indianapolis Colts and Seattle Seahawks, the Colts players released a statement saying the players who had previously knelt during the anthem "did not intend to disrespect our flag, our National Anthem or those who serve our country."
Rather, the players wanted to use their platform to raise awareness and talk about "about real equality, the injustices against black and brown people, police brutality, respect, unity and equal opportunity," the statement said.
"Our players are hurting, our people are hurting, our neighborhoods are hurting, and kneeling was a direct response to that hurt," the statement said.
A statement from our players: pic.twitter.com/B844SSbW73 — Indianapolis Colts (@Colts) October 1, 2017
During warmups, some Colts players, including quarterback Andrew Luck, wore black T-shirts with "WE WILL" on the front and "STAND FOR...EQUALITY, JUSTICE, UNITY, RESPECT, DIALOGUE, OPPORTUNITY" on the back.
The Colts were shown standing during the anthem with their arms linked on the TV broadcast. The broadcast showed Seattle Seahawks defensive linemen Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, and Frank Clark seated during anthem; other Seahawks were standing. Other Seahawks also sat during the anthem, a photo from CNN affiliate KIRO-TV showed.
'Stay united, not divided'
Carolina Panthers teammates Thomas Davis and Jonathan Stewart joined in prayer on the sidelines before the team's game against the New England Patriots in Foxborough, Massachusetts, CNN affiliate WBTV reported.
Panthers linebacker Shaq Thompson sported blue shoes with the words, "Stay United, Not Divided." The shoes also featured black and white hands shaking hands, WBTV reported.
Carolina Panther Julius Peppers, who remained in the locker room during the anthem before the team's game last week, was on the field for the song Sunday.
Patriots players, including quarterback Tom Brady, stood during the anthem and rested their hands on the player next to them.
Newton stood for the anthem. He later raised his fist after scoring a rushing touchdown in the fourth quarter in the 33-30 win.
"It was to signify Black Power, but more importantly, I pray every night for God to give me a pinnacle to give people hope," Newton said after the game, according to a video of his post-game press conference posted on the official Panthers site.
"I did it to ... show black pride because I am an African-American," Newton said.
Newton said he also wanted people to see "the joy... that I go out there and play with."
'Embrace your differences'
About half the members of the San Francisco 49ers knelt during the National Anthem before their game against the Arizona Cardinals in Glendale, Arizona, while some of those kneeling also placed their hands over their hearts. Their teammates stood behind them, with one hand over their hearts and the other on the shoulders of the kneeling players.
The 49ers issued a statement saying the demonstration was meant to show unity, love and brotherhood.
"For more than a year, members of our team have protested the oppression and social injustices still present in our society. While some may not have taken a knee or raised a fist, we have all shared the desire to influence positive change," the team said.
A statement from the players, coaches, ownership and staff of the San Francisco #49ers pic.twitter.com/Rs2XCOiUeO — San Francisco 49ers (@49ers) October 1, 2017
"Our demonstration is simply a representation of how we hope our country can also come together by putting differences aside and solving its problems," said the team, which encouraged fans to "embrace your differences, find strength in them, and come together for the good of all." ||||| Jeremy Schaap reviews the results of an ESPN-commissioned survey with over 1,000 respondents on NFL protests during the national anthem. (2:14)
President Donald Trump criticized NFL players who lodge pregame protests, saying in a speech in Alabama on Sept. 22 that he wished those players would be released. He also encouraged fans who are offended to walk out of stadiums. Several players and coaches reacted strongly to Trump on social media, and players -- joined by coaches and owners, in some instances -- across the league knelt, locked arms, raised their fists and even refused to come out of the locker room during the national anthem in Week 3. Trump has continued calling for action against those who kneel during the national anthem, while owners this week scrambled to retain control.
Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started the pregame protest of racial oppression and inequality in the United States last season by sitting during the national anthem before a preseason game, then kneeling during the anthem throughout the season.
Previous protests this season: Week 3 | Week 2 | Week 1 | Preseason
Here's what every team did during the national anthem in Week 4 (most recent updates first; more will be added throughout the day):
Monday Night Football
Kansas City Chiefs: Every Chiefs player stood for the national anthem during Monday's game against the Redskins, except for cornerback Marcus Peters and linebackers Justin Houston and Ukeme Eligwe. Houston kneeled in prayer position on the bench for the first half of the anthem and stood for the remainder, while Peters sat on the bench. Peters has sat on the bench during the anthem in every game this season. He protested by raising his fist during the national anthem for the Chiefs’ season opener last year. -- Adam Teicher
Washington Redskins: The Redskins all stood for the national anthem , one week after seven kneeled. They did not link arms. The team released a statement after the anthem last week: “Football has always served as the great unifier, bringing people together to celebrate the values of courage, commitment and achievement. We are proud of the players, coaches and fans of the Washington Redskins for all that they have done to improve the lives of others in neighborhoods all across our region. We are also grateful for the sacrifices made by the brave men and women of our armed forces that have provided us the freedom to play football. In that great tradition, the Washington Redskins will work to address divisions and bring unity, civility and respect to our greater community.” -- John Keim
Sunday's games
Seattle Seahawks: Several Seahawks players sat on the bench during the national anthem before Sunday night's game against the Colts. Eight of them were defensive linemen: Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Frank Clark, Jarran Reed, Sheldon Richardson, Marcus Smith, Nazair Jones and Garrison Smith. Linebacker Michael Wilhoite sat as well. Injured defensive end Dion Jordan stood next to Wilhoite with a supportive hand on Wilhoite's shoulder. Offensive linemen Justin Britt and Oday Aboushi stood on the other end. Aboushi had his hand on Britt's shoulder while Britt had his hand on Avril's shoulder. -- Brady Henderson
Indianapolis Colts: A week after having at least eight players take a knee during the national anthem, none of the Colts took a knee during the anthem before Sunday's game in Seattle. Instead, the team collectively stood and locked arms during the anthem. During warm-ups, the Colts wore black T-shirts that said "We will" on the front and "Stand for equality, justice, unity, respect, dialogue, opportunity" on the back. -- Mike Wells
ESPN Staff Writer The back of the t-shirts that the Colts are wearing for tonight's game against the Seahawks
Oakland Raiders: The Raiders stayed true to their word, as last week’s near-team-wide demonstration during the anthem was a one-week affair. All Raiders players stood for the anthem in Denver except for Marshawn Lynch, who remained seated and covered by Raiders staff members. Lynch entered the stadium wearing a T-shirt that read: EVERYBODY VS. TRUMP. Lynch has remained seated during the anthem since joining Oakland, but he has never said why he sits. -- Paul Gutierrez
ESPN Staff Writer Marshawn Lynch has not said why he has remained seated during the national anthem since joining the Raiders. The T-shirt he wore entering Sports Authority Field in Sunday, though, spoke volumes: EVERYBODY -VS- TRUMP
Denver Broncos: Every Broncos player stood for the national anthem. But linebacker Brandon Marshall, a former teammate of Colin Kaepernick at Nevada who kneeled before eight games last season, raised his left fist into the air. Last week, 32 Broncos players took a knee during the national anthem before the team’s game against the Bills. -- Jeff Legwold
San Francisco 49ers: Before Sunday’s game against the Cardinals, 30 49ers players knelt during the national anthem with a hand over their heart. Those players knelt in a row with the rest of their teammates and coaches behind them. Among those kneeling were linebacker NaVorro Bowman, safety Eric Reid and running back Carlos Hyde. The players in the back row had a hand on the shoulder of each of the players kneeling and the other hand over their hearts. General manager John Lynch and CEO Jed York stood with the team, also with their hands over their hearts. -- Nick Wagoner
Thirty 49ers players kneeled during the national anthem in Week 4. AP Photo/Rick Scuteri
Arizona Cardinals: Every Cardinals player stood during the national anthem. They did not link arms like they did on Monday Night Football in Week 3. -- Josh Weinfuss
Philadelphia Eagles: Safety Malcolm Jenkins continued demonstrating for social justice by raising his first above his head during the national anthem prior to Sunday’s game against the Chargers. Safety Rodney Mcleod joined him by raising a fist. Defensive end Chris Long placed an arm around Jenkins as a sign of support. Several defensive backs, including Sidney Jones and Dexter McDougle, locked arms beside them. -- Tim McManus
Los Angeles Chargers: All Chargers players stood, some linked arm in arm, during the national anthem before the game. None kneeled. -- Eric D. Williams
New York Giants: The Giants linked arms during the national anthem prior to their game against the Bucs, and defensive end Olivier Vernon knelt for the second straight week. Defensive tackle Damon Harrison and safety Landon Collins held their fists in the air after kneeling last week. Linebacker Keenan Robinson also held his fist in the air. -- Jordan Raanan
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: All Bucs players and staff members stood during the national anthem. No players linked arms. Wide receiver Mike Evans said earlier this week that he was 50-50 about doing it, but he gave the impression that he was leaning toward standing, which he did. -- Jenna Laine
Los Angeles Rams: Outside linebacker Robert Quinn raised his right fist in the air and punter Johnny Hekker put his arm around him in a show of support, as they have done in past weeks, before the Rams' game against the Cowboys. Rams coach Sean McVay said earlier in the week that his team would follow “standard operating procedures” for the anthem. -- Alden Gonzalez
Dallas Cowboys: The Cowboys did what Dez Bryant promised Friday for the national anthem before their game against the Rams: They stood along the sideline without any form of protest. Before their game on Monday Night Football in Week 3, the Cowboys -- including Jerry Jones -- took a knee briefly as a group before the anthem, then they stood arm in arm as the anthem played. -- Todd Archer
Buffalo Bills: A group of six Bills players knelt for the anthem in a line behind the rest of their teammates: wide receiver Kaelin Clay, running back Taiwan Jones, defensive tackle Cedric Thornton, running back Mike Tolbert, defensive lineman Jerel Worthy and cornerback Shareece Wright. All of those players knelt last week except for Worthy, who did not play because of a concussion. Clay wore cleats before the game with the message "#ImWithKap" on them. In addition, cornerback Leonard Johnson stood next to the players who were kneeling. -- Mike Rodak
Kaelin Clay's cleats before the Bills' Week 4 game had a hashtag in support of Colin Kaepernick. AP Photo/David Goldman
Atlanta Falcons: Most of the Falcons linked arms during the national anthem before the game against the Bills, as coach Dan Quinn said they would leading into the game. Defensive tackle Grady Jarrett and Dontari Poe did not take a knee, as they did during last week's game at Detroit. Several players stood with their hand on their heart and did not link arms. -- Vaughn McClure
Cincinnati Bengals: Most of the Bengals stood with their arms locked during the anthem before the game against the Browns, which is what they did last week. The other players stood with their hand over their heart. A few players last week did not link arms and stood with their hand over their heart instead, and more Bengals players did that this week. No player sat or kneeled, which has been the case since the protests started. -- Katherine Terrell
Cleveland Browns: All Browns stood for the anthem. About a dozen linked arms, including quarterback DeShone Kizer. About midway through the anthem, eight to 10 players raised their right fist, including running back Isaiah Crowell, linebacker Chris Kirksey and tight end Randall Telfer. -- Pat McManamon
The Browns players who raised their fists during the national anthem in Week 4. AP Photo/Tony Dejak
Detroit Lions: Steve Longa and Jalen Reeves-Maybin knelt during the anthem before the game against the Vikings. Tahir Whitehead -- who knelt last week -- stood between them with his hands on their shoulders. Nick Bellore and D.J. Hayden also had hands on their shoulders. The rest of the Lions players and coach Jim Caldwell stood in a single line with their arms linked. That included Eric Ebron, who stood alone behind the rest of his teammates last week. Eight Lions players knelt last week. -- Michael Rothstein
Minnesota Vikings: A large group of Vikings locked arms during the anthem. Harrison Smith and David Morgan were the bookends on either side of the line of locked arms. Quarterback Case Keenum and Kyle Sloter, running backs Dalvin Cook, Latavius Murray and C.J. Ham, the entire Vikings offensive, and long-snapper Kevin McDermott did not participate in the demonstration. Kick returner Jerick McKinnon stood behind the sideline for a second straight week with a trainer and did not participate in the demonstration. -- Courtney Cronin
Vikings players lock arms during the playing of the national anthem. AP Photo/Bruce Kluckhohn
Carolina Panthers: Defensive end Julius Peppers, who did not come onto the field for the anthem a week ago, stood for the anthem before Sunday's game against the Patriots with his hands behind his back. Thomas Davis and Jonathan Stewart both stood with their hands together in prayer. There did not appear to be a united protest. -- David Newton
New England Patriots: The Patriots stood side by side on the sideline during the anthem. Most players had their right hand over their heart and their left arm around the player to the next of them. No players kneeled. -- Mike Reiss
Jacksonville Jaguars: The Jaguars knelt as a team before the anthem was played and then stood for the anthem before the game against the Jets. Some players linked arms during the anthem while others stood with their hand over their heart. Coach Doug Marrone was among those linking arms. -- Michael DiRocco
New York Jets: For the second straight week, the Jets locked arms during the national anthem. Once again, chairman and CEO Christopher Johnson joined the players on the sideline. No one was kneeling. -- Rich Cimini
Pittsburgh Steelers: The Steelers all stood for the national anthem before their game in Baltimore. Many players placed their hand over their heart, but the team had full participation in standing. In a sign of solidarity last week, the Steelers stayed in the locker room during the national anthem before their game against the Bears. They were one of three teams to do so -- the Titans and Seahawks were the others. -- Jeremy Fowler
Baltimore Ravens: The Ravens knelt before the national anthem began, and then rose for the anthem. There was a clamoring of boos when the players knelt. Before the anthem, an announcement was made in the stadium for everyone to pray as a nation to embrace kindness, justice, unity and equality. -- Jamison Hensley
Tennessee Titans: Receiver Rishard Matthews remained in the locker room during the anthem before the game against the Texans, running out after the performance ended. The rest of the team stood, with defensive linemen Jurrell Casey and DaQuan Jones and linebackers Brian Orakpo and Wesley Woodyard raising a fist at the conclusion of the anthem. -- Cameron Wolfe
Houston Texans: Some Texans players linked arms during the national anthem before the game against the Titans, but all stood -- most side by side. No players knelt. Last week the players all linked arms. -- Sarah Barshop
New Orleans Saints: As promised, Saints players all knelt together on the sideline before the national anthem, then stood during the anthem -- a planned show of unity after 10 players sat on the bench for the first time last week. Many had arms interlocked or hands on shoulders. -- Mike Triplett
Miami Dolphins: Three Dolphins players -- tight end Julius Thomas, receiver Kenny Stills and safety Michael Thomas -- kneeled during the national anthem in London. Those players and the entire Dolphins sideline stood for the playing of "God Save the Queen," England's national anthem. --James Walker
Thursday Night Football
Green Bay Packers: Players and staff linked arms during the anthem at Lambeau Field on Thursday night before the game against the Bears, as planned. It appeared, however, that only small groups of fans joined in linking arms in the stands, as the Packers players had hoped all fans would. "It was an invitation to join us. The beauty is, it's a free country, so they can choose to do it or not," quarterback Aaron Rodgers said after the game. "The messaging of this unfortunately needs to continue to be redirected, I think. -- Rob Demovsky
Chicago Bears: The Bears joined the Packers in linking arms during the anthem Thursday. Chicago decided last week prior to their home game against the Steelers that every player would lock arms in a sign of solidarity. -- Jeff Dickerson | "Very important that NFL players STAND tomorrow, and always, for the playing of our National Anthem," President Trump tweeted Saturday. He did not get his wish, though fewer players decided to take a knee during the national anthem before Sunday's games, Reuters reports. Many players, however, knelt before the anthem, raised fists during it, or stood with their arms locked—and around 30 San Francisco 49ers, playing for the first time since Trump's call to fire kneeling players sparked league-wide protests, took a knee during the anthem while teammates standing behind them put hands on their shoulders, reports Washington Post. The first game of the day took place in London, England, where the New Orleans Saints knelt as a team before the anthem. Three Miami Dolphins took a knee during the American anthem but stood for the British one, CNN reports. In Baltimore, the Ravens were booed as they knelt before the anthem. All of the Oakland Raiders stood before their game in Denver, apart from Marshawn Lynch, who arrived at the stadium in a shirt that read "Everybody Vs. Trump," reports ESPN, which lists what every team did during the anthem. The Dallas Cowboys, who were joined by coaches, execs, and owner Jerry Jones as they took a knee before the anthem Monday, all stood without any sign of protest. |
In July 2014, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") announced that he had authorized complaints against McDonald's, USA, LLC ("McDonald's USA"), for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or "the Act") by the company and its franchisees. Prior to the announcement, numerous charges of unfair labor practices had been investigated by the Office of General Counsel. These charges involved a variety of actions, including terminations and reductions in hours, undertaken allegedly in response to union organizing. The effort to recognize McDonald's USA and its franchisees as joint employers of the individuals who have alleged unfair labor practices is consistent with the General Counsel's other attempts to have the Board reevaluate when an entity will be considered a joint employer. In a June 2014 amicus brief, for example, the General Counsel encouraged the Board to abandon its existing joint employer standard, which has been in place since 1984. If the Board were to adopt a new standard that made it more likely for parties in a franchise arrangement to be considered joint employers, some contend that it could have a significant impact on the economy and small-business ownership. Some companies, it is argued, might be reluctant to establish franchise relationships for fear of being exposed to possible unfair labor practice claims. Nevertheless, the General Counsel maintains that the Board's current standard ignores Congress's intent that the term "employer" in the NLRA should be construed broadly in light of economic realities and the statute's underlying goals. This report examines the Board's existing joint employer standard. The report also reviews Browning-Ferris Industries of California , the case that prompted the General Counsel's amicus brief, and the unfair labor practice allegations involving McDonald's USA. The NLRA recognizes the right of employees to engage in collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. By "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining," the Act attempts to mitigate and eliminate labor-related obstructions to the free flow of commerce. The NLRA also prohibits certain misconduct by both employers and unions that interferes with the collective bargaining right. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA states that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to "interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7." Similarly, section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to "restrain or coerce ... employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 ..." When individuals work pursuant to an arrangement that involves two businesses, such as a contract that provides for one business supplying workers to another, questions may arise concerning which entity should be considered the "employer" for purposes of the NLRA. In some cases, these businesses may be deemed joint employers because they both exercise some control over the individuals' terms and conditions of employment. In NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ("Third Circuit") observed: "[T]he 'joint employer' concept recognizes that the business entities involved are in fact separate but that they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment." In 1984, the Board established a joint employer standard that followed the Third Circuit's reasoning in Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania . In Laerco Transportation & Warehouse , the Board considered whether Laerco, a provider of trucking and warehouse services, and CTL, a company that provided drivers to Laerco, were joint employers. Citing the Third Circuit's opinion, the Board elaborated on the court's standard, noting: "To establish joint employer status there must be a showing that the employer meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction." In Laerco Transportation , the record indicated that CTL made all of the employment decisions with regard to the drivers provided to Laerco, and was primarily responsible for resolving most problems that arose with the drivers. In addition, any supervision of the drivers provided by Laerco was minimal and routine. In light of these factors, the Board concluded that Laerco did not possess sufficient control over CTL's employees to support a joint employer finding. In TLI, Inc ., another 1984 case involving drivers provided by one company to another, the Board confirmed that there must be a showing that an employer meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship to establish joint employer status. In this case, the Board concluded that Crown Zellerbach, a forest products company that leased drivers from TLI, was not a joint employer of these drivers because it had little impact on the terms and conditions of their employment. The Board explained that Crown did not hire or terminate the drivers, and did not discipline them. In addition, the Board found that the supervision and direction exercised by Crown on a day-to-day basis was limited and routine. Because Crown appeared to exercise only minimal control over the drivers, the Board maintained that it should not be deemed a joint employer. While the Board has continued to follow the joint employer standard established in Laerco Transportation , its solicitation of briefs in Browning-Ferris Industries of California may arguably signal a willingness to revise that standard. Browning-Ferris Industries of California was decided by the regional director of the Board's Region 32 in August 2013. In April 2014, the Board agreed to review the regional director's decision because "it raises substantial issues warranting review." In Browning-Ferris Industries of California , the regional director considered whether Browning-Ferris, a waste management company, is a joint employer of individuals provided by Leadpoint Business Services to perform sorting and housekeeping duties. The dispute arose after a union petitioned to represent all full and regular part-time workers employed by Leadpoint and Browning-Ferris. After examining the relationship between the parties and the relevant workers, the regional director concluded that Browning-Ferris and Leadpoint are not joint employers. Citing a labor services agreement between the parties, the regional director noted that Leadpoint has the sole authority to set the wage rates for the employees it provides to Browning-Ferris. In addition, under the agreement, Leadpoint has the sole responsibility to counsel, discipline, and terminate employees assigned to Browning-Ferris. The regional director further noted that Browning-Ferris does not control the daily work performed by the employees provided by Leadpoint. Quoting TLI, Inc. , the regional director concluded that Browning-Ferris "does not 'share, or co-determine [with Leadpoint] those matters governing the essential terms and employment' of Leadpoint's housekeepers, sorter, or screen cleaners at [Browning-Ferris's] Facility.'" After agreeing to review the regional director's decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California , the Board invited the filing of briefs, including amicus briefs, to address the issues raised in the case. The parties and amici were invited to address one or more of the following questions: 1. Under the Board's current joint-employer standard, as articulated in TLI, Inc . ... and Laerco Transportation ... is Leadpoint Business Services the sole employer of the petitioned-for employees? 2. Should the Board adhere to its existing joint-employer standard or adopt a new standard? What considerations should influence the Board's decision in this regard? 3. If the Board adopts a new standard for determining joint-employer status, what should that standard be? If it involves the application of a multifactor test, what factors should be examined? What should be the basis or rationale for such a standard? In an amicus brief, the Board's General Counsel urged the Board to abandon its current joint-employer standard, contending that "it undermines the fundamental policy of the Act to encourage stable and meaningful collective bargaining." The General Counsel declined to address the Board's first question, but provided responses for the second and third questions. The General Counsel encouraged the Board to adopt a new standard that considers the totality of the circumstances, including how the alleged joint employers have structured their commercial relationship. The General Counsel reasoned that this new standard would allow the Board to find joint employer status where industrial realities make an entity essential for meaningful bargaining. For example, a company that receives workers from a "supplier" company and that has some control over the wages paid by the supplier company should be deemed a joint employer because meaningful bargaining over wages could not occur without its involvement. In this way, the standard proposed by the General Counsel would recognize the potential to control terms and conditions of employment as sufficient to find joint employer status. Whether the Board will adopt a new joint employer standard is not clear. Amicus briefs for Browning-Ferris Industries of California were due by June 26, 2014. The parties to the case were required to file their briefs by July 10, 2014. The Board has not indicated when a decision will be issued. At least 310 unfair labor practice charges involving McDonald's USA and its franchisees have been filed with the Board. While many of these cases have been closed, 107 cases have been found to have merit. Regional directors in at least 17 of the Board's regions have issued complaints against McDonald's USA and its franchisees as joint employers. In a fact sheet devoted to the McDonald's USA cases, the Board maintains that "McDonald's, USA, LLC, through its franchise relationship and its use of tools, resources and technology, engages in sufficient control over its franchisees' operations, beyond protection of the brand, to make it a putative joint employer with its franchisees, sharing liability for violations of our Act." In general, the complaints issued against McDonald's USA and its franchisees appear to follow a similar pattern. The complaints identify the existence of a franchise agreement between McDonald's USA and the franchisee, indicate that McDonald's USA possessed and/or exercised control over the labor relations policies of the franchisee, and state that McDonald's USA is a joint employer of the franchisee's employees. The complaints also describe the alleged misconduct that would constitute a violation of the NLRA, if true, such as termination because of union activity, and threats of reprisal for engaging in union activity. In his amicus brief for Browning-Ferris Industries of California , the General Counsel argued that the current joint employer standard undermines meaningful collective bargaining when there is a franchise relationship: In these commercial arrangements, an employer inserts an intermediary between it and the workers and designates the intermediary as the workers' sole "employer." But notwithstanding the creation of an intermediary, franchisors typically dictate the terms of franchise agreements and "can exert significant control over the day-to-day operations of their franchisees," including the number of workers employed at a franchise and hours each employee works. If the Board adopts the totality of the circumstances standard advocated by the General Counsel, and further examination of the franchise relationship between McDonald's USA and its franchisees reveals that the influence of McDonald's USA over the working conditions of its franchisees' employees is significant enough that bargaining has to include McDonald's USA to be meaningful, it seems likely that the Board would conclude that McDonald's USA and its franchisees are joint employers. Nevertheless, the General Counsel has also emphasized that a franchisor will probably not be considered a joint employer if it simply sets rules or policies to maintain the uniformity of brand or product quality. In a December 2014 statement, McDonald's USA seemed to highlight brand quality as a hallmark of its franchise agreements: McDonald's serves its 2,500 independent franchisees' interests by protecting and promoting the McDonald's brand and by providing access to resources related to food quality, customer service, and restaurant management, among other things. These optional resources help entrepreneurs operate successful businesses. This relationship does not establish a joint employer relationship under the law ... McDonald's USA also emphasized the need for further fact-finding before a final resolution could be reached. Such a resolution may be years away, however, as many expect the cases involving McDonald's USA and Browning-Ferris Industries of California to be appealed after the Board issues its decisions. | This report examines the standard used currently by the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") to determine whether two businesses may be considered joint employers for purposes of the rights and protections afforded by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). In a June 2014 amicus brief filed with the Board, the Board's General Counsel encouraged the adoption of a new joint employer standard that would consider the totality of the circumstances, including how the alleged joint employers have structured their commercial relationship. Following the filing of the amicus brief, the General Counsel also authorized complaints to be filed against McDonald's, USA, LLC ("McDonald's USA"), and its franchisees, as joint employers, for alleged violations of the NLRA. These activities may arguably suggest that a change in the Board's joint employer standard may be imminent. In addition to reviewing the Board's joint employer standard, the report also discusses Browning-Ferris Industries of California, the case that prompted the General Counsel's amicus brief, and the unfair labor practice allegations involving McDonald's USA. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.